Jump to content

MrMuz

Members
  • Posts

    898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Temp Nation
  • Resource 1
    Fish
  • Resource 2
    Furs
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Kuzir
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    Order of the Snowflake

MrMuz's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Expected this a lot sooner, actually, what with Impero's focus being elsewhere and Goldie's level of activity. Decent line-up, there were better. Certainly didn't expect WC to hold Duke position, but I've probably missed out on a lot.
  2. There's also a large number of treaties signed around enemies. A MDP comes with a really solid CB. And sometimes, sitting together with someone telling them how much you hate this other alliance is a bonding moment. So when an alliance's goals are to roll a certain alliance, they'll be angry with people who get in the way of that. Treaties are like marriages - when you treaty someone, you treaty their whole family, regardless of whether it's non-chaining.
  3. MrMuz

    "Weak" CBs

    Lol, I feel like I've gone over this a few times. CBs matter a LOT. Nearly all alliances are chained to both sides of any conflict. A CB determines where they chain onto. Nobody wants to be on the unpopular side of a war. There are plenty of strong CBs, like defense of an ally, defense of a member (who was raided/rogued). You can simply not defend an ally, citing coalition warfare like so many others do. Coalition warfare is a decent CB, and so are pre-emptive strikes. A good reason of most of the pre-war treaty movements is determining where these CBs fall when a weak CB triggers a global war. Nobody ever questions a CB if it's strong enough; it's why Legion-Tetris didn't expand, why the 6 Million Dollar war didn't, why Nordreich has a clean hit on LSF now. This war and the TOP-NpO war were both equally hopeless, but it expanded because it was a poor CB and people felt the need to defend their pride over that. LSF is salvageable, but the CB on them is too strong to be worth helping. I'd say that the real difference between MADPs and MDPs are how strong a CB has to be before they'd defend the treatied ally. A weak enough CB will automatically be considered an "aggressive war". The only reason why you wouldn't want to argue about CBs is if you've already lost the argument.
  4. [quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1345145118' post='3022471'] Curious statement.. Please elaborate, what situation was Int put in? - We offered to help out if they decided to help LSF. - We didn't complain about their allies hitting us. - We didn't complain about them hitting our allies. - We didn't request their help, we did however state we understood they wouldn't be able to back us up this war (Even though technically we were at war before any other Int ally (apart from LSF of course). Don't get me wrong, it's not about the cancellation, for me this was inevitable the moment Trotsky tried to manipulate us clumsily into making a decision we had made anyway... But I am curious about what position Int was supposedly put in. [/quote] Still interested in hearing an answer to this. I don't really see what makes R&R such bad allies that they have to be insulted that way.
  5. [quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1344745910' post='3021075'] Why do you cancel on "great allies"? I hate how fake CN is, sometimes. [/quote] Anyone who knows the VE-GOD relationship knows that they've always been close. "Friendship" doesn't do justice to their relationship, it's more brotherhood. While the treaty might be cut now, the bond goes far deeper than treaty level. Throughout their history, they've sacrificed more infra for each other than most alliances have even gained. This is just one of those cases where friendship and treaties don't align. VE and GOD are both politically ambitious alliances and they've been straining in opposite directions for a while now. You need both mutual interest and a friendship to maintain a treaty. At this point, they are just tired of sticking up for each other.
  6. Delta's retirement is not that surprising; he doesn't seem quite that active lately. I've always considered him one of the sharpest minds on the planet. Even though I've never had direct contact with him, it's quite sad to see.
  7. [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1343088443' post='3013880'] When two wonderful people such as these are fighting each other, it's hard to know who to root for. [/quote] It's easier when there's reps involved. Boo Sword Alliance.
  8. Shouldn't be an issue for new players either, there are warnings plastered in a few places. The confirm button works in a similar manner on other pages, like buying infra, so they should be able to figure it out.
  9. [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1341605812' post='3005026'] There are, however, groups so despised that the world allows one of the many spheres of power to roll them. [/quote] Probably closest to the truth. "I want to destroy Hegemony 3 too! But first, we have to destroy Power Cluster C to make sure that they don't become the new hegemony. After destroying power cluster C, power cluster B and D will want to get revenge on us, so you'll have to defend us from them. But don't worry, as long as we're less hated than Power Cluster F2, we'll be safe in case Power Cluster A takes the hegemony spot. Oh and I'm not really going to directly hit Hegemony 3, because one of our 6 MDoAP allies are tied to one of their allies. But if you can provoke one of the fringe alliances in Hegemony 3 (except alliance a6 and a7) into hitting microalliance A1 tied to fringe alliance H12." 5 months later.. "So, they hit A1 after all! Exactly as planned!" 11 days later.. "What do you mean A1's allies aren't honoring the treaty?! They have a !@#$@#$ MDP! Everyone knows that gather information attacks are an offensive action, therefore A1 is on the defensive. Karma was started over less!! No matter, we can still win this, our coalition has two mutual defensive treaties tied to alliance Y, Y only has an ODP bloc tied to Hegemony 3, we can pull them and their entire ODP bloc on our side. And once neutrals 6 and 7 enters the ring, we've got enough NS to get a Pyrrhic victory, enough to establish these other guys we don't hate as Hegemony 4..."
  10. Agreed on most of it, disagree on some points, but I don't really disagree enough to write an essay on it Just wanted to say that you left out the strong "underdog" factor in this game. A lot of people prefer to be on the losing side because there's much more to accomplish; you get a few people who will play any game the hard way once they feel they've won. There's a tendency to self-destroy your alliance once you're at the top because you get bored and want to start over.. I think GOD/SF have gone through that a few years ago, and I'd be surprised if alliances like MK/NG can stand not having any serious competition. A lot of alliances also hate whoever it is at the top - XX has gone through it, despite never really doing anything bad. Of course people are going to justify how much they hated XX for meatshielding SF, but you don't see Chestnut getting the same attention just because they have less NS. Achieving hegemony is really bad for security. Just imagine what would happen if all neutrals suddenly signed a MDP with each other (or even an ODP!). They'd be rolled almost instantly from the underdog factor. Another major factor is I guess what Roq refers to as the 'low fruit'. Alliances pick out goals, just as a way of playing the game. An easy goal is whoever is most unpopular at any moment - exHeg, XX, SF, etc. It's easy for people to gang up on these low fruits, they end up building ties with 'enemies of enemies' and cutting all ties linking to them. This produces sort of a 'superHegemony' illusion. You get a real feel for success, justify it to your membership, despite not really accomplishing anything difficult. It's never going to be a real multipolar world, the world will naturally start to surround and swarm anyone who sticks their neck out.
  11. [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342487584' post='3010967'] It's been awhile since I've seen an alliance get destroyed to this degree. Congrats NoR. 1.3m to .3m is quite an achievement. [/quote] Not sure if sarcastic. Nothing to cheer about an alliance losing to a curbstomp. Oh, of course LSF deserved this. They deserved this years ago with the choices they've made, their general attitude, and the alliances they chose to befriend. But this isn't the way I'd like to see them go. They're just being systematically shot here, without even a DoW. There's no need to rub salt on their bloodied corpses.
  12. [quote name='Warmongrel' timestamp='1342068107' post='3008892'] So you just armed a nation with 9 million, and you expect another smaller nation to destroy him with only 3 mil? Someone is getting a raw deal here... [/quote] Several nations bigger than that nation can do it. Gang up. Maybe gain some of that 9M as loot. And it'd be fun to pick on someone who does deserve it.
  13. Sounds fun, but they're too small for me.
  14. [quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1341941980' post='3007893'] Everyone who disagrees with my CN political views. [/quote] That's mean
×
×
  • Create New...