Vhalen
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vhalen
-
-
Rogues are different from people who are on different AA's.
Rogues, like HOT here, attacks in violation of policy.
Our boys on different AA's are members of our alliances, and everyone knows that.
If they weren't, Umbrella would be attacking them. ;)
-
So there is something specific about my nation which is different to the majority of nations in my alliance which makes it a non quality nation? Given I have one of the highest tech nations in my alliance, with a full set of wonders and navy, please pray tell what might these differences between my nation and the rest be?
Just call me when you start making sense.Would you like me to fetch your pills? Maybe call a wambulance?Your nation does kind of smell funny.
-
I take a break to enjoy the carnival and when I come back people destroyed the thread, shame on you people.
At least you have the sense not to act surprised.
-
We are not required to nuke BIBO signatories however we are allowed to use them if we see fit.
Hmm...well, your BIBO text certainly sounds more like "nukes will be used" than this. I guess I can put it down to poor phrasing. Admin knows THAT wouldn't be a CN first.
Q:
NPO - your side
IRON - your side
Sparta - your side
Gre- your side
MCXA - your side
MHA - your side
Valhalla - merged into AI, your side
NATO - your side
TPF- your side
OG - neutral and inactive
FOK - roughly merged into NG, our side
TOP - our side
1V:
NPO: your side
IRON: your side
GGA: disbanded
NpO: your side
MCXA: your side
The concept that they will be replacing is ridiculous. The concept that they are attempting to, however, isn't.
Sure, just gloss over the important bits. ;)
-
I fail to see the morality discussion at hand when discussing.
This pact is signed by a majority of Umbrella, just because other alliances and admin fail to recognize our pacts doesn't mean they don't exist. Therefor you are infringing on our rights to attack BIBO signatories. No where in the game is it required that you nuke people you are at war. If you want to debate whether or not Umbrella was slot filling go forth and accuse us of it I honestly don't care, but the facts are we will continue to enforce BIBO as we see fit even if our wars are continue-sly deleted under false premises. Until war slot filling is outlined and defined with a policy I will continue to inform you that Umbrella didn't do anything wrong regarding attacking Puppets since there is no policy to enforce with regards to the matter. By definition of a war as long as we inflict damage to Puppets in any form it is therefor a valid war.
If you want to actually turn this into a morality debate then the question at hand is as follows;
It's always wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue.
OR
It's never wrong when the rogues previous alliance attacks said rogue.
Edit: It doesn't vary by alliance since this is a morality debate. If this was an anthropological point of view then sure we could bring cultural variances brought by alliances into the debate.
The question at hand with war slot filling also hasn't been answered at all since we have yet to determine at what point a war stops becoming slot filling and starts becoming an actual war. Does it require one ground attack to be considered a war? Does it require two ground attacks to be considered a war? Does it require just one air attack to be considered a war? Or maybe two air attacks? Just because we may or may have not done the bare minimum when it comes to attacking Puppets doesn't make it an invalid war.
However this discussion is irrelevant with the current war since answering the problem wouldn't change the current outcome of what has already happened.
As far as this goes, I'm far enough removed that I don't really give a rat's posterior, but I presume it was considered slot filling because there weren't nukes in play?
Your quote about BIBO, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from my quotomat, says: "Signatories of it agreed to receive nukes if they ever chose to leave Umbrella." Since you can't aid people nukes, this seems pretty clear. Am I missing something?
-
I would agree, but then saw Ubuntu's posts.
Have we ever had a war where both sides did not claim the were winning according to some nations personal story, NS range tactic , nuke count, active nations, tactics etc? I mean reading this thread is like reading the debate about who is winning the NSO Kaskus war. In the end all this talk means nothing. The results will be seen on the battle field. What nobody can deny is it will be a very different Planet Bob when its over and maybe a much more intresting one.
These two quotes go together, because if anybody's winning this war through sheer entertainment value, it's Ubuntu.
o/ Interesting character play!
Of all the terrible arguments we have seen put forward in CN (not many in this thread TBQH), the bragging about "deletions on the other side" is one of the worst. Any player that decides to leave the game because CN politics ruined her/his gameplay* is a loss we should all be sorry for, not something to go around gloating about.
* Did a share of those deleters just fail to participate in the politics side of the game? Probably. The ideal solution would have been to have them involved rather than thrown out like that, though.
You, sir, are too wise for this thread. Pack up your things. Off you go, now. ;)
-
This is a blatant lie, lol. Unless you count switching AAs repeatedly "deleting".
Nah, I call that "deserting," but I'm sure deserters call it something else. ;)
-
It really isn't, because you only need one nuclear weapon a week to keep a nation in nuclear anarchy and unable to benefit from collections. Once in bill lock, you and your nuclear weapons are dead weight, and DH nations are free to keep targeting you, expanding out of 'sniper' mode (3 defensive wars, 1 offensive war) to continue the bill lock. And nuclear weapons cost quite a bit to upkeep, as does infrastructure. Your folks can't sell their infra, either, because then they'd be out of range.
This is a warchest and aid chain battle, plain and simple. Nobody (on either side) seems terribly interested in posting their warchest spy results here, though. I see a lot of bluster in these threads from both sides without any of the important information backing it up.
Assuming immediate bill lock strikes me as awfully optimistic. It's pretty difficult to keep a nation in nuclear anarchy when the other side has the numbers and nukes advantages, and you yourself are in nuclear anarchy. Who's going to declare the next war? The "numbers game" is pretty simple, honestly. One side gets to collect out of nuclear anarchy, and it's not the side with the smaller numbers.
As for WC/aid, as has been previously pointed out, 60k is the same as 160k (or for that matter, 360k) so far as aid goes. If, as you propose, this war is going to be settled by aid, you'd think that would come down to simple numbers as well.
-
there will not be a single EQ nation over 110k when all is said and done. This is not propaganda or idle threat, this is a certainty
This is almost certainly false. There's no way one of these bazillion alliances doesn't have someone over 110k sitting in PM with a crappy WC or RL obligations or what have you, who'll never get hit.
I know, I know, that's not what you meant. But it's what you said. ;)
-
100k nations will get declared by our 133k nations. Your 75k nations will be declared upon by our 100k nations etcetera. Our nations will be selling of infra, decomming planes, tanks, cm's and be at 20% troops while the defending EQ nation is inflating his NS with max militairy. So there will be some brutal downdeclares. With a proper downdeclare, you will win all spy attacks, most of the navy attacks, you will win most GA, and most AC.
Also the top 250 bar keeps getting lower. It's 135k now and I expect it to drop down to 125k at least. The topnations will be ghosting and hitting any EQ nation in range and will shed NS that way which keeps them in range of other targets.
Personally I am willing to sell a lot of stuff to get in range of some targets :).You make it sound like you'll be declaring on 60k nations next week. ;)
Look, I'm not arguing that it's impossible for high end nations to downdeclare, just that it's going to be harder to find targets where they won't end up wasting a lot of resources and climbing down into the grinder. (I grant you, I'm not sure how heavy the middle-high imbalance is, but it seemed to be about 4-5 to 1.)
In your particular case, I suspect the top 250 bar will find itself clogged by neutrals and noncombatants pretty soon. Barring an unprovoked war on GPA/etc, you'll have to sell off more than tanks and planes. If you dump navy to declare, you basically concede the seas to your opposition, and battle support does a lot to counter the other guys' tech disadvantage. If you dump a bunch of infra, don't expect to win too many GAs. I guess you could buy it back after you declare, but frankly, the amount of WC you'd tear through for a significant sell/buyback, one could argue that the other side won that fight before it began.
IMO, you're also painting a rather rosy picture of downdeclares. The "top end" nations ideally want to pick and choose their opponents, rather than dipping down and getting caught in a constant numbers grind. And keep in mind that infra comes back a lot easier/faster than tech. A prolonged "siege" of the top end threatens to end how all sieges do. The guys in the castle starve.The Umbrella nation is likely going to have favorable damage modifiers over the midtier nations they face (more tech and the WRC military wonder) than some, if not all, of their targets. That means over one round of war, the Umbrella nations would fire much more powerful nukes (and they can hit 3 people with a nuke for every nuke they take), do more damage on air strikes, etc. Basically the first three midtier nations sent in to attack an Umbrella nation would suffer greatly. The next three would suffer less since the Umbrella nation would have less tech in the second round, etc. The issue is how many rounds it takes to get rid of that tech advantage Umbrella has and how gutted your mid tier is in the process. Plus of course the issue of politically will. There is also the question of political will since whichever nations are tasked with orders to be in the first wave have to be nations who will let months of work be blown away just to do moderate damage to some giant tech stockpile.
In on example, you have a large nation with ~10k tech but you've clearly lost a sizable amount of NS due to having infra blown away. So if you're sent in on an Umbrella nation you can be joined by two 'natural' 70k nations. That is nations who started the war at 70k as opposed to bigger nations who were ground down. Take corey faith of your alliance as a potential example of a natural 70k. He only has 2.2k tech. You'll likely do comparable damage to the Umbrella nation (and be the person firing nukes at the Umbrella nation due your tech), but corey is likely going to fair badly in terms of the air force, nuclear, and cruise missile exchange. Even worse if you run short on nukes and corey has to take over nukes, you're hitting the Umbrella nation with a nuke backed by 2k tech and he's handing out nukes with 10k tech worth of damage modifiers.
"Over one round of war" is the key phrase here. That's the short term, and obviously what DH would prefer. Given how CN wars tend to go, however, it's rather foolish to draw conclusions based on the short term.
Over three or four rounds of war, constantly outnumbered, the Umbrella nation will be lucky to manage to nuke one opponent a day on average (I think it's 0.8 hits if you buy two and fire both?), whereas he's guaranteed to eat one daily, and his attackers would stand to climb in total nuke count by war round's end. The Umbrella guy either has to distribute damage and affect his targets much less overall than he hoped, or concentrate it and affect most of them not at all. And unless he burns billions rebuying infra to retain a size advantage, he doesn't stand to win many ground battles after the first couple of days. Even then, any coordination at all will have him taking regular GA hits, and the later-round attackers would be able to pick and choose who fights. Basic numbers game.Edit: Indian Bob summed up a lot of what I'd written, but I didn't feel like rewriting it, so there ya go. ;) Also, I don't mean to make it sound like a "sunshine and rainbows" proposition for either side. It's a matter of who's more willing to get thrashed, I think. IMO, it's in Umbrella's best interests to conclude hostilities as quickly as possible, retaining the massive up-front damage they put in, while avoiding the grind.
Edit2: Furthermore, at least this war's providing an interesting and different situation from most past ones, huh? I think we can all agree on that.
-
BTW, maybe at this moment NPO/DR are taking more casualties (I don't know, from Gopher's statics I'd say AI is taking the bigest hit in the Equilibrium's side), but when (if) the war reaches the point in which the high-tier bar has been lowered under 100k NS, then probably SF/XX will be the ones taking the blunt of the fight.
Getting back to the subject of the threat a little:
When (if) the war reaches the point where the high-tier bar has been lowered under 100k NS, Umbrella's top end will have essentially been removed from the fight, no? (Yes, I know "aid," but as has been pointed out somewhere I'm too lazy to find to quote, that extra NS is irrelevant for aid purposes.) I haven't studied all this in detail or anything, so feel free to correct me if I'm way off base, but if the "mid-tier" numbers are as they've been represented, it seems like it'd turn into a pretty one-sided beatdown at that point.
-
please let this be true and i will love you forever
It's a service to the global community.
-
Double check your math.
Didn't do any, just checked the alliance roster list and the war list. It was meant to be a quick quip, not an in-depth analysis.
However, I suspect the variance can be attributed in part to AA nameswapping, which I didn't take into account, because, as I said, I didn't put that much effort into this.
-
Great blitz, guys.
I'm not gonna check on a nation by nation basis, but with 83 war mode nations and 250 wars, I'm sure Umbrella has lots of free slots left to blitz. ;)
-
Wait, I'm a'sposta keep track of names and dates?
I'm lucky if I know what alliance I'm in now. -
[quote name='Fyfe XIV' timestamp='1296241576' post='2607744']
Is it really necessary for VE to make an entire topic devoted to declaring on a 27 man alliance?
[/quote]
You say that like making a topic's tremendously difficult and time-consuming.
Look, I'm not judging anyone. I doubt there was a great deal of consideration given when the blog DoW was posted. IMO, we ought to all call this a lesson learned, and try to keep DoWs where DoWs traditionally go, where people look for them and expect them, rather than put them where it seems like they're hidden. It's just easier not to have to go chasing everything down in obscure corners. -
[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1293028968' post='2549979']
I haven't seen your other flag. This piece of graphics in the OP is pleasing to the eyes though. Is your official flag better?
[/quote]
I dunno. I'm not all that impressed with it, and therefore I'm withholding cake from our Betsy Ross.
[quote name='hoff10' timestamp='1293042903' post='2550182']
Is Legacy kind of a big deal?
[/quote]
I hope so. Otherwise I was misled, and I hate being misled almost as much as I hate being led in the first place. -
I know I've gotten resources that weren't perfect before, and I immediately threw my hands in the air and quit CN in frustrated fury.
Why not let you make as many nations as you want on the first day, so long as you just keep one of them? Look, randomized resources are part of the game. True, they're not all the same, but most of the bad ones aren't as bad in TE, and truly terrible combinations are few and far between. Besides, two days doesn't kill anyone. With a competent group who can help you with trades, you ought to be fine. Even without one, you don't lose much from that couple of days. I know; I've rerolled and come in 4th. -
I think you're under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of cunning plot to orchestrate an environment where I would win every round. I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion, but I regret to inform you that's not the case. You seem to think that walking away without a flag is utter failure, and because I haven't, I'm worthless.
Fact is, I barely make an effort, and certainly not a concerted one. I don't particularly expect to win. Heck, I don't know what I'd do with the flag if I got it. What I expect is to make a good showing, either by ending up with a respectable NS/rank, or by tearing a hole in everyone who fights me. My goals are fluid, and thus far, I can look at every round as it ends and come away satisfied with my showing. Assuming your goals as you present them, you've failed almost every time. Congrats.
Look, you seem to think the flag is the end all, be all of this. It isn't. My suggestion was intended to improve gameplay...you know, while people are still playing. But by all means, let's shoot everything down with bitterness and fury. I'm sure when you're the only one left, your odds at a flag will be pretty good.
As for your "education," don't worry about it. I have no desire to attend your academy. I don't want to end up bitter and miserable.
I mean, it's the sort of place where you complain an alternative would be random, then turn around and say things are unpredictable currently. Make up your mind.
Now then...on your comments about alternatives:
The element of luck can be trimmed a great deal. There's no way planes should be worth as much NS as they are. It's silly. It's "fake NS" that you get at the end of the round, and as you yourself essentially said, it's an unwarranted, unaffordable expense except when you know the round will end in 5 minutes. Make planes cheaper and worth less NS, and they'll be used more AS PLANES. Right now, they're just a silly statue. (By the way, this is a GOOD IDEA regardless of the random-end-of-round thing.)
Also, I believe I stated quite clearly (though evidently not clearly enough for you) that there's no way I would directly use casualties as a measuring stick. It's foolish, and at least as artificial as buying those last-second planes. Maybe incorporate a metric that looks at war victories per casualty count, and reward people for offense. I don't know. I just think the way it is now, there are too many glaring flaws. -
I never claimed it was "necessary," only that it would be a distinct improvement. I enjoy your personal attacks as an argument against my suggestion, however. That's quite a productive approach.
You don't think that a random end time would improve gameplay? It would take away the "last second surge," forcing those people to play for lasting strength instead of building a house of cards at the final moment (if their schedules permit them being on at update of the reset.) It would force warring alliances to think on a loose timescale instead of a rigidly defined one, thus increasing variance in play and requiring MORE strategy. (Note that I didn't even suggest it being a random time of day, though I think that'd be a fine idea as well.)
As to your "complaints" comment, Instr, if the major worry is people complaining, probably making a game on the internet was a bad idea to begin with.
And as to your final point, that war alliances want the winner to be the "best fighter-builder," I'll take your word for it. I will, however, point out that they're certainly not getting what they want, according to you. "The actual winner of the round will be, as before, the side that is most apt at staying out of warfare." Well, perhaps a semi-random end time would make it less clear how long you have to avoid warfare. I believe it would actually increase the end-of-round war's importance and give these war alliances more of what they want, forcing the eventual winner to defend himself instead of gaining a ton of NS at the very last moment, then sitting back and watching the clock roll over, as happens far too often. It certainly can't make things MORE predictable.
As an aside, I appreciate how you think personal insults aid your argument, but you're flat out wrong in that regard. As a solo player, I've come in quite high in the rankings more often than not, and I've very nearly won a few rounds, even while fighting two-week 3v1's (complete with nukes) and being unable to collect because of nuclear anarchy.
So, yeah, I'm coming from a position of experience, and I'm telling you that the end of the round is ridiculous. After 60 days of build/buy/war, suddenly you cash out millions upon millions to buy 50 CMs and a bunch of planes you'd never have wasted the cash on before, knowing they'd be nuked away. Suddenly your warchest is pointless, so you spew it forth wildly on land, infra, and tech you considered too costly until now.
Alternatives? Change the NS calculation from the ground up. Make fighting matter (and not just by counting casualties, which is a silly measurement that's far too easy to artificially inflate). Maybe count victories or something. The problem is that this sort of thing is far less simple to implement than my first suggestion, and it utterly changes the game itself. -
It seems like the first few rounds, things were wild and free. But now? Now everything's gotten so methodical and planned that it's taking all the fun out of TE. People can't just fight in the last quarter of the round. Everyone has to go after their target lists and ensure they can't collect. Forget winning battles (that's for chumps!), so long as you're nuking on the prepared schedule. Attack up, against unreasonable odds, knowing you'll get stomped (that makes sense, right?), just so long as you're dragging someone else down with you. It's about as tactical as Tic Tac Toe.
I have an idea to liven things up a little, to make rounds play...you know...DIFFERENT than each other. Many will hate it, and hopefully some will even curse my name, but I will persevere and click "Post New Topic," despite your oppression, interwebs! Anyway, here it is:
Make the end of round random. 60 +1-10 days. DON'T reveal the end date, just the range. ("This round will end between X and Y.") It messes with people's carefully calculated endgames, livens things up, probably increases activity in the late going, and certainly increases interest and attention. -
Having a ton of casualties is just a sign of military ineptitude anyway. A good commander wins without sacrificing his men unnecessarily.
-
This certainly doesn't fix everything, but:
[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1282857534' post='2432032']
Ok, I have a question. We have two major problems that most people agree on in terms of the core gameplay.
First, large nations have way too much money and very little to do with it. This leads to such problems as boredom from lack of options, wars that drag on for months because that's how long it takes for war chests to run dry, and then don't flare up again for months afterward because everyone wants to restock their cash before war kicks off again, and probably one or two other things that I'm not thinking about just off the top of my head.
Now, secondly, we have the newer nations who see the huge nations who have been around for years, figure the time investment it would take to get that big is way out of proportion for the reward of succeeding at a game they haven't invested any time in yet, and walk away before they've even gotten started.
It seems to me that the large nations have [i]too much[/i] access to money, and the new nations have [i]too little[/i] access to money.
[/quote]
I'd almost say this means foreign aid needs to be larger...but I think that'd hurt the development of middle nations. Maybe that wouldn't necessarily be all bad, though.
Still, I'd suggest more starting cash and bigger aid cash. The latter because aid limits were made back when there were a lot less zeros on bankrolls. The former? It lets young nations develop a little faster (and I can remember how slowly things went for me until I got some aid from a friend), it makes you feel like you're doing things, and so forth...and without having to join an alliance. A lot of people want to wet their feet without obligation, and CN doesn't let you do that. TE's starting cash lets you spend a little money. It lets you try things. Sure, maybe you'll be wrong, maybe you'll make mistakes, but at least you can spread your wings and try, right?
Other comments? I think a tutorial guide is a great idea, especially if it comes in an Admin message immediately on creation (because, let's be honest, who doesn't get a bunch of recruitment spam?)
Since I started writing this, I've had a few thoughts on the subjects at hand, but I unfortunately don't have the time right now (bedtime, you know) to express them. Hopefully I won't get distracted before I get back to this thread and do so...as unlikely as that sounds. -
[quote name='CubaQuerida' timestamp='1281749132' post='2415171']
What NB / Porkshrmp / BasktballN / TFD does is not war and is not in the least bit respectable. You have perpetually taken advantage of the fact that the round is only 60 days long and one nuke can disable up to 10% of a nation's collect.
Therefore you can call yourselves underdogs, non-cowards or whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you only hide for 50 days just to declare on people who are high NS, send one nuke at the 55 day mark, and then log off. I have YET to find any of these rogues worth fighting and it's just sad that TE has to come down to this rogue-witchhunt every round.
Reminds me of Al Qaida...
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, honestly I'd be surprised if you are even checking your nation or the forums at this point!
[/quote]
In my experience, the round is effectively 45 days long, and then you have a 15 day cycle where you do your best to ward off a curbstomp. You mean that's not everyone's experience? Some people get 55 days? That's just...just...unfair! Shenanigans! *grabs a broom*
Tom Riddles Membership
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Can we make this a sticky so the next ten alliances to disassociate themselves with him don't need to make their own?