senatorhung
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by senatorhung
-
-
-
Also, Jeannette Rankin was literally an idiot.
hey, i didn't come up with the quotes, someone else compiled them.
-
being non-political, i have NO way of distinguishing in-game between random rogue attacks and alliance-wide actions. with hundreds of alliances out there, i'm not going to sift thru every in-game war declaration and 'imagine' an alliance declaration of war on a given date.
hence, only an official announcement in the alliance announcements forum can be charted. the direction and colour of the arrow indicate the alliance doing the announcing and the date of the announcement. this issue had already been debated and hashed out between the various war-charters over a month ago (when FAN jumped in on NPO). the fact that you bring it up this week, long after that discussion, appeared to be trollish behaviour.
if you actually had honest intentions, then i apologize for my snarky response. however, it's my chart, and barring an actual error, thus it stands.
-
Way to keep updating this for so long, a lot of times stats trackers loose interest after a while. Keep up the good work.
Also, hes going by who actually posted a DoW, making it official. Pretty reasonable position to take.
oh, i *understand* his position. i just don't see the point of bringing it up in a non-political charting forum. either i use DoW, along with recognitions, or i don't even show the 'hidden' conflict. in a political forum, sure, you want the bonus P.R., but here, it's trolling, especially over a month after the inclusion.
-
Yes, we recognized that MK brought war to us. How is that the equivalent of a DoW?
wow, other people try so hard to be a troll, and you make it look so easy !
just think a *little* bit harder about how you would have charted the conflict if you were a third-party, TOTALLY disinterested in CN politics, and maybe you'll earn a clue.
-
CoJ didn't DoW MK.
CoJ recognition of hostilities: here
-
looking good, but you've left NAC on there.
NAC ... NADC ... so close, yet so far ...
and that's another reason why i leave all the alliances on the chart ...
-
Any chance of getting a "clean" version without the peaced out folks on in your updates too?
don't see the point of following what the other mappers are doing.
-
hey, could you make one with peaced out alliances removed?
i don't really see the benefit when all the other 3 mappers have done that. but i'll think about it.
-
NV did not peace out with wF I don't think. Unless I missed that in a different thread.
yep, you're right - just got over-eager with the re-formatting, once i found out that i had a one-click change possible instead of the 30-second meander that i had been doing. it'll be fixed for tomorrow.
-
good work Jharius !
whether your decision to split the NPO-DH conflict from the other one was politically-sensitive or not, on a logistics level it sure takes the cake ! both Shadoz and Seipher have decided to drop the alliances who've peaced out. along that line - one minor item spotted - i think the DoW from Hooligan to FAR is still active, so Hooligan should not be white ...
-
I know Shadoz has had to start taking the people who've peaced out off of the chart just to keep it organized.
yep, i saw that. the way i've set mine up, that's less of an issue. the main problem is running out of colours (to match dates) and the x-overs introduced by the most recent mass DoW's, seeing as the minor benefit of mine over Jharius' is the attempt to minimize those x-overs. i couldn't imagine doing the stuff that Seipher's doing without a program ...
-
war is not inherently bad. sadly, the way that CN is currently set up, wars *are* pointless as they are merely due to personality or philosophy differences rather than an actual competition for resources. taking resources away from someone else in war only makes you a target for the next one, with no advantage other than temporary bragging rights. we had a rogue 150k NS nation go down to less than 15k NS in under 2 weeks of war - 3 years worth of effort down the drain, and for what ?
i'm not necessarily faulting the game designers for this, btw. i *like* the fact that i can 'play' without sacrificing every spare minute, a la evony. i *like* the fact that no one can really get so far ahead that they can curbstomp all comers, a la battle stations. i *like* the fact that while you can happily play along solo, this game is much better with alliance mates.
that said, if this is supposed to be a political simulator, the incessant focus on war, either the waging of it, or the avoidance of it, seems pretty asinine from my perspective. if war isn't to be the main focus, then the game mechanics need to reward other political operations beyond war. why are spy ops limited ? why are events predicated on a random fashion, rather than being based on the choices that we make in the game ? e.g., if i choose to trade for coal, why shouldn't i be more at risk of getting a toxic smog event that i have to respond to ? if i lose access to wheat, why can't i get more risk of a food riot ? why not an event every 10 days ? if i join an alliance, why don't i lose / gain benefits as a result ? why not have conditional foreign aid where the 'aid' is only activated under certain conditions (i.e. something like 'protection' aid, where the $$ only flow if the protectorate is attacked) ?
without such an expansion of the gameplay itself, all of the 'politics' is just posturing. i still continue to play because i enjoy the company of my alliance mates - the game is currently just the water cooler to hang out around.
-
Technically I believe ML started their section of the war. They started by attacking MK and Umb nations that they declared "rogues" for attacking TPF nations without a formal DoW. MK/Umb posted a recognition of hostilities. So the arrows should be reversed.
MB/UMB posted their recognition - ML hasn't posted a DoW ... i'm charting the declarations as i'm not going to scan every new war that starts up to see if it is a rogue action or an 'official' action
-
i'd do that, but tying the colours to dates allows the tracking of the declarations of peace as well - if that's not critical, then i can go ahead and do that.
the other option i was considering was combining the early days into groups of 3, freeing up 2 colours each time.
-
just gotta wait for the dinosaurs to die off ...
-
i knew it was called 'faux' news for a reason ... faux pas anyone ?
-
and before anyone comments, NO, i am *NOT* encouraging further declarations - just demonstrating that any further additions in that arena will be mighty challenging to accommodate.
-
hey Jharius - should the TIO on MHA be TPC ? or is that too much TLA ?
-
The GOONS declarations are starting to remind me of
alas, i thought the practice of being drawn and quartered had fallen out of favour, but it seems that it has kept its cachet in certain dark corners of CN ... think of the children !!
-
i think another round of cycling might be in order gopher ? your treaty web chart will look much cleaner now, methinks
-
I doubt GPA and TDO will be getting involved.
i would match your bet there, but i don't think any bookies would pay it off
-
yeah, i'll fix it up for tomorrow's chart, but i'll leave this one up to remind me to check my sources
there are only 10 alliances in the sanction race who AREN'T involved in this, and TOP is one of them ...
-
erghh, now that Seipher's map includes NS, i'm reconsidering my vote ...
2011-03-14 VE-NpO-NPO DoW chart (finale !)
in senatorhung's Blog
A blog by senatorhung in General
Posted
you're welcome. i spent *way* too much time on them, but at least this way i was able to keep my alliance informed