Jump to content

some dumb rando rants about gw18 idk


 Share

Recommended Posts

Where to even start on how much is wrong with this. Too much to bother making an equally sized or larger post just to do that really. 

  • Downvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will mention that the specific TI member who repeatedly accepted peace after getting hit obviously wasn't following any form of orders 🥲

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grave said:

Where to even start on how much is wrong with this. Too much to bother making an equally sized or larger post just to do that really. 

Well, if there's ever a rematch, I think we know who's going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mayor said:

You still salty about getting destroyed in the last war?

Oh no, I agree It went abysmally but not for these reasons ( for the most part)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I had 5 offensives as Kan can testify, was doing great. I waited and waited for counters and I got so bored that I just spammed my nation link begging for counters in TI general chat. Low and behold it worked, and I got beiged 5 times while still having plenty of ground. Fun times. I certainly agree with you and the over extension on our side Looks at Boyce. All in all I appreciate this post, and I hope alliances on both side take some of this and apply it, really is good tips.

46 minutes ago, Grave said:

Oh no, I agree It went abysmally but not for these reasons ( for the most part)

I truly am interested in what you have to say.

  • Upvote 4

Peace In Our Time
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Grave said:

I will mention that the specific TI member who repeatedly accepted peace after getting hit obviously wasn't following any form of orders 🥲

[insert inst's joke about oasis milcom here]

Edited by Ramona

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I learned this war, is with the new score changes dropping score to get into range is now much harder than it used to be.  With cities and projects my min score is now 4500ns.  Eating nukes on attrition still only lowers your score by 40-50 points.  So even eating around 30 nukes this war it only dropped my score around 1500 points which when starting around 10k is not nearly enough.  Dropping military is also harder with all the military units also be worth less. 

I know the little guys out there cry about the power of the down declare, trust me its much harder to do now than you think.  Also did you read this everyone in the world? Grumpy not good at fighting, so obviously we are not a threat, stop worrying about how to beat us, because we are easy to kill.

I will say it again tho, HW power is not from its upper tier, it's from its activity, coordination and effort, atleast when compared to some of the other blocs.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

It seems like there's a lack of trust here between us, friend. As I said in the post, I fully intend for this to be a two-way discussion and also that I almost certainly wasn't right on some things. If I can openly state my intentions here:

-I don't do FA. If it sounded like I was making this maliciously, I wasn't; I was actually asked by several people from your side to do this.

-I put all my cards on the table. This is what I learned to the best of my knowledge, and I think it would've been dishonest for me to hide anything OPSEC when that was only relevant during the war.

-I'm putting this out here fully knowing that some things could be used against me in future wars. And I think that's okay, because my hope is that raising the level of milcom throughout the game will lead to more fun and fair wars.

If you don't believe any of that or still think I'm trying to sabotage you or something, I apologize, but that's your prerogative I guess; otherwise, I would be happy to hear where I went wrong.

 

 

Oh no on the contrary actually was very proud to see that 2 of the 3 individuals you praised are TI members.  

 

Its simply differences in strategy, one of the reasons I don't want to make a full post is because I already know I'm in the minority on a few topics 

For example (this is also a reply to Thalmor) , I will mention that I there was 2 entirely different  fronts in this war (based on nation score /city count ) and that the strategy shouldn't have been the same for our c5s as our C30+s 

 

Secondly will mention that (and this is probably the most controversial point, any teir that "Roasis inc" had a huge advantage in (pretty much everywhere below c20 )  shouldn't have been under a no beige policy. 

I haven't been around for long but I have yet to see any alliance, regardless of competency, overcome a 3-1 or greater disadvantage. (Militarilly not net damage) and make any meaningful attempts at turning it around 

 

 

Will continue later as my phones at 2% 

Edited by Grave
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Grave said:

Secondly will mention that (and this is probably the most controversial point, any teir that "Roasis inc" had a huge advantage in (pretty much everywhere below c20 )  shouldn't have been under a no beige policy. 

I haven't been around for long but I have yet to see any alliance, regardless of competency, overcome a 3-1 or greater disadvantage. (Militarilly not net damage) and make any meaningful attempts at turning it around 

Actually, I want to offer a defense of this point before people instictively downvote it: in GW16 Quack was on similar or better odds iirc (correct me if I'm wrong), and despite tS's heroic efforts at pulling the net damage back that was basically only the best they could do despite there being literally zero beige cycling going on (although I will say that TKR gave up way too quickly in that war, and was worried they'd do the same here). I think the grey area here was maybe a difference between tier wars and wars where one side is just massively outnumbered in every tier, but that would probably take some additional thought to fully expand on.

Cheers for the response

Edited by hidude45454
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

Actually, I want to offer a defense of this point before people instictively downvote it: in GW16 Quack was on similar or better odds iirc (correct me if I'm wrong), and despite tS's heroic efforts at pulling the net damage back that was basically only the best they could do despite there being literally zero beige cycling going on (although I will say that TKR gave up way too quickly in that war, and was worried they'd do the same here). I think the grey area here was maybe a difference between tier wars and wars where one side is just massively outnumbered in every tier, but that would probably take some additional thought to fully expand on.

Cheers for the response

 

 

That was actually what I did want to mention before my phone was about to die, I don't think anyone would disagree that Quack wasn't any less competent than Hollywood is and I don't think Roasis inc is any less competent than the gw16 coalition was. 

 

I also want to say that I believe that cycling is meant to break the will of someone already beaten down, and that slapping a blockade on a c30 nation Making 25m+ a day despite 5/5/5/3  with ample warchest in round 1 and cycling will increase the time it takes for their income can no longer support them . 

 

I do understand that it allows them to be replenished with resources from the alliance bank but (in my opinion atleast) that should be a secondary goal of any war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also just to be clear, I do agree with points 

 

Rose's militarization 

Building ships 

Cordination 

Meatshields

 

Weakest link 

Early blitz on oblivion (not going to lie it was meant to be a coalition wide hit on oblivion but just ended up being rose suiciders with TI/TFP updeclares) 

 

 

Most of flawed strategy (will get into that at the bottom) 

 

Planes only 

 

Lack of unified bloc strategy (in action not on paper  ) 

 

Built up nations doing nothing 

 

And spy participation 

 

 

I can't speak on many of the Inter-alliance parts as I'm not in those alliances. 

 

 

 

In regards to the strategy I definitely agree there needed to be a lot more updeclares overall. 

 

If I was solely dictating the coalition strategy we would've attempted to split the higher teirs from the lower teirs  by beigeing all  enemies below c25 at the start  with attrition wars creating as much space as possible for those in the saveable teirs (c25-30), working up with updeclares that can't be countered by the teirs Hollywood had an advantage in. 

 

All above c25 would overextend and deal as much Damage as possible, (which many in TI did, Tyrion being the biggest and best at it)  with the option to beige if they get the chance to encourage as many attacks as possible. We would slowly raise this if most of our nations within those city counts are now safe from high teir Slotting and keep doing that until we couldn't move higher. 

 

Much easier said than done but in a perfect world 😅

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lastly, it is anecdotal evidence but... Despite being very vocally against the blanket no beige order. I maintained it in the alliance strategy and we had one of the lowest rates of beige in the coalition after the order was given. 2nd if looking at more than 100 wars, 1% worse than Rose, whom understandably (Teiring, militarization, focus from Hollywood) had many less opportunities to win the wars they were in.

 

Its hard to play devils advocate and tell an alliance member that is looking for help when getting hit hard to do something you don't agree with. But the value of coalition co-ordination is worth it 

Edited by Grave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said from the very start of swamp that coordination between ourselves and our allies has been a major issue. The fact we didn't come across it in the first two wars, against tcw sphere and against quack, was because they were massive dogpiles. Even in those wars however the warning signs were most definitely there: we had people who had been heavily targeted who were unable to find counters, as well as members literally having to dm the leaders of other alliances they were fighting alongside to ask if a counter was possible.

This is not a system that works, and if this war hasn't brought home the fact that having communication only between your high-level milcom people creates a disjointed and inefficient system with slow response times then I really do not know what will. In NPOLT, although we were on the losing side, we had a server in which members could request counters and it didn't matter which alliance you were in. Although it created some strange situations (like half of ketogg thinking I was TI's head of milcom for a couple of weeks) it worked to bring allied spheres together and significantly cut down on response times. It also did a lot to foster inter-sphere relations, as there was more of a sense of community outside of the alliance itself. 

Having a more coordinated system additionally allows the alliances whose milcom perhaps isn't up to the same standard of that of their allies the ability to learn from those they are fighting alongside, and to perhaps delegate some matters to people they accept know more about the situation. It is something that leads to a more unified war effort, better communication, more efficiency and better milcom overall. The absence of it only leads to me saying 'I told you so' in a very smug and annoying voice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grave said:

Lastly, it is anecdotal evidence but... Despite being very vocally against the blanket no beige order. I maintained it in the alliance strategy and we had one of the lowest rates of beige in the coalition after the order was given. 2nd if looking at more than 100 wars, 1% worse than Rose, whom understandably (Teiring, militarization, focus from Hollywood) had many less opportunities to win the wars they were in.

 

Its hard to play devils advocate and tell an alliance member that is looking for help when getting hit hard to do something you don't agree with. But the value of coalition co-ordination is worth it 

I honestly think the issues with the no beige/no peace orders were entirely about communication. If you have an alliance in your sphere who can't fight, let's call them 'unified pinkish nations' in order to avoid references to real alliances, and they're bringing more beige than an interior designer from the 1970s, good coordination allows people who actually know what they're doing to explain to this alliance's leadership the downsides of what they're doing and could even make a more unified milcom group for members to make beige requests to. It's the only way you don't end up with different alliances having different standards for when it is acceptable to beige.

  • Haha 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grave said:

I also want to say that I believe that cycling is meant to break the will of someone already beaten down, and that slapping a blockade on a c30 nation Making 25m+ a day despite 5/5/5/3  with ample warchest in round 1 and cycling will increase the time it takes for their income can no longer support them . 

Dude what. Sorry, this reasoning is just so bad. You even acknowledge that no one actually really uses daily income to support themselves in a war in the same post because they would just get resources from the bank if they were to be beiged, since you know, that’s literally the whole point of a war chest so there’s 0 reason that you have given for just blanket beiging.

the whole point of cycling is to neuter the enemy, while they are cycled their buys aren’t effective meaning every day they are being cycled you are gaining one or half a buy on them till you are full, then you keep going to make sure they don’t recover.

You give them excessive beige time not only do they get time to be get to 100% strength you also allow them to get a blitz adv when leaving beige. You also are making less use of buys in total (i.e. you (and friends) are at 90% planes, you give someone  6 days of beige, after a day you are at 100% and the enemies don’t  get out for 5 days till they are 100% planes. You’ve effectively missed 5 buys, given the enemy blitz advantage. For what? Lowering their income??)

 

Also @hidude45454 quacks odds were worse, Quack didn’t have a major alliance be barely militarized. Also Rose countered within the same update which was huge. HM alone rivaled Quacks whale tier.

HW obviously was able to go through Rose like paper mache and had an advantage in the whale tier. Also the counter blitz was very lack luster from Oasis.
 

if Rose didn’t immediately counter I could maybe see an argument that the odds were close but HM recovered from the blitz fairly easily because of it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grave said:

For example (this is also a reply to Thalmor) , I will mention that I there was 2 entirely different  fronts in this war (based on nation score /city count ) and that the strategy shouldn't have been the same for our c5s as our C30+s 

Correct, there were two fronts - One where the war was under control and the second was where it wasn't. There was a shifting front in the middle which was the contested front. 

11 hours ago, Grave said:

Secondly will mention that (and this is probably the most controversial point, any teir that "Roasis inc" had a huge advantage in (pretty much everywhere below c20 )  shouldn't have been under a no beige policy. 

Only tier that neo-IQ had less members in was possibly the c40+ tier. C30-C40 had almost same number on both sides. C30 and below, neo-IQ effectively always had a 3 v 1 advantage at the least.

7 hours ago, Grave said:

I also want to say that I believe that cycling is meant to break the will of someone already beaten down, and that slapping a blockade on a c30 nation Making 25m+ a day despite 5/5/5/3  with ample warchest in round 1 and cycling will increase the time it takes for their income can no longer support them . 

I do understand that it allows them to be replenished with resources from the alliance bank but (in my opinion atleast) that should be a secondary goal of any war.

What are you talking about? No one, not even the biggest whale is totally self-sufficient. Game mechanics blocks self-sufficiency. And beige cycling is never about not letting people get resources as it is always having someone on a nation to stop them from building military. I'd personally not want anyone to blockade someone while having them beige-cycled just so they can keep importing resources from the bank to be looted by the people cycling. Only time I'd want to blockade someone is when they have too much loot on them and we are cycling him.

6 hours ago, Grave said:

If I was solely dictating the coalition strategy we would've attempted to split the higher teirs from the lower teirs  by beigeing all  enemies below c25 at the start  with attrition wars creating as much space as possible for those in the saveable teirs (c25-30), working up with updeclares that can't be countered by the teirs Hollywood had an advantage in. 

All above c25 would overextend and deal as much Damage as possible, (which many in TI did, Tyrion being the biggest and best at it)  with the option to beige if they get the chance to encourage as many attacks as possible. We would slowly raise this if most of our nations within those city counts are now safe from high teir Slotting and keep doing that until we couldn't move higher. 

You understand "beiging" is what you are not supposed to do in a war right? Well guess what, your coalition actually did blanket beige people below c25 and lost the war in c20 tiers with a 3v1 advantage. And no, anything above c25 didn't need to overextend solely because you still outnumbered the enemy in the c25-c30 region and had almost similar numbers above that.

6 hours ago, Grave said:

Lastly, it is anecdotal evidence but... Despite being very vocally against the blanket no beige order. I maintained it in the alliance strategy and we had one of the lowest rates of beige in the coalition after the order was given. 2nd if looking at more than 100 wars, 1% worse than Rose, whom understandably (Teiring, militarization, focus from Hollywood) had many less opportunities to win the wars they were in.

About having more wars, this is because Immortals, Fighting Pacifists are lower tier alliances who enjoyed massively big advantages in their tier and were able to slot up people in that tier all the time and keep them slotted with orders like "Find people in range and declare". You didn't need to have proper coordination at all to do that. For the c20+ space, you did again enjoy advantages but the problem here is the people there were zeroed out and being well cycled/suppressed. The tiers where no coordination was needed was won, the tier where coordination was extremely needed was unfought, uncontested and unclaimed with no effort to change that anytime. Also I'd just like to say that winning wars isn't the goal of alliance wars-it's suppressing the enemy's military.




What did I infer from your rant? 
1) You have no war experience at all and this might have been your first war.
2) Seeing as you are supposedly milcom, you have no idea how to micromanage.

Maybe fight in a "war" which isn't a dogpile for once so you can understand how literal shit the strategy you explained here was.
 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with most people here; beige cycling is more about breaking the will of people already being beaten down. It not only keeps them down but also allows for others to move on to other wars faster, and also prevents them from building any military they can use to fight back and slow progress down. This should've been 100% true from the C20-C30 range, since HM's nations in that tier were the ones ultimately deciding the war from downdeclaring, but was equally important C20 and below especially since that's exactly where we were pushing down near the end of the war. Warchest is a minimal concern here; disregarding the fact that most nations only have enough WC to last one or two rounds, from personal anecdote I was making -2m net a day and the people who sold infra in CoTL/tO couldn't have been doing much better. Plus, being unable to build military every day without it immediately being taken out makes it so even if they did have a large warchest, there would be no point in using it at all.

Also, I remembered that you participated in the blitz on Oblivion -- the Rose whale (Jaguar) who hit Arch actually had extraordinary odds to win that war -- one of the counters who hit him ran out of manus before the war even began and started it with an utter failure, and communication outside of that was honestly rather panicked as well. So Jaguar was well over the amount of planes needed to almost zero Arch out, and instead he went inactive for nearly a day and when he came back he was already zeroed lmfao (but even then, the suicide dogfights and spy planes orders on Arch stopped even quicker than on me).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Points 1 and 2 regarding oasis and rose's failure to capitalise on the first round in the c20 bracket are inherently linked, at least from the perspective I gained fighting rose in guardian. 

Rose's decision to only militarise roughly half their tanks effectively gave us ground control from the moment we declared. Despite having roughly an equal plane count at the initial onset of hostilities, the massive tank advantage allowed us to chip away at both rose's ground and air solely via ground attacks. By the time help did come for rose, it was already nearly game over for rose within that first 24 hours. 

What sealed it, however, was the decision made by these who came to assist rose in ignoring our ground forces and instead focussing their attacks on our planes. This not only allowed us to maintain eradicating what was left of rose's tanks and planes, it also allowed us to retain our ground strength for later use against rose's helpers when their ground strength became weakened due to our counters. As soon as we were able to gain ground superiority, enemy air strength became a non-factor and the war turned in our favour by roughly day 3/4 of that first round. I think I used my planes for only a few attacks throughout the entire war, tanks being the more optimal method (particularly in that first round) of weakening enemy air and ultimately winning wars.

So despite being half zeroed (mostly dead planes) to varying levels on our side, ground superiority ultimately decided the war's outcome. At least above c20 anyway.

Tldr: tanks won the war.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.