Jump to content

GUYS! GUYS! GUYS!


Recommended Posts

 

 

Personally, I think the Rebellion made a few mistakes in their execution of this war.

 

But, moving forward, please do not ignore the potential for natural human error. With an influx of inexperienced payers (which happens every round), several members from various parties made beginners errors (In addition to the post ceasefire nukes, Eurasia got declared on by nations from 2 other alliances during this war).

 

 

One has to understand that mistakes will happen. We have to anticipate noobish mistakes and address the root cause of those mistakes: inexperience. By anticipating this, leaders can preemptively corral the members of their respective AAs, and respond to mistakes from other AAs in a rational manner.

 

I direct your attention to Hanlon's Razor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 

 

 

P.S. Also I have a suggestion for the future--not as a un/written rule, but as something that would be in everyone's self-interest to increase the amount of fun in this world.

 

If you hold of major wars until day 21, everyone can cycle through war normally. The round is not ruined for anyone declared on.--Just a suggestion.

 

Edited by Horatio Longworth
The forums always mess up my links.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly some unaddressed issues. For example, hitting nations before they are built up. 

 

This has never really been an issue until the last few years because admin starting giving us more money at the start of some rounds.

 

Before that it wasn't even beneficial to stay down until a 'day 20 collect' because the cost of keeping the wonder clock going actually made the shoot up less profitable.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just throwing this out here......If there is not a risk of say being blockaded....then no one would build navy....if there isnt a chance of being caught with your pants down then everyone would wait till day 30 for building.(or whichever day would be most efficient). You buy a CIA not just to do spy ops but to protect yourself from them...this game requires you to use judgement on how you build, weighing the risk versus reward. Do you build for money and forgo the war wonders? Do you build for war instead and hurt your wallet? There are unwritten rules ...some contested some are held by most. I personally would not be opposed to actually writing down agreements between the major alliances and agreeing on the language. However, this would take time and effort and there will always be loopholes that one alliance would take advantage of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, malakarlian said:

Im just throwing this out here......If there is not a risk of say being blockaded....then no one would build navy....if there isnt a chance of being caught with your pants down then everyone would wait till day 30 for building.(or whichever day would be most efficient). You buy a CIA not just to do spy ops but to protect yourself from them...this game requires you to use judgement on how you build, weighing the risk versus reward. Do you build for money and forgo the war wonders? Do you build for war instead and hurt your wallet? There are unwritten rules ...some contested some are held by most. I personally would not be opposed to actually writing down agreements between the major alliances and agreeing on the language. However, this would take time and effort and there will always be loopholes that one alliance would take advantage of. 

 

I agree with your point. It would be fun to just have a round and toss out everything and see who survives.

 

The problem is that we've been down that path before and nobody wins.

 

All it does is knock players out of the round, and the ones were weren't so lucky simply sat there and 'won'.

 

Per the CIA, it was needed in the first week when you couldn't war  but nations could still run spy ops.

 

This rule was changed after (I think stevie) ran dirty ops on Avengers before wars could be declared.

 

Which is another abused mechanic. I am all for TC swaps where nations can pay bills low and collect with Econ trades. But a few alliance have literally brought in 'temp trades' which are nations who didn't play in the round (just some SE buddies creating an account) and their only job was to accept / cancel trades.

 

This is of course unavoidable, but I do think if an alliance is going to run them, they may as well be in the alliance for stat purposes.

 

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
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.

×
×
  • Create New...