Jump to content

CubaQuerida

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,041

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by CubaQuerida

  1. Prodigal Moon

    Posted

    I'm with Kingzog, the only reason I RP in any form is to attempt to avoid penalties like warns and to not look like I can't follow rules.

    As for the RPing of sociopaths, that's not quite how it works for me/DBDC. We have an aggressive playstyle in a game that's conducive to talking things out and playing nice. I get the same reaction in Civilization V when all the AI players hate me for being a warmonger.

    For me there's quite a distinction between not having any concern for what happens to others and trying to improve my own position. Do the two goals very constantly line up with each other. Yep. Is that why I do it? Nope.

    I've long stated that DBDC has friends and we'll defend and support those friends until we are unable. And even at that point, we'll still try. We play a very violent style of game, where every move is calculated and intentional and we play with no room for failure. It's not a style that many want to follow, so to ask for a "global response" is a bit much, considering the method of attack you would need to counter us is not a global prerogative.

    You don't have to be a raider to be our friend. We appreciate many aspects of AA's that don't align with our own values. ODN is not aggressive at all, but they are loyal. Umbrella is not chaotic, but they are skilled fighters and nation builders. Gramlins is not particularly relevant but they represent the spirit of DBDC, at least in a past life. I can go on and on about how our allies are good fits for us, not perfect, but complementary.

    It's not intentional to RP the villain, though we seem to be embracing that role with both arms. It's more that we have found a way to dominate the small niche of game we like best, namely big destruction and war/raiding.

    Something about the top end of games is attractive to me and my kind, and you would be shocked at the synergy we have in group discussions, but more shocked at the dissonance of opinion on almost every issue. DBDC is in itself a compromise, but everyone has a voice and we all listen to each other. There is a trust like no other AA I've ever seen and there's really no other home for us now that we've staked our claim as DOOMBIRDS.

    Apologies for making this all about myself, it seems like that's where the blog was headed. I'll happily rejoin less DBDC-centric discussion when it occurs.

  4. Ogaden

    Posted

    I don't think the problem is the amount of treaties, the problem is that they then ignore those treaties when they mean they'll have to go against the coalition strategy, I believe if everyone followed their treaties to the letter it would make for far more interesting wars.

    I think DBDC might attempt this if it ever presented itself. It's coming.

    (Technically we tested it on umbrella during disorder but there was no official treaty at that time)

  7. HM Solomon I

    Posted

    I rather enjoyed reading this analysis, but it seems outdated. Our situation, as TB alluded, is quite stable. We have a solid NS base, not unconquerable, but substantially larger than our imaginary opposition. We have been for some time quite aware of the political landscape, and notably the scenarios that would lead to our demise. It's in every AA's best interest to keep itself protected from imminent demise, and we have many defenses to that.

    I disagree with your premise that we need to constantly raid to stay ahead of our competition. Our raids have been done with just as much intent of destruction as they were to grow our nations in a land sense. This leads me to conclude that your analysis is quite astute, but just somewhat uninformed and too narrow in its scope.

    The dismantling of our allies as you allude is not a feasible FA plan in any sense. Even among non-allied alliances there is considerable common opposition to us just from our blatant disregard of the 'old rules' and 'traditions'. If we were to set a precedent of dropping our allies and then subsequently attacking them for no other reason than cannibalism, we would lose a tremendous amount of credibility and respect across the board.

    Though we are more free to act outside of our treaty web than most any other alliance out there, that doesn't afford us the ability to act like brute morons with no plan. We know what we're doing, and we'll be just fine.

  13. Stewie

    Posted

    Gramlins were the precursor to the current DBDC. In my opinion they could have exacted whatever political goals they wanted if they were just somewhat bigger, NS-wise.

    I've long feared that internal civil war inside DBDC would be our greatest threat, and we are not without structure. We are however fairly like-minded in our play styles so it's easy to move in more or less one direction.

    As to whether others will follow in the structure set forth by OBR and DBDC I doubt it, except in the form of a temporary anti DBDC coalition designed to eliminate us once and for all.

    But it won't be successful.

  14. Stewie

    Posted

    Chaining in alliances has been normal long before this war. Kind of getting tired of that party line being thrown around. There was a reason why MnDoAPs starting becoming the norm. Chaining in was becoming normal so treaties evolved that allowed an alliance to forego a chain in if they did not want to.

    I also agree with the premise that the vast majority of wars centered around "you are a potential threat, you will be eliminated" reason. The UjW is a perfect example of this.

    Also, DBDC has treaties ties as is evidenced by this war. They are purposefully engaging in the coalition opposite of NG. To an extent, they are doing the same thing as they would have done if they stayed in NG, Basically listening to an "idiot with a small nation".

    Sure, they are avoiding hitting certain nations but overall, they have hit any nation above a certain NS on the opposing side. As it stands, there is nothing different being done in this war even with the inclusion of DBDC.

    Now, if DBDC just hit whoever, regardless of coalition side, then yes, that would be different.

    So evolution? No. More of the same just in a slightly different style.

    I rather like this assessment. We never claimed not to have friends, though, and inevitably those friends will reside in some alliance or another. We've stayed true to our belief of not fighting wars we don't support for the sake of another's contrived agenda. That will continue to be our guiding principle into the next era of battle, but we'd be foolish to think we can take on all of planet bob by ourselves, fun as it sounds.
  15. Malik Shabazz

    Posted

    The sheer amount of energy, coordination and planning needed to get DBDC to where it is now would astound you. We didn't happen to become an elite alliance, we made it that way, and may have started our own revolution to get there. The only uncheckable 'powers that be' are neutrals and good luck with that. Any other alliance, mine included, is just as susceptible to lopsided war and political isolation.

  16. jerdge

    Posted

    It depends on the alliance. Currently none actually follow this practice, except perhaps OBR. Everyone else is either decidedly neutral or plays the domino game. Frankly the reason is probably because it makes things interesting. As much as people pretend otherwise, anyone not in a neutral alliance these days essentially declares that they love war, and they don't want to be left out of all the global power plays. If they wanted to just build nations, then of course following your treaty advice or having none at all is the way to go.
    DBDC follows this tactic to the letter.
  19. Louis XVI

    Posted

    So pure coincidence that within 15 minutes of GOP declaring war, Rooman was already bragging about VEs support and he even referenced umbrella. Just because its not asked publicly doesn't mean there aren't pages upon pages of back channel whining and pleading from TDO.

    And just because you pre arrange it doesn't mean you yourself didn't ask for backup. How do you stand being a neutral, good god? It's like the u.s. senate with all its hypocrisy and inaction.

  21. Enamel32

    Posted

    Speaking of getting out of threads, if you're gonna use my comments, take them at face value, and don't try to put a propagandist spin on them. There is zero correlation between my damage output and the grave concern I have over the long-term stability of my alliance and allies.

    I'm flattered that you think enough of my comments' weight to headline this rant, but if it's just gonna be a conjecture-fest to follow, with no basis for reason, please don't quote me anymore.

×
×
  • Create New...