Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. For what is worth, I still consider myself an Härmlin.
  2. I don't think this would be the first instance of double membership. Is it confirmed that NSO accepted him in their ranks, anyway? Or is he technically just a ghost? With that said, as a government level person and a war are involved, I can understand the train of thought that could lead The Legion to hold this event against Legacy (whether The Legion currently has and/or will ever have the power to do something about it, or not). I am puzzled by this blog entry's title, anyway. A government member (not supreme leadership) of Legacy ghosting or being a grunt in NSO doesn't mean that the NSO "runs Legacy", does it?
  3. jerdge

    CBs in CN.

    It might be a good CB but it makes for a bad story. It's not "illegitimate" but it leads to simplified politics - or rather, to the denial of politics - thus it's a poor way of playing a political simulator. Then again everyone play this game as they see fit and that's fine.
  4. jerdge

    CBs in CN.

    As a player I don't like CBs that don't have a story/narration about them. They can even be completely made up - which makes for interesting fights and e-lawyering all over the forums, by the way - but they need to be a consistent, reasonably articulate narration. Wars for the sake of it are good in war simulators, which CN is not. This is a political simulator and if you remove the politics it becomes as dull as the war sub-system - which is very boring in itself. The problem I have with NG's CB on SOS is that the DoW OP is obscure to poor non-SLCBese-speaking me. I am afraid I didn't pay much attention to either SOS and SLCB, thus I don't really understand what the enmity is about. Anyway I don't really blame NG as it's more a problem on my side that anything else - at least the information is probably available somewhere, or I could bother to ask kriek or someone else about it (again I didn't pay much attention to SOS and SLCB and I don't think I am going to really be interested now). DH's "Everything. Must. Die." was IMHO worse as (IIRC) the DoW OP briefly mentioned some "possible" reasons for war without really telling anything about them, and ended with a sort of "we don't like you" statement, which was an extremely poor and non-entertaining reason/story to go to war "for". As a player and a popcorn-eater I was truly disappointed. About "valid" CBs - the more general topic of this blog entry - my personal take is that original quality CBs would most be welcome. The real underlying CB of almost every global war is raw power: you go to war either to maintain or to get a position of predominance. This could actually be an acceptable "manifest" CB (which strangely hasn't been widely used until now), or people could use plants/double agents to spark something, etc. To me it doesn't really matter the nature of the reason, but rather the quality and depth of the narration about it. In this framework CBs like "I hate you", "you suck", "I don't like your theme", "just because" etc. - while at least consistent and simple to understand - are way too simplistic to be good, and (if people will insist on them too many times) they would in the end make the political game too repetitive and boring to be bearable anymore. Examples of "good narrations" (off the top of my head): NPO vs GATO CB (GATO preparing a first strike out of fear of the NPO coming for them). NpO vs NADC (spy ops against Polaris nukes, which IIRC weren't [all] due to NADC). Karma (...). VE vs NpO (Lennox/Dajobo, spy etc.). NG vs SOS (enmity with some events attached to it, I suppose). Legion vs Tetris and allies (spy/OWF posting). 6 millions dollars war. NpO vs \m/ (for raiding? attacktorate? oh my memory insults [thanks KW]). TOP vs C&G (pre-empting an attack perceived as imminent).
  5. Chill? In CN? You're joking righ- Now wait a minute...
  6. Part 5 is a bit weaker, but they're really good, I laughed for real at the "where are IAA?" part (chapter 4). Well done.
  7. You know, it's not me, I am almost in the top 1% and I know that I'll get there the next year (barring unexpected events), but nonetheless I do see a problem when becoming really competitive requires about three years even for the "more smart than average" player. Anyway, the real problem with your reasoning is that it's a straw man. I don't care if there are people that want to be the best at CN in a short time, that's not what I am talking of and I am not supporting them. There's an individual-level problem and a political-level problem. You're right that CN SE is a political game, but nation building and especialy military effectiveness remains relevant, and especially it's relevant for the vast majority of players that, unlike me and you, don't focus their game on the political side. I agree that having played for long should in general give an edge, but the difference shouldn't be that big that the new player will be irrelevant for years no matter what he does. A skilled new player should have the opportunity to become competitive - still at a disadvantage but in a position of not irrelevance - in a reasonable time. Otherwise the game only rewards seniority and it completely frustrates commitment and skill. The extreme difficulty of filling the gap, especially when it comes to technology, is a political problem too. Large, organized and committed alliances like the NPO could basically be put out of the pool of the top alliances (for military) just by destroying and then hampering their tech acquisition. I'm not saying that that strategy shouldn't be viable, mind you: it's OK that it works, but it's not OK that the effects go on for years and years on end.
  8. @TypoNinja: It's OK if a 5 year head start means something, but it's not OK if the new player knows that he won't be competitive, ever. A new player joining now is told that (military) he's going to be completely irrelevant for one year, and even after that he will remain at a severe disadvantage for another couple of years. Then some of the nations that are on top right now will anyway have twice his tech level, and while at that point he might be somewhat significant, the top guys will "always" remain out of his reach. Also remember that to obtain that "success" he needs to stay put and out of trouble most of those three years, or else... Do you think that this could be appealing to any new player? I don't think so.
  9. The point of having warchests is not "to protract the fun" or to be curbstomped for long, and certainly not "to win", but to be able to resist and to force the aggressor to fight a bloody carnage for a really long time: it's a deterrent as it is supposed to prevent the aggressor from attacking in the first place, and/or to give the weaker a bargaining chip at the table for peace; as such is a military/political tool which works on removing (= completely avoiding or shortening), not on winning the fight. Sometimes it works, some other times it doesn't, but having it or not as an additional (and viable) option makes all the difference of this world. I don't think that your reply really addressed the concern I tried to express.
  10. Your ideas are interesting, but completely destroying warchests would put at a great disadvantage the smaller party of every war, as they couldn't anymore count on the ability to inflict damage as a deterrent to protect themselves. Ideas like the old Citadel (now PF I guess), TOP's plans for Armageddon or in general the existence of "antagonists" with small numbers but high preparedness would basically be made impossible. This would lead to even more conformism and - probably - even less balanced wars, as being on the smaller side would mean certain hopeless defeat. I don't think it's a coincidence that being hegemonic became more difficult when lots of huge nations had started being around. Taking down a prepared alliance 20-30th in score - say, today's Valhalla - has to be a bloody affair even if you can muster really huge numbers against them, whereas destroying FAN at the very height of power wasn't really that difficult, considering the numbers aligned against them. How would you address this aspect?
  11. WARNING: extreme romanticism below read at your own peril! In October 2005, I was on a short trip in Firenze (Florence), Italy, with my (at the time) girlfriend. Walking on the Ponte Vecchio we were looking at the windows of the jewelry shops that occupy both sides of the bridge, when our attention was attracted by a golden ring with seven stones of different colours. We both didn't much like yellow gold and we thus entered the shop to ask whether they maybe had a white gold version of it - you know, when you think: "I don't even know if I really want it, but I could at least ask... Why not?" Obviously they had it. It was a nice moment for a present thus I bought it on a whim (I am not good at keeping money in my pockets) and there it was, "just" another present for my girlfriend. Why not? Along the coming months we started joking about that ring, calling it "the engagement ring", and of course - long story short - the joke became more and more serious... Before an year had passed, at the end of September 2006, we married. Since then we jokingly say that the "engagement ring" had to have some magic in it, as it came to us before we knew of its real nature. At some point one of the stones of the ring went missing. While we would have had numerous occasion to have it repaired in any nearby jewelry, we tacitly thought that such a "magic" ring couldn't be fixed in just any jewelry shop. Again without a plan we recently decided for another short trip in Toscana, and there we found ourselves again on the Ponte Vecchio, in front of the same shop and with the same ring in our hands, almost six years later and on the eve of the fifth anniversary of our wedding. None of us had showed any anxiety to have the ring repaired, but as we were there we thought: why not? In and out, we had left the ring at the shop, with the agreement that the next morning the owner would have asked to the artisan what could be done to replace the stone. Magic of the ring? The artisan could buy the right stone with the right cut and by the evening of our anniversary we had the ring restored back to its full glory: And yes, this is your happy end!
  12. I agree that politics is what makes CN tick. The biggest problem I see in it is that most CN politics happen behind closed doors, thus it's an Internet based soap opera that too many spectator don't get to watch. To have politics be more visible we'd need worse or no opsec/comsec/infosec, but the problem is that alliances that have/do that are short-lived. Enlarging the members' access to information is also risky for any alliance's security, thus again that's a disadvantageous trait for organizations. Spies which disseminate information in public places (e.g. the recent Legion->CNtel->Hereno->CN forums path) might work, but I am not sure that they'd be a conclusive solution - and anyway I wouldn't know how to successfully incentive their activity. I have yet to come up with a comprehensive theory about this problem.
  13. What happened doesn't exist anymore thus it's not immutable nor changeable, it just is not. History is subjective, yes, although subjectivity on facts beyond "a certain point" (which varies with the circumstances) generally isn't taken seriously, and for good reasons.
  14. jerdge

    The CN Banhammer

    Doesn't seem to always be the case; one of our nations screwed up last year by creating a second TE nation to get better resources (back when that mattered) before he could delete the first, and got perma-banned from both TE and SE. He had no previous warnings or violations. I'll assume he wasn't really a "newb" and that that might have counted, although I am puzzled at your story as I didn't think that SE bans carried over to TE (and vice versa). Of course all of this is only theory as the actual decision could be explained only by talking with the people interested in the fact.
  15. jerdge

    The CN Banhammer

    AFAIK newb multis have their nations deleted but they immediately get a second chance. It's only second-time newb multies that are actually banned. I might be wrong on this account.
  16. I understand your position, Magicman657, and well said. I came up with an even simpler proposal. I hope something will get through...
  17. Not loving and disliking are quite distinct, kingzog. I for one don't love you (respect =/= love) but I don't dislike you either. Ah ah, great as usual, nice one.
  18. His points were OOC and they had merit - I don't say I agree with them but they were definitely not stupid - and you replied with an OOC personal mockery. Were you someone else I wouldn't have minded, but as I know you're worth respect I thought to write these lines to try help you think about that. (Sorry for having made it public, I have the bad tendency to be didactic "at large": apologies.)
  19. By "hit and then walk away" you mean that at the time (~4/25) it was (or should have been) clear to "all" that the Entente wouldn't have participated in the "Limited War" of the Overtime Accords, thus Avalon's offensive was perceived by you/VE as an attempt to deal further damage without having then to suffer a (significant) counter-offensive - is this interpretation correct?
  20. Trying to understand: By "hit and then walk away" you mean that at the time (~4/25) it was (or should have been) clear to "all" that the Entente wouldn't have participated in the "Limited War" of the Overtime Accords, thus Avalon's offensive was perceived by you/VE as an attempt to deal further damage without having then to suffer a (significant) counter-offensive - is this interpretation correct?
  21. You can also scambait them.
  22. Maybe it's because I am not "especially" scared of heights - when I look down I have that intense feeling that I "really" need to avoid falling down, but that's it - but when I looked down Cabo Girão I didn't feel anything special. To have an idea of that: Fact is that when I am on a really high height it sort of becomes "unreal" to me (like I was looking down from an airplane or like I was looking at Google Maps!) I think that lower heights (like a few dozens meters) scare me more. Which isn't completely wrong, when you think of it, as falling from 10 or 20 meters is probably as deadly as falling from 500 meters, but more painful.
  23. Doeas this blog entry mean that you have double membership in VE and The Grämlins, Bob?
  24. Not that I am already bored about it, but some variation from the egomaniac lunatic character would too be welcome. Anyway the style is what counts most and RV has tons of it, thus I am not disappointed.
  • Create New...