Malkavian Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Some alliances now deal with that by putting their top nations into PM. But not always, as there's always the chance that the opposing alliance's lower tier nations will take that bait, and get pulverized once he takes a minute or two to rebuild. The downside of that, in turn, is that the lower tier nation taking the bait might just be able to hang on and keep the aging behemoth in nuclear anarchy and unable to do further damage to its alliance. As White Chocolate points out, with the appropriate coordination amongst an alliance's active members, many of the opposition's tactics can be derailed. Are there any formalities when instructing these prodigious nations to assail their targets? I think it arduous to manage such titans. What protocol is there to rebuke the use of these nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 Are there any formalities when instructing these prodigious nations to assail their targets? I think it arduous to manage such titans. What protocol is there to rebuke the use of these nations? There are no formalities that I can think of, except those used by the alliances they are members of. Managing them on the battlefield is likely left to their own initiative, as the only practical limit to their ability to down-declare on an opponent is, perhaps, their tech level and warchest. As to rebuking an alliance for using such nations, why do so? The nations they attack can counter-attack, and can be aided while doing so. The damage caused is expensive all around to repair, but more so for the nation with a higher NS to return to. That said, winning the current war anyway, and afterwards isolating the alliance through public relations and foreign affairs policy are reasonable means through which any tactic or strategy may be rebuked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 16, 2014 Report Share Posted February 16, 2014 . That said, winning the current war anyway, and afterwards isolating the alliance through public relations and foreign affairs policy are reasonable means through which any tactic or strategy may be rebuked. And there you have it, a clear answer. I appreciate the effort, Hob Dobson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted February 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) An additional advantage in having a larger and better equipped upper tier is that often the enemy upper tier will enter PM to prevent having their upper tier lost in what would be a lost cause anyway. This allows the upper tier remaining in warmode the ability to aid bomb the various nations in the lower tiers requiring aid on a constant and long term basis. This was proven up until recently by the example in a few conflicts of umbrella being able to aid GOONS with Umbrella rarely having any serious issues of their own within their own NS ranges to bother about. This was proven particularly so in the DH-NPO war a few years back when even though the NPO lower and middle tier nations were mostly better equipped and possessed larger warchests, the constant supply of aid sent to GOONS from Umbrella allowed GOONS to wear the lower and middle tiers of NPO down until defeat was all but inevitable and this was due in part to the lack of aid being able to be sent to these middle and lower tier nations from the upper tier nations who were mostly stuck in PM. So in short, having a large upper tier in comparison to other alliances isn't merely just the possession of a tier able to destroy enemy rations within direct range, it's a tool that can indirectly secure victory on other fronts and NS ranges too. That I believe is the main benefit to be derived since once the enemy's upper tier is relegated to PM you have robbed the enemy of being able to send aid to their members in need to a large extent. Yes, every alliance, some more than others have a substantial amount of their members in possession of large amounts of surplus cash ready to aid others but being able to prevent an alliance from being able to send aid on a constant and complete basis will in turn impact on an alliance's ability to fight. Nevermind; lost my train of thought. I'll come back when I'm in a better state Edited February 17, 2014 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I didn't see this til just now, sorry for the delayed response. Its really easy to poke wholes in your argument for the most part because they are impractical ideas. Your model assumes that Alliance A (super tier alliance) fights Alliance B (mass recruiting alliance) and that your strategy ensues. This never happens though. What is much more likely to happen is that Alliance A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. fight Alliances a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. Now Alliance A (super tier alliance) can just chop the head off of a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. while the other alliances keep the other tiers occupied. So just in a matter of application your argument doesn't hold weight. On your next point. An alliances stated goal maybe protection of its members but again in application this is hardly the case. If an alliance wanted to protect its members it simply would keep out of the war. A practical goal would be more along the lines of I would like to have less damage done to my allies and me and do more damage to our enemies. This would hold up as a reason for people getting into most major wars. Which brings us to the last point and probably the biggest blow to your argument. The next question you ask is so what, my nation can collect 1 billion at 25k NS and then rebuild to 25k NS perpetually and do the same thing over and over again. To this I say, who cares? My members will complain a bit more if they are in the lower tier sure. But you aren't doing any real damage that can't be rebuilt immediately in that range. In other words you are doing 20, 30 maybe 40k of useless damage for entire war. In the mean time these god tier nations are throwing 15, 30, 45k of actual monetary damage out in ONE WEEK that can't be rebuilt in a night. To anyone whose been around for a while and built past 25k NS its obvious why this is so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted February 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I didn't see this til just now, sorry for the delayed response. Its really easy to poke wholes in your argument for the most part because they are impractical ideas. Your model assumes that Alliance A (super tier alliance) fights Alliance B (mass recruiting alliance) and that your strategy ensues. This never happens though. What is much more likely to happen is that Alliance A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. fight Alliances a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. Now Alliance A (super tier alliance) can just chop the head off of a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. while the other alliances keep the other tiers occupied. So just in a matter of application your argument doesn't hold weight. I do believe you missed my main point. My point is that mass recruiting alliances don't need to "play" with these supergodtier alliances. Let them fight above 150k NS if they want. It doesn't effect the mass-recruiting alliances at all. There is no reason to ally them or to fight against them. There is no reason they need to fight above 150k NS or have nations above that size. The only incentive to "play" with them is to be able to protect your upper tier. But with peace mode that is irrelevant. Yes, there are economic penalties to peace mode, but as I said anywhere above ~25k NS with full wonders you make enough money where you don't need to make more money. You have enough to fight effectively and send out aid with all your aid slots and rebuild after a war. What else do you need? I know plenty of nations with 10, 15, 20 billion dollars more than they will ever use. And they are only in the 100-200k NS range. On your next point. An alliances stated goal maybe protection of its members but again in application this is hardly the case. If an alliance wanted to protect its members it simply would keep out of the war. A practical goal would be more along the lines of I would like to have less damage done to my allies and me and do more damage to our enemies. This would hold up as a reason for people getting into most major wars. I would argue that protection for your alliance goes beyond avoiding major wars. You have to defend your ideals and beliefs. Neutrality is not the answer. How will you enforce reparations for tech deals or raids when you have no military threat? Yes neutrals today will probably deal with individual nations, but when an entire alliance tied to the web wrongs you there is nothing you can do about it. Which brings us to the last point and probably the biggest blow to your argument. The next question you ask is so what, my nation can collect 1 billion at 25k NS and then rebuild to 25k NS perpetually and do the same thing over and over again. To this I say, who cares? My members will complain a bit more if they are in the lower tier sure. But you aren't doing any real damage that can't be rebuilt immediately in that range. In other words you are doing 20, 30 maybe 40k of useless damage for entire war. In the mean time these god tier nations are throwing 15, 30, 45k of actual monetary damage out in ONE WEEK that can't be rebuilt in a night. I do believe that my alliances statistics in this last war has proved that false. I personally did ~150k in damage, which was on par with some of the highest damage dealers of the war in all NS ranges. The point you miss is: Yes, these large nations that can do more damage per war, BUT they do not have as many wars. This is partially due to peace mode but also the fact that these SGTN have found a way to align themselves (mostly) all together on the same side of the web. To anyone whose been around for a while and built past 25k NS its obvious why this is so. I have climbed the mountain tops (well 150k NS) and been ZI'd/ZT'd/Z-WC'd and am just basing this on my experiences. Edited February 17, 2014 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Shinnra Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I do believe you missed my point. Sure mass-recruiting alliances will put their top tiers in peace mode to avoid the wrath (and they do). But this still causes other problems. The enemies top tier can now hit your middle tier, you will have trouble getting aid to your lower tier guys, economic penalties, etc which still adds up as damage that is done to your alliance but not to the enemy alliance. Again, you may have done 150k damage but it was 150k of useless damage. All of it could be rebuilt very easily. So it could have been more than Cuba but when you are doing it to 25k nations it is damage that is rebuilt so easily (with say one round of aid) that its trivial why you would think its on par with top tier nation damage. You are definitely missing this point and it is the biggest one I make. Your damage will never be on par with even a mid tiers damage output in terms of real damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I do believe you missed my point. Sure mass-recruiting alliances will put their top tiers in peace mode to avoid the wrath (and they do). But this still causes other problems. The enemies top tier can now hit your middle tier, you will have trouble getting aid to your lower tier guys, economic penalties, etc which still adds up as damage that is done to your alliance but not to the enemy alliance. Again, you may have done 150k damage but it was 150k of useless damage. All of it could be rebuilt very easily. So it could have been more than Cuba but when you are doing it to 25k nations it is damage that is rebuilt so easily (with say one round of aid) that its trivial why you would think its on par with top tier nation damage. You are definitely missing this point and it is the biggest one I make. Your damage will never be on par with even a mid tiers damage output in terms of real damage. The only true damage is tech loss. Land under 5k can be rebought, and infra up to 10-15k can be rebought relatively easily. The one wildcard I would interject here is that we generally don't need a war to attack another super tier nation. Therefore if you want to put your entire top tier into peace mode, as several alliances have done in the past and will no doubt continue to do, we can just wait it out. The 'intimidation factor' helps out the other fighting tiers by removing the top enemy nations from the battlefronts. It would seem merely the threat of force is sometimes enough to prevent countless other wars on our friends. This current war is not the best example, since the cards were stacked heavily in favor of one side, and the super tier impact wasn't all that pronounced, though we did have our hands full with dismantling outer treaty webs and minor skirmishes. So while our direct impact may appear limited, the overall current and future influence is unquestionable. As an aside, DBDC is built with a defense/protection mentality first, then offense. It is more important to stay alive than to kill your enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 As an aside, DBDC is built with a defense/protection mentality first, then offense. It is more important to stay alive than to kill your enemy. So people shouldn't get any smart ideas ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) If anyone were willing to take leadership, it would be quite possible for the disaffected alliances to form a stability task force consisting of high tier nations to counter DBDC's machinations. IRON top tier nations could join such a task force/proxy alliance as well without violating the treaty (I did something like this myself by fighting Mushqaeda from Zulu, albeit in the lower tier). While direct confrontation may not be necessary, the presence of a task force in itself would serve a protection against DBDC raids for those alliances who support it with tech. If confrontation were inevitable, it is also possible for a group of low-tier nuclear capable nations to form a similar task force designed to blockade DBDC's tech shipments. As long as such nations are financed by the international community, they can apply pressure on most alliances to ban tech dealing with DBDC. Dealing with DBDC doesn't necessarily need to involve another global war if proxies are used. The military might of the Coalition could serve as a deterrent to the involvement of the Dark Templar and AZTEC. Recruitment should not be difficult. This chart reveals just some of the alliances raided by DBDC during the course of the Disorder War. Edited February 17, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's....beautiful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 From the desk of Stewie of Stewieland Your proposal sounds interesting young tywin. I very much doubt that the upper tiers of each of those alliances would grow the testicular fortitude to process such action however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 ...the presence of a task force... ...form a similar task force... And who watches the watchmen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 And who watches the watchmen? A special taskmaster committee could be devised and monitored by a neutral consul? I am actually in agreement with Tywin Lannister's unionist agenda and foresee potential for growth in the near future. Who shall advise the third party is my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 A special taskmaster committee could be devised and monitored by a neutral consul? I am actually in agreement with Tywin Lannister's unionist agenda and foresee potential for growth in the near future. Who shall advise the third party is my problem. I will advise all parties and form an oversight committee charged with dispensing an eternal ZI upon Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 I will advise all parties and form an oversight committee charged with dispensing an eternal ZI upon Tywin Lannister Despotism prevails in Roman theaters alone, Stewie. I can't imagine you are a lineal descendant of Julius Caesar? What will become of those who elect a tyrant! I gasp to know not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 You can't EZI ideas. NPO tried that once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) A special taskmaster committee could be devised and monitored by a neutral consul? I am actually in agreement with Tywin Lannister's unionist agenda and foresee potential for growth in the near future. Who shall advise the third party is my problem. How will they be elected? How many shall serve? Is their a changing of the guard? How do you keep corruption in check? How do you justly/benevolently enforce? What makes you think people can work together? With "The enemy of my enemy..."? Mutually agreed destruction? 4 teh lulz? I think that would be idyllic at best, but the coordination and fluidity to handle such a body is beyond the capacity of most alliances. In short: If, from all the alliances there are, you were to filter them by activity, and of that active group you were to filter by a certain level of competency and create the task force from that, you'd still not have a sufficient force to moderate DBDC. Are they impossible to handle? Absolutely not. But you seem to be under the impression that DBDC is the one that needs controlling, and that this response of yours is to get them back in line with the status quo. This reminds me of that story about the drowning man who rejected different methods of rescue because he believed God would intervene and save him, only to discover (posthumously) that God had answered the man's prayers through the different methods of rescue. But who am I to stomp on the dreams of others? There is an ecosystem at play here, Mr. Lannister. Just because a different animal entering the ecosystem displaces it for a moment, doesn't mean the stranger is equivalent to a villain. Sometimes it's better to grab change by the hand, before it grabs you by the throat. EDIT: I don't believe FEAR was ever raided by DBDC, so you might want to update that chart of yours. Edited February 18, 2014 by Ovidsidios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I would enjoy watching the upper tiers of every alliance who contributed members to any scheme to attack DBDC's tech sellers or DBDC proper be destroyed. Also would enjoy watching them attempt to keep a plan like that secret for more than two hours.. Edited February 18, 2014 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) I would enjoy watching the upper tiers of every alliance who contributed members to any scheme to attack DBDC's tech sellers or DBDC proper be destroyed. Also would enjoy watching them attempt to keep a plan like that secret for more than two hours.. This seems rather reactionary to say the least. Might want to start attacking now to keep everyone in line. Edited February 18, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) 1. How will they be elected? I support the concept of Athenian democracy with respect to the team elected to serve. A fair thing to attempt will be to allow the leadership of each casualty alliance to participate in a poll across various rounds to ultimately decide the outcome of the committee. A new code shall be implemented to restrict the abuse of power. 2. How many shall serve? That bit of information will become dreadfully apparent the moment the committee succeeds unto fruition. I cannot accurately speculate on a topic I have no formal knowledge against, Ovidsidios. You'll have to wait for an answer from Tywin Lannister. 3. Is their a changing of the guard? I image there should be some plausible ration of conscription before an untimely switch of authority within the committee. The effective period of time allotted to a member may be subject to the law-binding text of the code book. Tywin Lannister, do you have a comment to add? 4. How do you keep corruption in check? Due to the sensitive nature of the position, I suggest a special form of corporal punishment be adjusted to suit the myriad of felonies that a member may commit. Anything from a simple suspension to a full-blown Z.I. may be enhanced toward that end. Who really knows? 5. How do you justly/benevolently enforce? I gather that chevalerie shall surmise a larger portion of that aspect of power according to the new code book. 6. What makes you think people can work together? Because it's happened before on other issues? The rest is purely reliant on Tywin for an appropriate response. Edited February 18, 2014 by Malkavian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 You're over-thinking it. DBDC started as a splinter alliance, a counter upper tier alliance would start exactly the same way. It all depends on the upper-tier nations themselves, because its not like DBDC can touch anyone else. But what DBDC can do with an upper tier monopoly is start organizing their own political sphere, influencing DT and NG. I have no vested stake, but I'd like to see the Coalition I supported handle this correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 You're over-thinking it. DBDC started as a splinter alliance, a counter upper tier alliance would start exactly the same way. It all depends on the upper-tier nations themselves, because its not like DBDC can touch anyone else. But what DBDC can do with an upper tier monopoly is start organizing their own political sphere, influencing DT and NG. I have no vested stake, but I'd like to see the Coalition I supported handle this correctly. Way to slip out the backdoor on this one, Tywin. :mellow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Because it's happened before on other issues? Which ones? The only banding of alliances/coalition work I have ever seen has been by those who are in power to remain in power. There is little concern for global stability as Tywin would have you think, and more concern for those in power to stay in power. You can see it in the way leaders compose themselves in such events as wars, and the times leading up before them. I can almost assure you, DBDC is not the real enemy here. I have no vested stake, but I'd like to see the Coalition I supported handle this correctly. Has it ever occurred to you that DBDC has now already become the task force, and you're sadly on the side that's about to get tasked with force? Is that why you're not vested in this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Way to slip out the backdoor on this one, Tywin. :mellow: Part of having no alliance and hovering at 400 NS means I don't have a stake in what happens. I am still interested in seeing peace and stability prevail, however. Which ones? The only banding of alliances/coalition work I have ever seen has been by those who are in power to remain in power. There is little concern for global stability as Tywin would have you think, and more concern for those in power to stay in power. You can see it in the way leaders compose themselves in such events as wars, and the times leading up before them. I can almost assure you, DBDC is not the real enemy here. Has it ever occurred to you that DBDC has now already become the task force, and you're sadly on the side that's about to get tasked with force? Is that why you're not vested in this? As I had noted, I am not on any side, and simply operate the Party and the Lannister News Network. I have always survived whatever the tides of war have brought, and the propaganda you and others are starting to spew about my sincerity is rather pathetic. But let us not get ahead of ourselves. Is DBDC able to push around a few upper tier nations? Certainly. Can DBDC lead a force against the might of a hardened and recently victorious coalition? Even as a risk-taker I would hesitate before endorsing such an action. I can definitely see DBDC becoming a responsible dominant political force over the course of the long term, but leading a military effort now would probably do little more than forge the target into an even more capable military force. Edited February 18, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.