lonewolfe2015

If the coffee business ever dries up, it's a clear sign of the apocalypse and we're all doomed anyways. Those of us at tJL are just covering our bases and getting to know doom ahead of time.

Any chance this could return in some capacity? Either alliance-only view or just putting the number back on the nation screen? I understand the change in activity, it's a good change. But viewing a nation's backcollection count should be an option without the need to spy someone for it if they are in your alliance.

Are days without collecting still accessible by anyone other than the nation owner? I don't see it and figured it was gone with the recent update, but wanted to be sure. I've been trying to keep an eye on nations learning how to build and now I can't see if any of my members are stacking their collections or not.

Just because you stay up for update doesn't mean it isn't killing the game. Blitzing at 1am is hurting the game, remove the midnight update and implement a capped war system with 12-24 hour cycles. Teamwork/coordination become more important than one good blitz, which is the real determining factor in wars right now anyways; wars are better if you don't anarchy the entire alliance the first night. The whole point of increasing the barrier to larger nations is to artificially control the war ranges, closer nations are more competitive nations. The nation building gap is growing (again) and the barrier to new players is higher than ever. The solution is not more refine nation building guides but new complexity/hurdles in the system for the nation builders to optimize around. This is a cycle which needs to be repeated often. A hard cap in the warchest system prevents nations from 200+mil warchests and levels the playing field even more. But, if you're not as concerned with growing the player base then let the differences between an experienced player and a rookie continue to grow and discourage them from playing further. Not even to bring up the damage gaming going on for the award that could use a good nerf/fixing.

Want more TE players? Remove the 1AM Eastern Update Time and make it a flat 12-24 hour cool down per attack. Put a hard cap on the amount of money a nation can have on hand at any given time and jack up the prices of infra beyond 3k so you stop getting such powerful nations and everyone is closer in range. Consider those changes from a veteran player that quit once and plans on quitting again.

You guys are fooling no one, everyone knows we're terrible people that just want to smash stuff and gossip behind people's backs.

If this is how you feel, maybe you should take a good look inside for a bit. I don't pretend to know anything about the situations, but if they are even remotely similar to the way you explained them... then you just got baited into destroying yourselves.

Well, if this is your point then that's your prerogative. This is something that comes down to a matter of opinion. It used to be an act of war to do that and many times alliances such as NPO acted upon such aid. Massive aid falls from non-combatants still probably is in good taste and the alliance fighting the nations receiving such aid does have the right to declare on the aiders. But It's a matter of personal opinion and I've personally never seen it as something worth getting up in arms over. I have no idea how this Kashmir-Kaskus thing came about, both sides seem to blame eachother which is the typical thing. But considering Kaskus attacked us so that their 200k+ nations could hit our upper tier and those nations left... Kaskus doesn't seem to have a firm grip on their own reality right now. Also, it's never been a crime to help an ally whether the CB was valid or not. Allies are allies, whether you like what they did or not. You sort out that mess after the war if you disagree with what they did.

Doornail, we've been friends for a long time. But I honestly have no idea what you're getting on about here and I suspect most of us at tJL don't either. There are no grand political overtones to this war to have a morally correct or morally wrong side. There is no right or wrong. Just as their shouldn't be anyways. Do you think we aren't aware that we've attacked a bigger alliance in Legion that is a part of a coalition infinitely larger than the side we're on and as such have a high chance of being dogpiled? Do you think that for some reason we're going to be unfair/unreasonable to SRA? If an alliance wants out of a war all they have to do is approach leadership and call it quits at any time on either side. Although SRA seem to be quite the competent bunch and have no need for this as they're in it for their allies just like we are, we simply happen to be larger than them at this time (and as such we would never have declared on them solely).

Fair point. We'll give your top couple nations someone else to focus on then. At least your guy fights back hard... this Legion guy is just rolling over and doing nothing. He has 4bil in his coffers and won't even buy a soldier or two... all I wanted was the casualties.

Look out SRA, we're bringing the entire might of tJL down upon you. You will be swept away by the river of espresso and buried under mounds of coffee beans. Or maybe we'll just focus on Legion and give you guys someone to tango with so your upper tier doesn't feel so left out of the war.

I get to sack Rome again... good times.

I can only hope man. I'm done posting here (pretty sure this has been 200% my total posts the past 2 years combined already...), but the morality stuff really didn't come from me. It looked and still does, that people are trying to justify these wars based on their moral obligation to level the playing fields in TE. Mathematically it is simple. 3 opponents per 1 target = 12 nukes total used. You could attack 3 nations in a 3 x 3 war and still only 12 nukes land on both sides. Whether there are 120 nukes in the 6-nation war or 24, the same effect occurs. It's why nuke counts are overrated, you only need as many as you can fire in one war, the rest are useful for rebuilding and when SDIs/Spying become more prevalent later into the round. I've always considered spying and navy fair game (I got blockaded and the only thing I did was ask how to break them because it's been so long I forget). But I never felt spying governments was a fair tactic in war and I still don't feel that way. People are free to their opinions, it's interesting to know how the landscape has changed (note, last round was the only time I've played in probably 10ish rounds) in that regard. I'll be watching with interested eyes to see what your alliances do soon after this war. To see where the no war hypocrites are hiding and what the sides end up being.

Spying Generals is no different than Spying Nukes or Defcons. Spying government's hurts a nation's ability to recover post war. It's that simple. These guys made plenty of XP off of me to get their Generals back. Less Nukes and Navy mean nothing, again. I was being hit by 3 people with Navy. Bigger Navy or not, I wasn't able to do anything there. And Nukes can only land by one person, I did get Nuked every day regardless of who had them. The number of nations involved in this war ( OFFENSIVE ) are (im lazy to write the names ) : - RE : 3 Nations - TPC : 6 Nations - Hellas : 6 Nations - OP : 16 Nations Total : 31 Nations Strength : about 573,000 10 TPC fought, 11 Hellas, 4 RE. I can assure you more than 16 OP fought too. Do the math yourself Hart, even if the ANS wasn't 24k it was surely high enough and in large enough of fighting nations to be overkill for the aggressive alliance (don't forget, you know this as much as I do, the aggressor always has the edge). Hart, you're a good guy. You should know better that I am not posting here because I'm upset about my nation, but rather the way at which people in here are mobbing over Warriors thinking what they're doing is somehow 'right'. There are no morals to war, there is no 'you didn't fight, you're a bad person'. There is also no reason under any circumstances for people to be irresponsible in initiating wars in TE, it causes players to quit and the game to get ruined. You don't hit someone with the advantage utilized here, you don't then kick them when they are already down. And you certainly don't need to try to justify it with some pointless logic such as nuke counts or x days without warring speech. If anyone in this thread actually thinks Warriors or Defcon1 tried to go this long without a fair fight then they are wrong. Plain and simple. TPC + OP versus Warriors would have been more than enough, for the record.

The stats were posted a few pages back Hart, 31 nations with around our entire NS, that's nearly a 2:1 advantage in size. Nukes mean nothing when you only can drop 4 per war anyways. There isn't incompetence when you're facing three opponents significantly bigger and two if your squadmates aren't even fighting. Then you go on to get your government spied so that you can't even try to recover post war. This feels personal, every bit of it. I haven't fought a war in a long time where so many nations were having their government's spied, it's a dirty tactic used by people with grudges and it has always been that way. To use it in wars you have such a heavy advantage is even worse. TPC, Hellas and RE get to keep the bulk of their alliances behind the 'we fought' tagline and stack up their forces while Warriors get put out to pasture due to the 'You guys weren't fighting' tagline. Anyone in this game knows that week 3 wars aren't that devastating and those XP for Generals probably made them profitable actually.

The forces used to attack us were A. Active nations (the number not fighting for us is frankly absurd) and B. Had full complements of Generals (greater income and warring capacity) and ultimately C. Were 2x the average NS of the nations attacked in Warriors. It was not this big disadvantage being made out to be and whomever we had attacked would still have been at an advantage as there was no individual alliance we could have hit. But this war looks more personal than anything else from what I can tell.

Can't speak for what anyone else had, but getting down declared on by 3 nations during update usually doesn't leave much room to not be anarchied, even if you have max troops, soldiers and GCs/Barracks. I can't be on at update to watch my nation, and I'm fine being hit/anarchied. Doesn't matter, just pixels. But ever since I started playing TE the same line has always been used in this game and people always try to take the moral high ground in wars. I was just hoping that after coming back last round and taking a hiatus for awhile things might have changed... I see they did not.

So basically what you're saying is you attacked us with nearly 2x the average NS (spreading your nations to 3 attacking slots, but anarchying at a rate of 50% preventing many defensive slots) and held the bulk of all alliances but OP back to get 2+ weeks of no war so that when they fight next time your alliance with be much stronger, the same problem that the Warriors supposedly were hit for? It doesn't matter how long you've not been able to fight when the odds are that stacked against you.

Looking around at the war slots, I see about a 40% NS advantage to the other side in nearly every single slot in my area. Awesome example of "They aren't warring, so let's down declare and really do some damage" when in reality this is the third time we've been unable to get a war in because something happens the day or day before... People just need to say they wanted to destroy an alliance and stop dancing around the morality of it, saying we only used x nations or we only matched up with these guys or something other excuse. Plain and simple "We thought you needed to be destroyed, so we got together and decided to down declare on you all so we didn't get destroyed ourselves." Shoot, this is just a real fine example: http://tournament.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=1000099&Extended=1 How do you even want to do a down declare like that? Those guys can't fight back, hell I can barely even hit him when I've got two other nations. http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000359 20k NS and you need to down declare on 2 targets and attack a third in your range which only has 2 nukes? I'm not bitter, but it is funny to me that it takes 4 groups of alliances to down declare and call it a war. I'd much rather up declare in TE if I'm going to fight anyone (provided my squad is active)... any other reason to attack just looks weird.

The last time there were treaties in TE as far as I know, I destroyed the alliances that made them public. The OP could learn a thing or two from RE/TPC and just not openly admit they won't fight eachother.

What do you mean by early total destruction? It makes more sense just to put a war threshold to be in the running. Aka, average damage excluding people with less than five total wars during the round's duration. It's what statisticians do all the time to exclude outlier data and it ensures that the winners have dealt an overwhelmingly large amount of data throughout the round rather than in one or two incidents. It also discourages raiding since raiders will now have a disproportionately low damage dealt and put them out of the running early on.

The only thing that needs to change is that the award should be based on the average damage of each war a nation engages in during the round. Last round I averaged over 10k per war, only two of my wars were outside of the top 100 rankings. But the award is just another system gaming where you save up your money as long as possible, find a willing partner (or in some nation's situation, ask a friend to leave your AA and fight you) and then rebuild all fight while starting with 1k+ tech and a WRC. Boom, you hit 30k+ damage between the two of you and have a good chance of winning. Meanwhile real people fighting all round don't have a shot because they're taking aggregate damage over the entire round and constantly rebuilding, rather than blowing their load in one shot. The destruction title is a great addition, but it isn't being acquired properly.

Eh, I guess I can get along with these people. But it won't be easy.

I didn't mean leave for good. Now only Aperture will get to enjoy the comfort of my soldiers.

You built up your troops after my war screen said 90%... go back to your chess game and let me demolish your nation. Jeez.