sir pwnage

I tried, but I wasn't a lolcommie in 07 so I'm inexperienced.

Are you at all familiar with Leftists like... at all?

I can't remember if you're the commies I like or not. I've decided not. I hope you burn.

Are you taking applications for senators? If not, not interested.

I've already got plenty of all those things. What do you have in the way of free tech?

It's a pleasure to be here.

Wait, so if I photoshop INT's flag into a triangle, we become a member?

I'd join an active alliance but the only one I know of is Umbrella and they're full of smelly people. How do you recommend I proceed in that case?

I came back because of the extra money. So +1 for this idea, I guess.

Things haven't been going nearly badly enough to indicate that you've been involved. Sci, don't talk to me. You killed my trade circle. Traitor. You guys want to start trouble, fine. But come up with your own damn name, you lazy shiznos.

I mean, sure. Trotsky won't last two weeks anyway, everyone else... well, I've only heard rumors of your incompetence. Oh, except Tehmina. I couldn't put it better than Craig so I'll let his post speak for me. Let's see, am I forgetting anything... Oh yeah. The guy who asked how large my warchest was. Hi. Please try something. We've got some pretty thirsty nations in the 126k range.

Jumped on? Please, we STARTED that bandwagon. We've been fighting MCXA since WAY before it was cool. I think we fought GDA and NSF too.

Probably a bit generous, actually.

Feels good to be fighting beside my allies in NoR again. Wait. ODN. I meant ODN. :ph34r: Anyway, what kind of smack talk is happening in this thread? Is it the kind where I post my casualty count or the kind where I post how long it's been since I was in peace mode? Or do I post the charts of how much damage I've dealt vs. received? Someone let me know, I'll get right on it. Unless of course we're being civil right now, but given the amount of Tywin posts I have very deliberately not seen, I doubt it.

Really? I feel like we fought MCXA like 3 times in a row. Maybe that was forever ago, but still; a streak is a streak.

This world needs fewer commie alliances, not more. There can only be one.

Is it me, or does this skip directly from Karma to the TOP-Polar treaty? And skip like... what, four years?

No. No no. No no no. No.

Nice to see that the thrashing woke NoR up FA wise.

The forums appear to have re-broken themselves.

Shoutout to Agha Petros Elia. Those were a solid 4 rounds we fought. Also, Jesse James of Van Hoy, nice fighting alongside you. Melos, you're cool too I guess.

Wow, we're last on the list? Umbrella, I didn't know how much you cared :wub:

Clash, technically Schatt isn't on La Marx's side. He's just not on our side. "You all clearly know more than me, so let's have a debate based on our feelings instead of facts."

Your AA sounds lame. Also, I fail to see what's so Stalinist about our direct democracy. Just because we all think your ideas are idiotic doesn't make us Stalinist. You're the one who tried to sign a non-aggression pact with the Germans.

See, you say you have experience on this planet, then you say things like this. Let me break it down for you: A very significant portion of damage during wars is done in the upper tier. In addition, funding FROM the upper tier is what causes a great deal of the damage dealt in the lower tier. The upper tier more than the lower tier is the deciding factor in MOST wars. And even in wars where the losing side had an advantage in the upper tier (EQ), the presence of a strong upper tier still had a dramatic impact on how the war played out. From this we reach the conclusion that having superiority in the upper tier is of the utmost importance in fighting a war. Now, wars in the upper tier are, by and large, decided by who has the advantage in technology. More tech = more damage, and the person who wins is the person who does the most damage. Other factors like warchests and numerical superiority can factor in as well, but a nation with 10k tech and any amount of money is a serious threat, whereas a nation with 1000 tech and 5 billion dollars is just an annoyance. So from this we conclude that having more technology is beneficial to an alliance in times of war. So let's look at your proposal. You would have us do 12/100 tech deals. Which means that, with full slot efficiency, an INT nation would be taking in 600 tech per month, or 7200 tech per year. For that tech, the INT nation pays 864 million dollars. Now, that's far from terrible in a vacuum, but this is not a vacuum. Other alliances do either 6/100 deals or 6/200 deals. A nation doing all 6/100 deals at full efficiency gets 1800 tech every two months, or 10,800 tech per year. That nation would pay 648 million dollars for that technology. A nation doing 6/200 deals gets 1200 tech per month or 14,400 tech per year. This nation sends out 432 million dollars per year. Now, let's take INT and two hypothetical alliances with similar stats, the only difference being that we do 12/100 deals, alliance B does 6/100 deals, and alliance C does 6/200 deals. Let's say each alliance has 80 nations, 40 sellers and 40 buyers, all of which are active. After a year, alliance B's upper tier, the tech buying nations, have 216 million more dollars EACH, and 3600 more tech EACH. Across the entire alliance, they have 8.64 BILLION more dollars, and 144,000 more tech. Alliance C will have 432 million more per nation and 7200 more tech. Multiply by 40, that's 17.3 billion more dollars and 288,000 more tech. These two alliances have a considerable military advantage on INT at this point, and in a fight with them, we would lose. Hard.* But wait! You say. Our smaller nations would be bigger! See, that doesn't actually matter. After they were done ravaging our upper tier, alliances B and C would each be able to down declare on these built up tech sellers. They would have an even larger technology advantage, massive amounts of cash on hand, and would have just gotten done with a pretty easy fight against our upper tier. In addition, they would be able to send out money and soldiers to the smaller nations in their respective alliances to aid in those nations' fights. Our nations would be outclassed at every turn, and we would be defeated. In addition, as has been mentioned, under your plan nations would not remain sellers for long. So after about 6 months, suddenly instead of a nice 40/40 split of buyers and sellers, we have a 60/20 or 70/10 split instead. Now what? We can't operate at full slot efficiency due to a lack of sellers, which means we take in even LESS tech per month. We could try to buy from other alliances, but most alliances are looking to increase their seller base, not let other people access it. Keeping full slot efficiency with that kind of ratio is almost impossible without a highly dedicated economic team working literally every day to find sellers. Even then, we would probably need a GOONS-Umbrella-esk relationship with a lower ANS alliance to maintain high aid slot efficiency. All of this means that we're going to be even MORE disadvantaged in a time of war. The point of all of this is that yes, your proposal would harm INT. It would directly inhibit our ability to fight in wars in our own defense or the defense of our allies. It would cause us to take more damage each war than we otherwise would. It would cause us to deal less damage to our enemies. Your idea is bad. *All of this assumes a magical land in which seller nations have Disaster Relief Agencies. Shhhhh.