Monty of the Herm

I know that you can speed up the process by using donations, at the same time donations increase nations' NS into realms where they can be easily beatdown by superior older nations in wars. so there are pros and cons to that approach as well, so I just made that statement for an average nation who doesn't utilize donations in their development, but I didn't specifically state that in my original post. Even so it'll still take nations somewhere from 15-18 months if they're really efficient in their nation development and utilize donations effectively (I'm factoring in the fact that most times wonder cycles get extended because unless nations have massive war chests they can't really afford to maintain a consistent wonder cycle through wars.)

I really see this as an argument made from a very limited perspective from someone with not very much experience in the game. When anyone starts to play CN it requires a lot of time and patience going through a lot of boredom because there's only so much you can do within the mechanics of the game to grow your nation and whatnot. It's why there's so much put into what alliances do outside of the actual game mechanics because it's extremely boring otherwise. Really the main thing that slows nations' growth within CN isn't the price of tech deals, but the limiting time factor of only being able to buy one wonder every 30 days. That means to get the basic, non-prerequisite wonders plus a couple of simple prerequisite wonders (ie the SDI and National War Memorial) it takes a nation in a warring alliance over two years of playing CN just to get the basic wonders. To really grow and develop more tech, land, and infra means younger nations grow into NS ranges where they are in range of nations with pretty much all the wonders just sitting and waiting to wreck younger nations in war because they have a lot more money, and wonders than younger nations do which gives them a decisive advantage on the battlefield. There are certain aspects about your nation Scolar Visari which you've developed that have unnecessarily inflated your nation's NS which at the same time enables larger nations to destroy your nation even more in war. I'm currently the largest my nation has ever been in terms of infra, and will soon surpass the strongest I've ever been without even being militarized at around 75k NS. It has taken me almost six and a half years of actively developing my nation, growing, and working within my alliance to get to this point, and it'll probably be another year or so before I get to the point where I can afford to get some of the higher pre-requisite wonders. That's over seven years of actively playing CN and being attentive to nation development the majority of the time. Granted in most wars my alliance ends up being in a major front of most conflicts which results in us having to fight for long periods on a regular basis which slows development, but the point is is even without fighting on a regular basis it still takes several years for nations to develop fully, in terms of wonders, within CN. And that's not because they're getting less money in tech deals. Really if you want to be able to develop your nation faster you should be asking admin to change the wonder-buying time constraints within CN, but, in my experience, players who are here solely to develop their nations within the mechanics of the game don't last very long. I started out selling tech at a 3/150 rate and I still made a profit selling three of my aid slots for $3M. The going rate of 6/200 is better, as is 9/100 or 9/200. Just by increasing the limits on aid slot usage admin has made tech dealing more profitable, and accelerated nation development. The real issue, as I already said, is the time it takes to develop all the wonders.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to what occured on the battlefield. The way peace is settled doesn't determine the victor. Also technically it's not a completely white peace since there is the single term that the Super Cereal Coalition cannot aid or rejoin the conflict in any way, shape or form. That simple term is enforcible, and the same term is not imposed on the other coalition either showing which side won in the end.

You clearly didn't read Tywin's post I quoted or my response to it so I'll show you directly what I was saying since clearly you didn't get it... Tywin said this: He, by his own volition, is choosing to not develop his nation out of the lower tier. I simply was pointing out that people would possibly minimally take him seriously if he actually lead his "crusades" from the front by growing to a point where he could have some skin in the game, and actually be somewhat relevant in his "crusades" he constantly blathers on about. Otherwise all his talk is, as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Hence why most people, even many in his won coalition choose to ignore his blathering. Edit: Grammar.

So then why are you whining so much about upper tier politics and maneuvering if you're content to stagnate in the lower tier? If you're serious about your issues you'd put some skin in the game by growing your nation into the tiers you're lambasting and fight them. As it is you're as irrelevant as ever. Edit: spelling.

Not really I was just pointing out the utter fallacy in the statement you made in the post I replied to. You can't make generalizations like that about coalitions of this size, and to claim that warring alliances are "pixel hugging" is really laughable. Edit: Grammar

You do realize you're saying that about a coalition with the two largest mass-recruitement alliances in the game in this coalition right? One of which has the most casualties of any alliance in the game because we've been using "pixel-hugging" tactics throughout our existence. So you're logic is a bit faulty there.

So then why are you attacking the oppressed "DBDC slave nations" if they are simply victims of DBDC "oppression"? That's not very constructive to build order.

You should demand reps! Clearly they have to be punished for such tactics!

That's what I just said, that's not a war "turning" from one side to another. We thought we were in a place of strength which was clearly a facade and we did nothing to strengthen our position diplomatically in the buildup to the war. We simply were made aware of just how cornered and isolated we became by our own hubris, nothing "turned". Karma/Armageddon was another war that was determined before the first shots were fired due to the buildup and the actions or inaction by us and our allies and the Karma Coalition. We were extremely oblivious to our position in terms of FA leading up to Karma/Armageddon. In the five plus years since the treaty web has become a construct that makes conflicts extremely predictable and so what this "brave new age" Karma issued in created such stagnation within conflicts and so you have the predictability we see now. Karma/Armageddon was the last conflict of a different era in CN so it's not really comparable now in terms of the way CN is played. The only real things you can look at that are relevant now are the sheer scope and damage done back then due to the game being 3x the size it is now in terms of players, and the fact that some alliances still hold long term grudges that date back to Karma/Armageddon or earlier.

At what point did the war turn? We took a stand it gave the coalition who had formed against us and our allies the opportunity to roll us. We did little to no work diplomatically prior to Karma/Armageddon and found ourselves in a facade of strength and didn't work diplomatically to get out of the corner we went into. Subsequently when we gave Karma the opening they needed they took it and rolled us. There was no turn in that war. Also for the record IRON fought along our side in Karma/Armageddon, a losing war, which apparently your friend Daenerys forgot about.

I was just making a side comment to WC's reply based off of what you were saying, which seemed to me, to be focusing on current circumstances instead of considering historical context or behavior as well. When clearly they weren't talking about specifics, but a more broad history in their posts. Edit: Grammar.

I wasn't asking you to cheer for it just recognize reality for once.

You do realize that we only had a -784,098.11 damage differential in the Disorder War when your coalition had 3 to 1 odds against us for well over four months. If you don't consider your coalition to have been a strong one then that's on you. Now that things have changed, in the first few weeks of this war, we're already at a 2,063,158.52 damage differential. In four months of fighting your coalition managed to barely out damage us by just over 750k NS in the first four weeks of this war we're about to triple that output. Edit: Grammar

aka one fight doesn't make the man.

That sounds like what used to be said back in the day between Polar and Pacifica. Also I don't see it being maintained since Reavers, by their very nature, reave everything indescriminately so you're on their hit list it just may be extremely low on it.

You realize you just called Vladimir a heretic right? I guess if that's what you think then you holding him up as the standard as far as Francoist thought isn't exactly what you make it out to be. Because clearly you both have very different ideas on the subject and how the Order has advanced in it's Francoist traditions.

I'm pretty sure we stomped Sparta pretty bad in our skirmish with them right after Dave's War too. ;)

Good to see you around old friend. Have fun with your wars I know you will!

As was already stated this is a recognition of hostilities, the Sandstorm Confederacy attacked us. We are simply taking an active role in this conflict now as requested by our allies.

No. It is simply a factor, and Dajobo said as much at the time. I just used it as an example because, as he said at the time in the post he quoted from our forums, that he wanted to end the grudge that had been festering for years. And as far as I can tell he feels that that was done in the last war.

No. This entire part of the discussion began because Schattenman asked me to give him an example of how actions from the ancient past have long term consequences to this very day in CN, I simply pointed to the fact that Polar used the last war, partially, to hash out an ancient grudge their older members had with us. From there it turned into a bunch of denials on your side, and us pointing out specifically where it had been explicitly stated at the time by Polar leadership. I didn't start the discussion to hash out what happened last war, I just used it as an example to make a point. And this is the trainwreck a simple example turned into even though Schattenman didn't argue the validity of the example when I responded to him which says a lot.

We've never said it was a majority within Polar, or that it was the primary reason for the war, but it was a motivating factor in the war for your comrades which you can't isolate from the rest of your alliance's outlook. As such a long-held grudge, albeit by a minority, was a motivating factor for rolling us last war, and as such the last war was, partially, a long term consequence for actions our forebears took long ago, and as Tywin pointed out a similar thing may be being hashed out again in this war on another front. So that just goes to show that it is a norm for such issues to be hashed out on the battlefield over and over again.

That's my point actions in the distant past have had long term consequences two examples being the grudge between Polar and Pacifica being settled finally, last war, and whatever the Gramlins thing is this war, and there have been plenty of other examples from every corner of the treaty web. My point was there is no moral high ground to call out one side or the other on the issue settling long-held grudges has been a motivating factor in CN wars for a very long time and I doubt will end anytime soon. I'm not trying to claim any greater point on this issue just trying to cut out the bull, and hypocracy on the issue.

I edited it for that reason. :P