Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Schad

  • Rank
    The Gentle Sea Cow

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2
  • CN:TE Nation Name
  1. All of you stop !@#$@#$ spamming this with !@#$@#$ political drivel I swear to $%&@ some of us avoid comment sections for a !@#$@#$ reason

    1. Keelah


      You can always click the top right of the title bar of the status sidebar and it will hide this. Hope that helps!

    2. Lord Hitchcock

      Lord Hitchcock

      i agree, people spam too much

    3. BlackClown


      This is the best status update I've ever seen

  2. Caveat emptor, I suppose. A random I started a tech deal with a couple months back was several days into the process of reneging on the second tech payment when his nation disappeared. Dunno whether it was self-deletion or rules infringement, but if the latter, losing the first 100 tech in addition would've at least been a good reminder that I should stop throwing money at complete randoms and expecting anything good to come out of it.
  3. Lived in Ottawa for a bit. While driving a visiting friend around, doing the touristy thing, discovered that there is a clothing store called Schad. Damned near drove her car into the sidewalk, couldn't bring myself to explain why.
  4. But in your conception of such, those two things are almost diametrically opposed...signing a treaty (and then defending that person) is much closer to an IC value, namely the willingness to go to the wall for friends, than it is realpolitik. I also hate it when someone makes a mess of perfectly good politics because of a deep and meaningful 1am conversation about how drunk they are, but that's a whole different kettle of tipsy fish. In terms of alliances having overarching values, the biggest problem is that there are so many points of reference there. It's similar to voting; you never find a candidate whose views wholly match your own (unless you've tailored your views to fit those of your chosen candidate...good evening RON PAUL fans), necessarily leading one to compromise on some aspects. Now, multiply that by a factor of "enough to get !@#$ done", particularly once the need to work with the allies of allies comes into play, and you have a melange of often-contradictory beliefs and goals that simply cannot be contained by a coherent statement of values. Thus do even those with strong value systems settle in to realpolitik, unless suitably committed to embark on a quixotic journey through the wondrous hinterlands of micropolitics.
  5. Not much of a revolution if you can be mollified by a small pile of cash. Not that you'll ever get it, but "give me liberty or give me two aid slots of goodies" is a pretty sad rallying cry.
  6. It's not wholly a new idea. A few of the alliances that came out of the old independent circuit -- BN, Sandwich Confederacy, Avalon -- did much the same thing, aiming to have the bulk of their nations in a fairly tight NS band, while building a metric arseload of military wonders to outclass other nations in range. That had a couple of problems, though. One, if your allies' strength lies in different bands, you cannot effectively assist one another; combined, you can duplicate the coverage that a generic AA could (potentially with a bit more bite) but if countering in your allies' defense you can't peel off attackers and thus make staggering difficult and whatnot. Second, the advantage of being a bulky mid-tier AA generally only lasts for a couple rounds; after that, you're either getting top tier nations who have all the toys that you do, but warchests that've had the luxury of 10k+ infra collections for the last millennium, while you've been slumming it at half that in order to tech up without inflating your range, and/or you're getting your front teeth handed to you in a mason jar by ZIed tech piles because you've intentionally forwent buying maximum tech...which is what the aforementioned alliances did, to greater and lesser extents, until concluding that it caused more problems than it provided answers. If you could do it on a (large) bloc level, where you had a good chunk of a future date coalition working off the same gameplan, it might be doable. Working with less than a few hundred nations, though, and you're at the mercy of forces beyond you.
  7. That owes to the diffusion of political power in this world. Because chained, global wars have become the norm, winning any conflict means having a large and diverse pile of alliances who are not yet sick of your !@#$, and the inherent difficulty of keeping that together has only been heightened by the move away from all-powerful blocs. If you have the Continuum at your back (messy thing though it was) you're able to operate a little more freely and set your own norms; if the largest political entities are maybe a quarter of the NS needed to win a war, you best tread somewhat more carefully or you'll be on the receiving end of the next kinda sorta beating. Similarly, getting beaten down is only a short-term trauma because, hey, it's only pixels, and you're just one political reorganization away from being in the winning coalition again.
  8. This is the double-edged sword. Those actions in years past raised the stakes significantly; they also likely drove plenty of players away. But so too does the profound political malaise that has settled in. Reverting to the way things were might kill the game...doing things in the fashion that have prevailed since Bipolar will just kill it more gradually.
  9. Have Kentucky, Ohio State, Marquette and Kansas at the moment. As I generally consider myself lucky if one or two of my Final Four choices survive the Sweet Sixteen, you really ought to consider swapping out three-quarters of your selection, Zoom.
  10. Schad

    Who would win?

    MP/SDI/WRC numbers are almost dead on...TFD with 46/36/23, Legacy with 46/35/25. Think TFD would take it, though; their large nations have a fairly substantial tech advantage.
  11. Schad

    Ask me anything

    If you had to choose any three alliances to dominate Planet Bob militarily and politically, who would they be? Can't choose the neutrals; has to be someone who would wear the jackboot, if only a little.
  12. As someone who moderated/posted walls o' text on the current affairs section of a forum for two awful years: nothing good ever comes from arguing politics on the Internet. Well, the snark can be worthwhile, but the exchange-of-ideas thing not so much.
  13. Exactly; there's a big difference between a reason for war and the right to wage war. In theory, the justness of the war determines whether others support it, and to some extent that does happen around here...however, often as not the treaty framework that we've created ends up superseding that. It's a tradeoff that may be necessary; if the primary determinant in who goes where is whether a declared war is definitively just, the rational course for any actor is to avoid taking any risks that could cause one to end up with the short straw...both ensuring that you don't leave another party fully justified in rolling you (read: doing absolutely nothing), and avoiding making a declaration yourself on anything less than ironclad grounds. That's great in a real world international system, where the goal is to have as little war as possible; it's not nearly as great in this game, where eternal world peace would be a death blow.
  14. Saying that you're a fan of Gregg Easterbrook is on the same level as declaring that you're a massive admirer of prostate cancer. Otherwise, nice read etc.
  15. Schad

    Survivor 9

    Yeah, there's really no fair system that wraps it up in a reasonable period of time. Not complaining; I'm kinda looking forward to it, because if we manage to survive the rounds where we're not importing (if a couple alliances in the group lose members, as an example, assuming I'm reading the format correctly), the stop-start nature of our tech system might get us further than we otherwise would.
  • Create New...