Drive-By Blogging

Even the old tactics are very useful if you don't have to worry about a large counter by an ally of your target. As you said, it all depends on the circumstances.

I like this. That is all.

CN seems to have entered a phase where being the initial attacker is not helpful. A while back, attackers had a huge advantage (particularly in the days of the instant nuke, but even after that with low warchests and anarchies), and we saw a lot of aggressive wars. Now, the only advantage in mid and high tiers to an update blitz is the inability of the opponents to declare more wars if they're in anarchy ... but if you 3v1 them to achieve that, you're going to be eating 3 times the nukes.

The TPF non-war and this war to a lesser extent show that the balance has moved to playing a counter-attacking game, sitting out until the moment is right. We are a week into a global war and yet we've only just touched 4000 in game wars. Even an alliance right at the centre of the storm like FOK are only partially engaged (and using peace mode well beyond the usual banks). STA and NpO are about the only alliances which are fully engaged by the standards of past wars.

CN seems to have entered a phase where being the initial attacker is not helpful. A while back, attackers had a huge advantage (particularly in the days of the instant nuke, but even after that with low warchests and anarchies), and we saw a lot of aggressive wars. Now, the only advantage in mid and high tiers to an update blitz is the inability of the opponents to declare more wars if they're in anarchy ... but if you 3v1 them to achieve that, you're going to be eating 3 times the nukes.

The TPF non-war and this war to a lesser extent show that the balance has moved to playing a counter-attacking game, sitting out until the moment is right. We are a week into a global war and yet we've only just touched 4000 in game wars. Even an alliance right at the centre of the storm like FOK are only partially engaged (and using peace mode well beyond the usual banks). STA and NpO are about the only alliances which are fully engaged by the standards of past wars.

I agree with this, the counter-attacks from allies seem to be the new blitz. I think that some of the moves in the Karma war showed that, like the way Fark jumped on IRON. The counter is now as important as the initial.

I've pretty much been preaching this since the TPF War. Good stuff, nice to see it put out so nicely.

Amateurs and War Buffs study tactics and strategies, Generals study logistics. In CN there is only one item that counts and that is $$. GW3 was the last war where Banks had the ability to influence the outcome. Shortly there afterward it was all about having large enough warchests. Money can be instantly turned into NS, you can buy infra, tanks, CM's, tech etc. That all adds to your NS. Money is hidden nation strength. No one knows how much any alliance has in cash reserves not even their own alliance. The key to winning a war now is to not run out of money. Placing nations into Peace Mode is not to protect them from attack but to allow them to attack their opponent at precisely the time they need to collect taxes while not in anarchy.

So it's the logistics of supplying nations capable of preventing the other side from collecting revenue efficiently that drives the winning strategy. It takes tremendous discipline to manage the logistics of causing your enemy the most monetary damage while suffering the least in return. With 5,000 nations fighting so far, it appears that no one has the leadership to install the discipline necessary. Each side appears to be moving forward hoping the other side runs out of money first without understanding exactly how to guarantee it.

All the stats showing who is losing NS faster are pretty much meaningless unless you know how much hidden NS they have available in their Warchests. My guess is it will take 6-8 weeks of fighting before nations start running low on money. So yeah I agree with you, you can do your quad update attacks on day 1 of your war. As far as determining who will be victorious they are pretty much meaningless. In fact some alliances have realized this and for the first time we are seeing numerous DoW's and attacks take place in the middle of the day.

If the sides are evenly matched whoever can manage to install the discipline on their side to reduce losses and I am talking $$ not NS while inflicting the most $$ loses will eventually win. Now it is just a question of whether both sides want to drag this on that long.

That was a good read, and I agree, warfare has changed and peacemode is becoming a very important strategic weapon. It's laughable that some people are so intent on the old ways and crying cowardice when alliances employ the strategy.

amad: actually, I fully agree with you, except for one thing:

some alliances know how much money they have, and it reinforces your point; Matt Miller showed after karma just how meaningless the loss of infrastructure is with upper-tier warchests, and at this point in time warchests are on average only bigger.

However, the loss of cash due to nuclear anarchy collections is hardly so critical; at a rough cost in upper tiers of 10 million per day for such collection, that's not all that huge (essentially you lose an extra day of bills), and will indeed take weeks if not months to start counting for something.

Even so, it's still the best strategy there is for putting your enemies out of action, and those nations without adequate warchests will suffer VERY harshly.

You have the right idea, for every tactic there is a counter tactic developed to stop it and every counter tactic has its own counter tactic. and this just keeps going on and on.

The only constant is change.

Now, if you'll allow me a little hypothesizing, we're likely to see a matchup between MK and TOP at some point in this conflict, or some time in the future. Sure, it won't be just those two, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at that. Both alliances boost impressive nuke counts, activity levels (not the in game statistic) and ANS. However, TOP edges MK in nations and ANS by quite a bit, especially at the very upper tiers. It can be safely assumed that these two alliances, both who are fairly experienced at the whole war thing won't be resorting to the full out tactics of old. The last time it appeared a war would appear we saw lines drawn at the 85k Nation strength line, and peace mode was bountiful on each side. Since we know these alliances both urge, or require large warchest requirements, it seems fairly obvious that this won't be a short conflict where one alliance comes out decisively on top.

Well, you got that first part right it seems. Let's see how the second part goes.

Amateurs and War Buffs study tactics and strategies, Generals study logistics. In CN there is only one item that counts and that is $$. GW3 was the last war where Banks had the ability to influence the outcome. Shortly there afterward it was all about having large enough warchests. Money can be instantly turned into NS, you can buy infra, tanks, CM's, tech etc. That all adds to your NS. Money is hidden nation strength. No one knows how much any alliance has in cash reserves not even their own alliance. The key to winning a war now is to not run out of money. Placing nations into Peace Mode is not to protect them from attack but to allow them to attack their opponent at precisely the time they need to collect taxes while not in anarchy.

So it's the logistics of supplying nations capable of preventing the other side from collecting revenue efficiently that drives the winning strategy. It takes tremendous discipline to manage the logistics of causing your enemy the most monetary damage while suffering the least in return. With 5,000 nations fighting so far, it appears that no one has the leadership to install the discipline necessary. Each side appears to be moving forward hoping the other side runs out of money first without understanding exactly how to guarantee it.

All the stats showing who is losing NS faster are pretty much meaningless unless you know how much hidden NS they have available in their Warchests. My guess is it will take 6-8 weeks of fighting before nations start running low on money. So yeah I agree with you, you can do your quad update attacks on day 1 of your war. As far as determining who will be victorious they are pretty much meaningless. In fact some alliances have realized this and for the first time we are seeing numerous DoW's and attacks take place in the middle of the day.

If the sides are evenly matched whoever can manage to install the discipline on their side to reduce losses and I am talking $$ not NS while inflicting the most $$ loses will eventually win. Now it is just a question of whether both sides want to drag this on that long.

Very well put. amad123's Art of War.