All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Noctis Anarch Caelum replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
For anyone not in alliance which can afford to keep rebuilding to the needed infra levels for their strategy; it would be game breaking annoying though. People like Akuryo could have kept their improvements & made the enemy destroy it; its their own fault they chose to sell down rather than benefit from their peak infra level. Don’t think we should reward people for destroying their infra before the enemy can when in a war they assume it will be wrecked anyways. -
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Limbuwan replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
The original thread says there is a five days wait period so plenty of time to keep doing what you want to and when our nation gets wrecked we generally only rebuild to sufficient infra level. if our military improvement gets destroyed then we tear down other improvements to make room for military so there should not be issue on rebuying. This will also keep dmgs low and end globals quickly but makes wars frequently given there is no long period of NAP. -
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Noctis Anarch Caelum replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
If you keep nuking them, eventually they’ll lose enough power plants & air fields; it’s necessary or better to reset the city. -
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Akuryo replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
Sorry mate but when you can have your cities basically levelled in infra and only lose 12 improvements, in a nation that has over 500, they're practically invincible. The only things which kill them reliably do so very very slowly. -
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Noctis Anarch Caelum replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
Building them requiring makes it expensive enough to rebuild any which potentially gets destroyed; no reason to make people keep rebuying to the same infra level to keep them working. Would be a mechanic change which might help those rich enough to keep rebuying their infra longer than the enemy; but overall make war really annoying in this game & people less likely to keep playing when their infra gets wrecked if suddenly it makes all their improvements atop working & they need to destroy what’s left of their nation on their own to keep it working. - Today
-
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Limbuwan replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
No building improvement depends on infras so it's only logical if we don't have infras those improvements should stop working. personally i'm in favour of turning cities off completely if the infra/improvement ratio is not adjusted within ~2days(Actual war length/fastest beige). Nuking is inefficient and costly. -
Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements
Noctis Anarch Caelum replied to Prefontaine's topic in Game Suggestions
I don’t think they’re invincible at all when nukes can automatically take out 2 each time. It should be costly & not easy to wipe out someone’s improvements. -
I'm merely mentioning the issues with the Axis in general. On Discord, I've compared Chaos to the Italians (given that the Italians were notoriously bad, so much that they got stalled by Ethiopians of all people) to Akuryo's amusement. And once again, any serious student of WW2 will note the weaknesses of German forces in general. Tactically competent, but strategically dense (the siege of Kiev was a major German victory, but it diverted forces from the advance on Moscow that gave the Soviets their first major victory). I'd also mention that trying to identify yourself with the Axis on the Eastern Front is very KKKT, given the numerous war atrocities committed by the Germans. Part of the reason the Soviets were so willing to sustain large casualties in attacks was that the Nazis were committing genocide in held ex-Soviet territories and that the speed of the advance was crucial. Recently, I was muted for 48 hours on the Discord for being critical of Islamic fundamentalists. Is this racism exceeding mine?
-
This is necessary in any brief discussion of the conflict. As far as the Japanese being able to match Soviet combined arms, recall that August Storm was decisive and that the Japanese at no point in the war were a major tank power. After having read about how the IJA operated, and its transformation since Meiji, one of the glaring annoyances about fetishizing the Empire of Japan was that the IJA plain sucked. It was competent vs the Chinese, or MacArthur, who operated as a WWI general, but the lack of strong and numerous armor made the IJA rather a joke once tanks were landed.
-
Never mentioned Japan being any good... or mentioned Japan at all for that matter. You’re the one who brought them up, and obviously anyone with any knowledge of WWII knows that the Japanese a) won early on due to surprise b) invaded China for resources and land (not to avoid the soviets wtf?) Since it seems like you’re continuing to bring up irrelevant information, I’ll probably waste my time rebuking when I get home. Until then, I need to get back in the operation room. KThxBye.
-
I also wish to note, that the only way the Nazi-Soviet analogy makes any sense would be if Manthrax were the supreme commander of KERCHTOG forces, that he was coked up the entire duration of war planning (believable), and is planning to commit suicide with Eva Braun (Adrienne?) in the Fuehrerbunker at the end of the war.
-
There's an easily accessible block feature if you'd like. Regarding Khalkin Gol, read up on exactly how the battle was fought. The Soviets under Zhukov conducted a "double envelopment" of the Japanese forces, effectively flanking them and surrounding them with armored divisions. Moreover, the key lesson both sides took away was the superiority of Russian armor, although the Soviets were unhappy with their infantry performance. The Japanese armor, for instance, was notoriously poor, and the Japanese were considered essentially a World War I army given the weakness of their armored force. When it came to aircraft and naval tactics, they were highly competitive, with I-16s hardpressed against the Ki-27s employed (the predecessor to the Ki-43, Oscar, or "Army Zero). And in the artillery field, the Soviets had better quality of artillery, quickly wiping out the IJA's artillery support with longer-ranged and more capable artillery. Also notable was the Soviet superiority in logistics ("Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics"). The Soviets maintained truck corps that provided far superior logistics capability to the Japanese, who tended to horse mounts. And of course, there's August Storm, wherein the Soviets completely wrecked the Japanese forces in Manchukuo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria For Afghanistan, that's like saying the Americans got destroyed in Vietnam. The Soviets were facing numerous islamic terrorists (ever wonder how the Taliban got their start?) with both American and Chinese support (the Americans provided Stingers and funding, the Chinese provided Type 69 dual-use RPGs). And guess what? The Taliban is reputed to have taken 57,000 KIAs as a baseline. The Soviets lost 14,453 soldiers. Compare this to the Americans in Vietnam, wherein the US forces alongside the South Vietnamese took a total of 371,318 casualties to 849,018 North Vietnamese casualties. In reality, the Soviets only pulled out of Afghanistan toward the end of the Soviet Union. Full counter-insurgency as the Chinese had ran in Tibet would have been more successful, but at the time the Soviets were already under severe economic strain. As far as the book goes, this is not a novel, but an academic book. So once again, KERCHTOG is either unwilling to process reality or just plain misreading facts. You are also misquoting the thesis of the book. It's not surprising, given how rancorous Soup Kitchen has been (and I'd say that conversations with TRM have been one reason NPO entered). ==== In general, the desire to paint this as the Axis vs the Soviets is completely dunderheaded. The Axis wasn't even good. As I've said before, "amateurs talk tactics, professionals discuss logistics". The Germans generally ran maintenance queens that were not suited for a full-scale attritional war. The T-34 was superior to almost all Panzers, and the Soviets were competitive with their heavy tanks towards the end of the war. And the Soviets had generous truck-based logistics trains. The Nazis, on the other hand, were resorting to horse-drawn forces by the middle of the war. Hitler, likewise, made numerous strategic and tactical errors, with the early performance against the Soviets being possible only because Stalin wanted to make man-love to Hitler and was caught by surprise, that the Soviets were outnumbered in the Eastern Front at the outset of the war, and that Stalin had devastated the Soviet NCO and officer corps. And let's not even talk about the Japanese. The IJA and IJN, when all factors were considered, were second-rate forces that were only successful because they caught the European powers unaware, and that the Chinese Guomindang forces were notoriously incompetent, to the point wherein artillery support never arrived because local warlords refused to expose their artillery. The IJA's utter lack of competent armor, and the IJA/IJN's inability to field competent air support past the initial Zero era (and tactics like Boom and Zoom utilized by the Flying Tigers and the Thach Weave of the USN basically negated them) made the war a complete joke after the initial stages of the war.
-
Lmao. I like how none of the smol micro prots BK is trying to help showed up in this dissscussion
-
The map idea (semi-rolplay)
Eva-Beatrice replied to Xibei National Counsel's topic in Map-Based Roleplay
@Xibei National Counsel Just use an Imgur link for Asia. -
[DoE] Was this the best name we could think of?
Alucard Hellsing replied to Bartholomew Roberts's topic in Alliance Affairs
Thnx Rosey ❤️ I honestly forgot its been a year -
Not sure if you're kidding, but this is what I was referring to https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/conflict/12. We are winning by 303 billion dollars Some of our top guys have dropped military, and I believe we have kicked people who were ignoring orders, as any serious alliance would. Again, alliance score is not necessarily indicative of a whole lot. Are you actually seriously claiming to be winning because of our chart? If we were to accept a bunch of totally inactive applicants and boost our score, would you say we were "coming back"? BTW, this war we became first in score again, 5 years after Rose initially topped the alliance rankings. No other alliance has that much lasting success.
-
you know what, you could have made this DoE when you did the DoW. Would have been more dynamic.
-
We are having persistent issues with high load, LoD and I will likely be taking the server offline for some time over the next few days while we continue to optimise and refine the site.
-
The map idea (semi-rolplay)
Xibei National Counsel replied to Xibei National Counsel's topic in Map-Based Roleplay
Can’t post Asia for some reason -
The map idea (semi-rolplay)
Xibei National Counsel replied to Xibei National Counsel's topic in Map-Based Roleplay
Ok now it won’t let me post any more images Ok, there is one more map, put it won’t let me post it -
So, after everybody left the rp, I thought about what the rest of the world looks like, so I made 6 maps of all the continents and what I thought the nations on them would look like. (P.s, the nations are rp friendly due to the fact that the players are Empires that can just annex smaller nations, or for me (cause I’m technically not a Empire), tribes. Places like hammonasset border big nations, but not so powerful nations) if you think something is off, please let me know so I can change it, but this is just what I think the world would look like. Ok now it won’t let me post any more images
- Yesterday
-
It will be sad if we haven't gotten our name back by then.
-
I think that fact that you're now descending into whataboutism is evidence enough that this discussion is more or less resolved. You've conceded that you kept your prots in the war because you didn't want to give up the opportunity to get prospective beiges from our side, you haven't disputed the sequence of events or the consequences of those decisions that have been laid out in previous posts and you've made it clear that it was a strategic calculation regarding beiges rather than a moral aversion to 'blackmail' that drove your decision making process. Whether or not people choose to regard you as 'the bad guys' as a result of these admissions is up to them (and will probably vary depending on where they stand sphere wise), but since you're no longer trying to dispute the facts of the case and are instead trying to shift the topic ('but you did this, which is WAY worse than anything I may or may not have done...') I think we've pretty much talked this one out. Good chat though Honestly, the Arryn RoH thread and @Serva's charmingly cryptic posts have made it totally worth it, at least as far as I'm concerned. If you're not having fun, what's the point?
-
Please don’t repost to get around the rule of “don’t post on deaf threads.” And if you do deny it, then here’s a link to your other thread:
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
We almost became the State of Superior back in the 70's; The land of the U.P. was given to Michigan in exchange for Ohio getting the Toledo Strip. Also it seems both of our investigative skills are lacking; considering I'm from "The Great White North" a.k.a. God's Country.
