Jump to content

Dunked On


BigMorf
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think BlackRose actually needs a NAP at this point.

 

See, TKR took about 55 million damage per remaining city. Grumpy Old Bastards took 80 million damage per remaining city.

 

If you consider the damages TKR took in a combination of TLR and GnR, TKR took 100 million damage per city in the last three wars. That's equivalent to 200 days build-up in the lower mid-tier. Hollywood is incapable of serious offensive action in the next 3 months with or without a NAP.

 

===

 

What the NAP does, on the other hand, is forestall a few things:

 

-First, it dampens Rose or Syndicate's desire to try to flip Hollywood, should BlackRose obviously break apart. Demonstrably having flipped Hollywood is dangerous because it indicates hostile intent vs the other, and Hollywood is of no consequence in a Syndicate vs Rose war that launches before the NAP expires.

 

-Second, it prevents Rose / Syndicate (most likely against just Rose) from intervening against Hollywood should Hollywood elect to hit Oasis or Minc. While Hollywood IS still cash bound after the 100 million damage taken, Oasis and Minc have demonstrated their inability to contribute much against Hollywood, and tier-wars that are conducted as downdeclares can be cheap or even profitable.

 

-Third, it prevents Hollywood from intervening against Rose / Syndicate should either or both elect to hit Oasis / Minc. This is only of note should Oasis / Minc actually choose to take offensive action (hitting one side of Rosynd, then having Hollywood provide cover against the other). Since Oasis / Minc sat out the war (and probably profited around 183 billion by doing so), there is a valid CB against their wardodging. Then again, there's a valid CB against Blackwater for war dodging last war cycle (4-7 million damage per city taken in TLR, formal war dodging in GnR), and no one's hitting them over that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Eumirbago said:

I should be at c35 by the end of this NAP and then we can run it back

I look forward to it, habibi. Didn't even get to fight you this war. ❤️ 

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Eumirbago said:

I should be at c35 by the end of this NAP and then we can run it back

Your coalition has dealt overwhelming damage to Hollywood, considering the combination of TLR, GnR, and 522. I cannot seriously believe that you are planning to reroll them; doing so would be tantamount to alliance-killing.

Since I tend to play by my own metrics instead of standard metrics:

 

TKR has taken, with Net Negative Profit in parentheses:

 

Hollywood vs Bollywood:

173.07 (165.45) Billion

Guns and Roses:

125.29 (102.54) Billion

The Last Ride:

31.05 (21.92) Billion.

 

Total:

329.41 (289.91) Billion

 

Grumpy Old Bastards:

 

Hollywood vs Bollywood:

99.26 (96.93) Billion

Guns and Roses:

50.88 (29.68) Billion

 

Total:

150.14 (126.61) Billion

 

The Duck Hunt NAP expired in April, if I recall correctly. We are about 5 months distant from that. Grumpy makes around 1.6 billion a day in peacetime, or if we consider 135 days (5 months minus time without infra), 216 billion. The Knights Radiant made about 2.1 billion a day. Over 120 days (another 15 days taken off since Rose coalition was able to deal actual damage to TKR), that would have been about 252 billion.

 

For the last 5 months, TKR lost everything they made to wartime. Grumpy Old Bastards lost 60% of their income.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Justinian the Great said:

NAP's suffocate politics in PnW because it gives a security blanket to everyone involved. TKR+GG+T$+Rose all just signed a 3 month NAP. What do you think is going to happen in those 3 months? We're going to see our usual post-war spike in treaty-shuffling and then people are going to go to sleep until the NAP ends because there is no onus to do otherwise.

NAP's don't suffocate the politics of P&W, it's the crappy, lazy alliance leadership and the continuous dogpile wars that does that. So don't blame NAP's for the failings of alliance leaders.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Yeah, okay, no. Much as I am not much a fan of NAPs, we all needed a $&@%ing break there, after 9 months of war and the game as a whole needed to recover. NAPs were signed before NPOLT too, you know. An extraordinary circumstance that I hope to God is never repeated is not the cause of what you're proclaiming when it's been something that's been prevalent for years and people have been complaining about since at least ToT.

That's fine that you felt like you needed a break, and I get how Buorhann, whose alliance dissolved during/after NPOLT, wanted a break. Plenty of people did!

Take a break! It's good for you. I've taken several myself.

Stop dragging entire chunks of the game with you though. It's that easy and simple. It's irresponsible for major alliance leaders to purposefully stall PnW politics for multiple months because they're tired or burnt out, that's what retirement and passing the torch to the next generation are for. NAP's are, at best, a redundancy as people are highly unlikely to immediately jump back into war. At worst they have a negative impact on the politics of the game for reasons I already described.

The contractual safety of alliances on a large scale, for extended periods of time, is bad for a competitive political sim where most of the politics are based around war.

Edited by Justinian the Great
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Justinian the Great said:

That's fine that you felt like you needed a break, and I get how Buorhann, whose alliance dissolved during/after NPOLT, wanted a break. Plenty of people did!

Take a break! It's good for you. I've taken several myself.

Stop dragging entire chunks of the game with you though. It's that easy and simple. It's irresponsible for major alliance leaders to purposefully stall PnW politics for multiple months because they're tired or burnt out, that's what retirement and passing the torch to the next generation are for. NAP's are, at best, a redundancy as people are highly unlikely to immediately jump back into war. At worst they have a negative impact on the politics of the game for reasons I already described.

The contractual safety of alliances on a large scale, for extended periods of time, is bad for a competitive political sim where most of the politics are based around war.

You're missing my point. I'm not addressing your points on NAPs in general, nor do I wish to. I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, as you well know, so please spare me the lecture. NPOLT, however, was a unique circumstance and should be excluded from your narrative. 

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

That's fine that you felt like you needed a break, and I get how Buorhann, whose alliance dissolved during/after NPOLT, wanted a break. Plenty of people did!

Take a break! It's good for you. I've taken several myself.

Stop dragging entire chunks of the game with you though. It's that easy and simple. It's irresponsible for major alliance leaders to purposefully stall PnW politics for multiple months because they're tired or burnt out, that's what retirement and passing the torch to the next generation are for. NAP's are, at best, a redundancy as people are highly unlikely to immediately jump back into war. At worst they have a negative impact on the politics of the game for reasons I already described.

The contractual safety of alliances on a large scale, for extended periods of time, is bad for a competitive political sim where most of the politics are based around war.

Perhaps if you would spend some time doing something that actually affected the politics of the game instead of !@#$ing about something you think is bad for the game people would give a little credence to your tirade about a very small part of the game.

Edited by Who Me
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cherise said:

For the last 5 months, TKR lost everything they made to wartime. Grumpy Old Bastards lost 60% of their income.

Nah @Sweeeeet Ronny D said that GOB can instantly rebuild so they should be good to go

  • Haha 3
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eumirbago said:

Nah @Sweeeeet Ronny D said that GOB can instantly rebuild so they should be good to go

My nation is rebuilt,  the warchest could be a little higher, but I’m not the one that wanted the NAP, or was the one crying about how hard it is to rebuild.  We will be up and running again in fairly short order.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

My nation is rebuilt,  the warchest could be a little higher, but I’m not the one that wanted the NAP, or was the one crying about how hard it is to rebuild.  We will be up and running again in fairly short order.

Man...they really showed you 🤣

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

My nation is rebuilt,  the warchest could be a little higher, but I’m not the one that wanted the NAP, or was the one crying about how hard it is to rebuild.  We will be up and running again in fairly short order.

Which is strange, since while Rose took around 60% of their incomes in damages between this war and GnR (i.e, damage level comparable to Grumpy), Syndicate took like 10-20% of their incomes in damages this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cherise said:

Which is strange, since while Rose took around 60% of their incomes in damages between this war and GnR (i.e, damage level comparable to Grumpy), Syndicate took like 10-20% of their incomes in damages this war.

It's actually not that strange at all when you think on it 👍 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

My nation is rebuilt,  the warchest could be a little higher, but I’m not the one that wanted the NAP, or was the one crying about how hard it is to rebuild.  We will be up and running again in fairly short order.

That’s what I said, we can roll you guys again in 3 months

Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I also forgot to note.  Go back and re-read that particular "worst precedent".  You didn't have to follow it.  I think 2 alliances opted out of it.  There was a choice.  Nor does a NAP really stop alliances from attacking each other.  It's just text, there's no grand alliance that upholds NAPs and punishes people from breaking them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It's also not been used as a precedent for any of the subsequent NAP's, fwiw.

Thanks for the clarification.  So basically his reply was worthless.

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.