Jump to content

jerdge

Members
  • Posts

    5,851
  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. I think it's 0,046%: (1/3)^7 = 0,000457247...
  2. I can't speak for other neutrals, assuming there are some, but AFAIK in the GPA nobody is really interested in rebuilding anything, or in actually "playing the game", for that matter. Should one's nation get destroyed, it won't be intentionally rebuilt, it would just hang around long enough for it to come back a bit. I guess we're horribly boring. (Case in point: I buy tech but I don't really care how much tech my nation has, to me it's just a way to have a connection with other players.)
  3. "Regardless"? That's the point. CN mechanics don't prevent nations from being in range of too much stronger ones, and having to fight too many simultaneously, and seeing literally years or decades of work, to build up their firepower, hopelessly erased in a very short time - some weeks, sometimes a few days. Nations interested in having any military meaning in the medium or long run can only do so by establishing allegiance with the biggest and strongest group in the pond. Which is where we are. Since around 2008, I might add. As I had hinted at, this horse had been beaten to death so long ago that the people that knew those that had any memory of those originally beating it, have also mostly left this realm long ago. Edit: for completeness, now we have few enough nations that a tight group of experienced, Wonders equipped, medium-low NS nations can do something meaningful, even without comprehensive links to the net of allegiance (and thanks to those links being somewhat loose, in fact). It can't shake up everything, or anything meaningful for that matter, but they can have a bit of the fun they like, at least. They just need to avoid any real challenge and/or to poke a true bear and they'll be OK. (I'd still be bored by the lack of true challenge but hey, I'm not CN's universal role model...) Also edit: for all I know 99% of the big alliances might be almost completely dead and unable to pull even a fraction of their weight... but keeping nations around and showing up once or twice a year isn't exactly demanding, thus they find it too easy to preserve and use their firepower. Which is another flaw of the mechanics we have, BTW.
  4. Neutrality Is waaay simpler, but it doesn't really work any better at providing action, unless you just directly create it by attacking others. Which would basically be suicidal. It's the mechanics, not the politics (but that horse is long, long dead).
  5. Now that I think of it, your posts too could become great satire with only minor tweaks. You may want to consider the idea. I still love you even if you don't, though. IMHO the OWF has last been great to read over ten years ago. I don't even think that it's just that I'm old (and yes, I'm too old for this stuff). That said, it is for anyone here using it as they see fit, I welcome alliances presenting their stats and bragging about them, and I welcome people bragging about their achievements and making fun of each other's. We could use a bit more of variety and of irony, anyway, one can always hope for it.
  6. Though somewhat unoriginal, this... Stats Nerd Pride Week came with a lil bit of Hakai satire. Overlooked, yes, but still thumbs up from me. Thanks to everyone involved.
  7. I thought you had always been too old for it. (I know I have.)
  8. When one stumbles on gems like this post, one can only sincerely thank the author for them. Thank you, berbers.
  9. Not saying that FL would be a terrible triumvir, but even in that case he'd still be only 1/3 of it.
  10. The poll misses the "none of these" option, as such I won't vote.
  11. The concept of people with an ordinary nature is - as you may guess - only a concept, a category of the mind, an idea useful to interpret things and to efficiently exchange ideas. It models a part of something that's real, but it's not real itself. For these reasons you're correct, you're not ordinary. Nobody is.
  12. David runs his mouth only or mostly in the game, that's a huge difference. (Now I don't want to defend David, actually, it's more about recognizing that Mal's shenanigans were forgettable too, but less so.) Besides, consequences are illusory, anyway... But I digress.
  13. To be fair to David, Mal used to infest the «actually "that guy"» part of the forums.
  14. If one's objective is to ensure that their opponents don't get any loot, and/or that they earn as few casualties as possible, and/or that they have as little fun as possible, having no soldiers is good practice. I'm in the first group, there's no way to earn any stat by attacking my nation. It makes sense to me, as I'm totally not interested in war and, according to my experience, most if not all high end raiders are absolute pixel huggers. There's basically no downside, either economically or tactically (I can declare war with no soldiers, if need be, and in fact I've done it in the past). Had I any inclination for war, things would be different, ofc. Well I have no knowledge of your conflicts with those people, and the general situation you all were in, I'll just trust your judgement on them specifically. Maybe half of them were collected in very old eras, in which warfare was very different and high end nations hadn't any easy way to profit over raids. My position in this world was also quite different. The other ones were collected mainly against Cuba. I don't have much to say about that conflict as my nation had been revived to defend the GPA, and it was being sat by someone else.
  15. Congratulations everyone involved for your peace/win/loss/however you call it. Thanks for the amusing variations over FL's name, gotta love polite irony, they made me smile. Nothing personal FL, I actually love your contributions to CN. Random reminder that 5 DAs in 14 seconds tell two things, at least: 1. Al is really quick with that mouse! 2. All of his opponents had very little or no soldiers at all, obviously. As the ruler of a nation that never has soldiers in the first place I'll certainly won't be the one making fun of #2. (In fact I'm absolutely qualified to explain why it may actually make a lot of sense, depending on the objectives one set for themselves.)
  16. Peace Works! But seriously, we don't anymore have the Mongols we used to. Peace?!?! (But seriously seriously, congratulations everyone involved for they all evidently had a bit of fun and, more importantly, they have been able to enjoy it together.)
  17. In these situations "no matter what AA" usually means that the objective of going after someone doesn't change with the AA they join, although the means and the approach vary. Basically, none of you two is entirely wrong.
  18. Nice one! Although I don't condone smoking, especially in the kitchen (but really, everywhere).
  19. You're considered a lone rogue; none of us bothered to check with your alliance (we could have) about your attack having maybe been supported, or about your government/non-government status; none of us bothered to have your nation sanctioned (we could have); none of us bothered to propose that you surrender and pay reparations, or continue be hit (we could have). You're considered a lone rogue and we have no interest in dragging the affair for longer than a round of war (I don't expect other GPA members to attack you when you have an open slot, but we're not exactly following a plan either). We could have made different choices, legitimate ones that you could have been unhappy with. I agree that we had no ground to consider the whole of MONGOLS responsible, and attacking uninvolved MONGOLS nation or declaring war against MONGOLS would have been an escalation on our part. I don't know about your issues with other parties, I'll stick to our case. Had multiple and/or confirmed government MONGOLS nations attacked the GPA, and/or MONGOLS supported the attackers against our requests towards them (requests that in your case we didn't bother to formulate), we'd be having a different conversation. I'm glad, and not really surprised, that you're happy with our members, we're a bunch of friendly happy hippies, after all. You don't seem bad either, hopefully everyone involved can just have a bit of fun and we'll then move on.
  20. This is just silly, a raid is a war. Go for it all day, for what I care, but don't pretend that fighting back - or ~MaKiNg StAtEmEnTs~ about it - is escalating anything. When you hit an alliance for whatever reason you've got to be prepared to that alliance responding to your aggression, that's the very point of CN alliances, since 2006. All of that said, since you personally very recently started a raid against a GPA nation, and the fight is under way right now, I'll use this occasion to present my take on it: it's an isolated incident and you'll get a round of war from our counters (you'll probably fight better than them ofc). That will be all. Unless hostilities are further renewed by you / anyone associated with you. It's not about not escalating things on our part, however, it's that ultimately we don't care anymore. We don't want to waste our time with your attack any more than it's strictly necessary to prove to ourselves that we're still somewhat functioning as an alliance. Back in the day it would have been different, rogues were required to surrender and to earn their way out according to what we decided fitted the crime. I remember silly claims that we were keeping them in "permanent war", when in fact it was them that didn't want to be held accountable, they wanted to be let free because it was "just a raid". They had the quick way out, only they didn't like it. All of this not to sounds threatening or anything - I know the GPA very well, it would have been ridiculous in the past, it'd be tragically absurd now - it's just about logic. Uninvited, you steal stuff and, the horror, waste someone else's time, then you complain about or criticize their response... If you're at least 8 years old you might want to look up for the notion of responsibility, because you're falling behind on it.
  21. Incidentally, I like Burger King. Yum. If only they served a fish burger!
  22. It depends on the objectives one has set for oneself, for example it works wonderfully when the primary aim is to deny all opponents any gain or enjoyment.
  23. I always check regardless. (Again ty lil.)
  24. TW has +34 offensive wars but their opponents combined "only" +30 defensive wars, what am I missing? Thank you.
  25. It's mostly that, or crap-talk about how the stats would show that the other side has been outperformed. During wars there's really little else on the OWF. Only a few are more handsome than Franz, and you're not among them. Sorry!
×
×
  • Create New...