lonewolfe2015

Many congrats to both alliances, good grouping here.

Not much of a hypothetical, both blocs have dedicated allies outside of their blocs which would help despite the odds. But, if I played ball, I'd say both blocs would win in the end, just as I said in the previous thread.

[quote name='Star Gazing' timestamp='1308655937' post='2737129'] P.S. Asgaard sucks. [/quote] I saw that. And I raise you one TYR sucks more!

I'm almost late to the party... [img]http://forum.cn-asgaard.com/public/style_emoticons/default/thisisasgaard.gif[/img] So yeah, mead, party, drinking... let's do this. Big props to Chesh on writing that story, you guys are missing out if you skipped over it. Man's a literary genius.

Everyone would win.

This took too long, who do I blame for that? Good to see this in writing, old friendships never die.

To be fair, there are numerous ways of solving this problem, but nothing has ever been done. Between bi-daily updates, rotating updates, etc. I personally believe each nation should be allowed to select their update time based inside perhaps 4 or 6 different "windows", you'll find this changes alliance coordination fairly well too and allows for people to not go insane staying up late. The true warriors would still win because they'd be the ones that find ways to protect themselves no matter when update is for themselves or their opponents.

[quote name='dealmaster13' timestamp='1303504398' post='2696961'] Wait, we need to clarify this. Days of nuclear anarchy without radiation clean up and a fallout shelter system: 4 Days of nuclear anarchy with radiation clean up and without a fallout shelter system: 3 Days of nuclear anarchy with a fallout shelter system and without radiation clean up: 3 Days of nuclear anarchy with radiation clean up and a fallout shelter system: ? [/quote] Well, firstly in-game it still says 5. But since he said he took a day off, it's 4 days without bonuses, 3 with a shelter or kit, 2 with both.

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1303430372' post='2695989'] If you have fallout shelters and radiation cleanup, together those reduce the effects down to just 1 day now. [/quote] Ah, that would explain things then... what a dilemma. Thanks for the change at any rate.

The -1 day on nuclear anarchy is a start, but coming from a guy who ate 10 last round that consumed probably 25 days of time on the whole, I still feel it's not enough.

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1302985853' post='2691632'] It's a problem with the system, but putting a strength cap would defeat the purpose of giving a prize to the top nation in the game. Perhaps increase the rate at which purchase costs increase at higher levels of infra/land/tech? [/quote] Still needs to be rebalanced in someway, and a strength cap might be the only valid way for admin to do it in a short amount of time. Also, +1 on the tech suggestions, but make it 75% instead of 50% original cost.

76,548 Attacking + 90,572 Defending = 167,120 Casualties Anyone around those numbers have an idea what rank that would be? Just curious, that's my round totals despite having to reroll and being under 1000 infra for much of the round. E: Congrats to going over 500k casualties

Nuclear effects need to be severely reduced as I said last round if we're going to keep going this route. They are way overpowered. Remove nuclear anarchy, and shorten it from 5 days to 3 days. Make wonders every 7 days. Either put a strength cap in game, or figure out a way to rebalance things. Nations which avoid wars all round are way too far out of range of nations that fight.

[quote name='Guppy Fish' timestamp='1302489896' post='2688257'] EDIT: And, there was an alliance war. [/quote] You raided someone and they fought back, then you proceeded to whine on the forums for a week... I think we're all just tired of hearing your almost daily casualty reports and seeing you tech raid weak nations for casualties the entire round and doing nothing of use then proclaiming you're amazing for setting a land record.

[quote name='dealmaster13' timestamp='1302509853' post='2688454'] lol... trigger fingers. Reminds me of the time I tried spying both of Baer's remaining nukes at update and he launched on inbetween the two ops which sucked :'( [/quote] Back in the old days I can't remember who it was, but a RE gov member and I were dueling and we both had one nuke on our nation. We both spied that nuke from eachother and built and fired another nuke within 30 seconds after update. Neither of us were top 5% after being hit so if anyone had been a few seconds quicker one of us wouldn't have been nuked.

Well, I wouldn't call it an 'elaborate' plan G-6, but you are currently sitting pretty in the flag race. You certainly can't be considered winners of the war however. But don't be ordering the champagne just quite yet, there's a good bit of uncertainty with the random guys sitting around I've been noticing.

I guess that's what happens when you tech raid smaller nations and force them to take peace offers or eat nukes... Call me bitter, but that's really all you did this round.

Why doesn't anyone ever declare free for alls anymore?

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1301955490' post='2684227'] The thing is, there was some manipulation behind the scenes- An attempt to get a few alliances on us. Confusion. [/quote] "The thing is" blah blah blah. You keep trying to spin anything towards me with this bloc crap, but you don't seem to enjoy mentioning you use RE and Synergy to fight us. So it was a direct result of your backroom dealing that I had to call up some friends to make sure you guys didn't continue jumping off the bridge. Although I do find it funny that DF reported back to you of all people... heh.

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1301943202' post='2684101'] If G-6 where flag runners, why would our members/leader try to bring so much attention on the alliance? You should really think these things through unless you find it difficult to think. [right][IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/kdwexg.jpg[/IMG][/right] [/quote] If G-6 weren't flag runners why would they have nations that are specifically growing outside any declaration ranges for nations to fight with and people who have intentionally avoided any situation that would put them in a difficult place for wars? G-6 attacked a target they could handle to get the heat off them early in the round for a war, then they sent their 'friends' in to soften up their competition, then they attacked their competition with their sacrificial nations in order to knock out of range anyone capable of stopping those upper tier. It's a good strategy in normal situations, one that has been used numerous times in the past. Also, anyone who posts Pork Shrimp must be bad at war is either lying on purpose, brand new to TE or highly delusional.

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1301853361' post='2683497'] [i] [/i]Well, I'm actually more than qualified to make that statement. For starters, I have never bailed on my alliance whilst in the highest leadership position, especially not an alliance I created with my own hands (saying that, I have not created my own alliance (unless co-founder counts), nor have I been in the highest leadership position of one. Yet.) and I would not dream of doing such a thing. I also wouldn't use OOC excuses to do such a thing. Additionally, I don't spontaneously leave my former alliance in a mess only to create another alliance and suddenly bring half the members from that alliance over to the new one. [/quote] Essentially all you said was that you've never done anything to prove you have any leadership traits, yes? Which would not qualify you to say if he is or isn't a very good leader unless you had first hand experience with his leadership capabilities, which you don't have either that I am aware of. If you want to bag on someone's leadership qualities, please show some of your own first. With that being said, there does need to be less new alliances made and more effort by players with desire to participate in governments learn and develop within established alliances that have the framework already. Not enough resources anymore to continue to spread them around and not consolodate a bit. Good luck.

[quote name='Hadrian' timestamp='1301851391' post='2683478'] Don't make me bring in the hard evidence here. You're a good guy, but you're not cut out for leadership. [/quote] Haven't read a single thing is this thread but happened to come right to this... May I ask what qualifies you to make this statement?

If ever there was a war that proved the futility of nukes, this has been the one.

[quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1301354085' post='2679439'] Thanks also for setting up some new 'opportunities' for OP. It's quite an honor finally fighting [i]along side[/i] LE and PS. Even though we may not have 'liked' each other at times in the past, I feel there was always and continues to be a [u]respect[/u] between our AA's. [/quote] Just noticed this. It's been a pleasure to coordinate with you guys this round. Though I won't lie, I was the first to suggest an early round war with you guys would be highly entertaining

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1301353903' post='2679435'] I am thankful to them, Especially thaisport, hisk, and you- You were all great and helped me a lot, that isn't the topic at hand, though. [/quote] It might as well be, you act like you know the answer to everything yet you have so much learning still to do. Realize when you're in over your head and be a respectable opponent, unless you're intentionally playing the bad guy card (which it is obvious you aren't) then it's not advantageous to you to continue acting all high and mighty and making claims people tried to wrong you, when all you've done this round is that which you fault your enemy's for. You claim OP takes on easy opponents? What do you claim you did this round? LE was outmatched and outgunned because you focused your fire on them (don't even mention the others you added to even the numbers, I had a few friends in those alliances tell me they didn't even get hit by G-6). You claim I tried to put a coalition on G-6? What do you claim sicking RE/Synergy on PS this round is? Don't get me wrong, we're flattered you're so concerned about us ruining your precious flag run, but it's becoming old that you don't even try to stop us yourself, you send your friends into the fire for you. Because you [i]knew[/i] if you messed with PS at any point earlier in this round we would have wrecked your flag run. So yes, this IS the topic at hand. You stick your hands into whatever you want in TE, and eventually one way or the other, the topic involves you. I learned this lesson, Tiberius learned this lesson, as did others before and after our time.