Jump to content

Producers vs Parasites 2: Types of Nations


The Zigur

Recommended Posts

 

Sadly no common sense...sort of like some of your allies.

 

EDIT: It takes a fair amount to understand when you are being played.  "But you played us!" you might say.  Perhaps those in Aftermath are unaware that they could have been out of the fight before Christmas,  but that didn't fit the agenda, did it?

Is everything to you about getting out of war?

 

It can be rebuilt unlike a reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nation types is not the same as nation ruler types and this seems to be more the latter.  All the "I Hate Tywin But I Post In His Threads Anyway" Fan Club comments aside, there is a basic fundamental flaw with the premise before he even starts with his descriptions.

 

Back the drawing board.

If you disagree with his ideals then you're more than welcome to state why, otherwise just ignore it but not the owf way by posting in his thread showing everyone you're ignoring him. I don't think the owf circus crowd understands the definition of ignore. Some of us would be interested in a counter argument but acting like a troll and only countering with insults is just childish. I'm pretty sure many of these +5 year CN vets aren't still 13 years old but they sure do sound like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a healthy Alliance like the New Polar Order, tech producers are offered 9 million for 100 tech if they have an FAC wonder.

 
NpO: self-imposing terms since 2014. Couldn't think of a worse way to use your aidslots, frankly: that's punitive enough.
 

I'm comfortable with a solid 3k-4k infrastructure though, don't really feel the need to build beyond that.

 
Anklebiter level is fun to be at, but strategically irrelevant unless you manage to gather ALL the anklebiters. Hint: you have not achieved that.
 

Again, I in no way represent Polar fiscal policy, but I've always viewed the mid-tier as 20k-50k NS or so, and anything above that as upper tier. I believe Polaris and any other alliance can be perfectly self sufficient without any 50k+ NS nations.


This is hilarious. We are not in 2010 anymore: > 50k is uppertier? :| Self-sufficient without >50k NS nations?

You note that an aid drop can quickly repair damage in the low tier (<20k NS), and while that is true that tells only half the story. First of all, that aid is quickly dissipated during wartime. In my nation's wars alone, your side has squandered countless tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, which I have quickly plundered, spied away or otherwise negated. And I'm only around 5k NS or less most of the time.

 
Problem: aiddrop by whom? If you refure to grow past 50k you won't be able to amass huge warchests, so that aid will be a bit harder to organize, long-term. Also, 50k is vague: how would you arrrange the necessary wonder growth by staying under that threshold? No WRCs? No EMPs? :|

Psychologically speaking, low tier and even mid-tier nations on your side are, on average, of lesser quality than Polar low tier nations


Oh yeah, explain how a third or so of your nations haven't declared a single war, then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the day before New Years Eve... and this is the best , most correct post I h ave ever read. I feel almost dirty for it.

Rush...you aren't supposed to like my posts! You should feel especially dirty.

 

But fighting only with ~bottom ~25% constitutes a backbone.

Elaborate? I'm not sure if you just implied I didn't have a backbone, or if this is some stab at Polar not having a backbone?

 

Either way, both are horribly incorrect and especially hilarious comebacks given that you are defending Valhalla. Also hilarious considering you are IRON government...and I'm sure we don't need to touch on how you allied DBDC a week after they raided you.

Edited by Starfox101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not IRON govt and haven't been for a very long time (and I'd rather lurk after the war :p) nor do I have any official capacity to speak on behalf of IRON. I never did imply Polar (or you) or Valhalla but rather, highlighting your selective criticism of your one but not other ally regarding the lack/minor (of) contribution to the coalition war efforts.



Also, FYI, we allied DBDC after months of warring them and multiple and almost contineous incidents of hostility between us, direct and indirect, pixel and political, while the rest of you were having other priorities. Its not a case unique to us or the first or last time two different parties buried a hatchet.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make it sound like you were warring DBDC alone, all of the fighting was during the Disorder war and they were hitting NpO and all her allies. You both signed a NAP at the conclusion of Disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush...you aren't supposed to like my posts! You should feel especially dirty.

 

Elaborate? I'm not sure if you just implied I didn't have a backbone, or if this is some stab at Polar not having a backbone?

 

Either way, both are horribly incorrect and especially hilarious comebacks given that you are defending Valhalla. Also hilarious considering you are IRON government...and I'm sure we don't need to touch on how you allied DBDC a week after they raided you.

You're pretty much right though, after peace was reached with the NSO coalition, about a week later, IRON couldn't take the heat fighting DBDC alone and used FEAR to broker a peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're pretty much right though, after peace was reached with the NSO coalition, about a week later, IRON couldn't take the heat fighting DBDC alone and used FEAR to broker a peace.



We figured there was more benefit to not fight over fight, our mutual friends figured the same. Its that simple.

And its not like you were going to join us anyway, you were going to do nothing. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're pretty much right though, after peace was reached with the NSO coalition, about a week later, IRON couldn't take the heat fighting DBDC alone and used FEAR to broker a peace.


IRON using politics to their advantage: the world is shocked. Edited by Garion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The largest AA in the history of CN...or one nation?

 

Get outta here with junk arguments like that. Polar fought each of those nations what, 4 or 5 times? Damn sure never saw a treaty offer from us.

That might be a result of accepting Tywin into your alliance than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fought like one nation twice post-war haha. Serious fighting for IRON.

I said during and after war, and incidents other than just pixels. Didn't expect you to chain in on rey's hyperboles, you're a lot more reasonable than that lot.

This fixation on our ties with DBDC is interesting nonetheless, one might paint it as lulzism, cowardness, etc, but ultimately, this fixation is driven from the fact that many at your side hoped that wed duke it out, instead we solidified the web on our end. You are accusing both of us of playing politics and turning a very destructive conflict into a partnership of mutual benefits. You paint it around as some moral and honor story or some sort of unique case of hostile parties turning to be friends. You did it with TOP, whome you paid reps too, and with them you imposed terms for an act that TOP is doing itself at the moment. Point being, You've played all shades of politics yourself, you have allied yourself to those whove played all sorts of politics. Frankly, that is perfectly fine. It just won't add up to the moral and honor standards you've set up to scrutinize others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBDC obviously only signed a NAP with IRON because DBDC only picks fights where it outnumbers the other party enough that they pose no serious risk to their stats.  It's the same reason they (except for O Ya Baby) haven't attacked WTF, GPA, or OBR.  Certain (mostly ex-MK) members of DBDC might like a good, competitive, fight, or at least used to, but it's clear that's not the spirit of the alliance as a whole.

 

IRON also didn't want to have it's upper tier nations smashed or have them have to sit in peace mode long term, thus the NAP.

 

Yes former enemies have reconciled (like TOP/MK or TOP/NpO), usually after a big fight where they both smash each other.  That never took place between DBDC and IRON.
 

ETA: To preeempt any "BUT WHAT ABOUT TOP BEING IN PEACEMODE" objections, if it were up to me personally TOP would have more engaged, and I have engaged my own nation and lost about 70,000 NS so far (but dished out quite a bit more.)

Edited by Azaghul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said during and after war, and incidents other than just pixels. Didn't expect you to chain in on rey's hyperboles, you're a lot more reasonable than that lot.

This fixation on our ties with DBDC is interesting nonetheless, one might paint it as lulzism, cowardness, etc, but ultimately, this fixation is driven from the fact that many at your side hoped that wed duke it out, instead we solidified the web on our end. You are accusing both of us of playing politics and turning a very destructive conflict into a partnership of mutual benefits. You paint it around as some moral and honor story or some sort of unique case of hostile parties turning to be friends. You did it with TOP, whome you paid reps too, and with them you imposed terms for an act that TOP is doing itself at the moment. Point being, You've played all shades of politics yourself, you have allied yourself to those whove played all sorts of politics. Frankly, that is perfectly fine. It just won't add up to the moral and honor standards you've set up to scrutinize others.

Of course we want you to come to blows with DBDC. Both of you sat on stats for years and have built up to ridiculous levels. Now, DBDC has allied everyone in range, and IRON has successfully joined the winning side yet again.

 

The difference between TOP-Polar and IRON-DBDC is that there was an actual (and very bitter) war involved, and more than a week between fighting and allying. You allied DBDC to preserve stats. We allied TOP to eliminate others stats. That's the key difference.

 

Eventually you and Valhalla will be caught up to. I'd almost like to get involved back into politics to unite the IRON/Val haters into a nice grouping. Watch out, because I promise someone will do it.

 

DBDC obviously only signed a NAP with IRON because DBDC only picks fights where it outnumbers the other party enough that they pose no serious risk to their stats.  It's the same reason they (except for O Ya Baby) haven't attacked WTF, GPA, or OBR.  Certain (mostly ex-MK) members of DBDC might like a good, competitive, fight, or at least used to, but it's clear that's not the spirit of the alliance as a whole.

 

IRON also didn't want to have it's upper tier nations smashed or have them have to sit in peace mode long term, thus the NAP.

 

Yes former enemies have reconciled (like TOP/MK or TOP/NpO), usually after a big fight where they both smash each other.  That never took place between DBDC and IRON.
 

ETA: To preeempt any "BUT WHAT ABOUT TOP BEING IN PEACEMODE" objections, if it were up to me personally TOP would have more engaged, and I have engaged my own nation and lost about 70,000 NS so far (but dished out quite a bit more.)

Good analysis. There is no coincidence that DBDC has only openly opposed the heavily mid tier XX and AFM in the past few years. Any alliance with a significant presence in the top tier has been quickly allied by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We figured there was more benefit to not fight over fight, our mutual friends figured the same. Its that simple.

And its not like you were going to join us anyway, you were going to do nothing.

Who exactly are you saying were going to do nothing. Were you hoping those who couldn't do anything were going to do nothing.

 

The Polar coalition had just wrapped up over 3 and a half months of warring but that was a large coalition and most of them did nothing to DBDC, the war wasn't about DBDC, and they only hit XX/AF/IRON. By the end of the war, XX/AF were unable to do anything as all those in war mode and in range had already been downsized by their super tier and put out of range. DBDC focusing most of their efforts on XX/AF, and once they had finished rolling all those in XX/AF, they directed all those resources at IRON.

 

Where was IRON when XX/AF were getting rolled? You did nothing when you were able too and then you wanted those unable to do anything to come help you. IRON fought back and rolled 1-2? of their smaller nations but no one was worried about them. You knew no one had the resources to do anything, and you knew the only option was lose your top tier or reach a resolution to end hostilities. IRON made the right choice but don't blame anyone else for your decision.

 

Also, DBDC taking minimal damages since Jan 2013!

 

http://cybernations.lyricalz.com/warslot?alliance=DOOMBIRD+DOOMCAVE&start=2013-11-16&end=2014-02-02

Edited by Daenerys Targaryen
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...