ComeAndSee

Hello, Need one more for 3 BR (fast food, construction, beer w/ uranium + fish). Message me ingame: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=456843 I will respond to you with who to trade with. Thanks.

Need 1 replacement now.

Hello, Recently lost two trade partners in our trade circle that was running 300 days. Looking to patch it up long-term again. Trade Circle is 3 BR (fast food, construction, beer) w/ uranium + fish. Need Sugar, Spices, Lumber, Aluminum. Don't change your resources yet. Please reply here or PM me ingame. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=456843 Thanks.

requesting delete

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1358899505' post='3084068']NEW and LSF don't owe The International [i]dick [/i]and it is repugnant that anyone imply they do, especially as payment for something CPCN did over 4 years ago, which is, in fact, a matter of decades.[/quote] I don't give two hoots about NEW. Never liked them in the first place. I just think it's very poor taste to turn around and attack any of your former treaty partners after a short window and when their pants because you screwed up and got called out. I mean, this IS cybernations and nobody fights each other unless they feel they got the other guy outnumbered so I guess it's honorable. CPCN and INT are literally the same alliance because the vast majority of people who merged from the other alliances (I forget their names, too lazy to wiki) all ended up leaving in a year anyway. When INT was formed 80-90% of CPCN's current government was put back in power so in the end it was literally a change of name and an extra mil nation strength added. Now, before INT was formed many ex-LSF members in CPCN from LSF and wanted their freedom so Craig (few other govi's) pushed NV hard to get LSF freedom. Here's a history lesson -> http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=25335 Also, do you know who paid most of the tech for LSF's freedom? You guessed it -- CPCN. So CPCN (INT) helped give LSF it's freedom after being oppressed and stuck in perma-peace mode for who know's how long and gave them protectorate until they strong enough to stand on their own two feet before giving them a real treaty. So years later LSF goes and start that fiasco with NoR and expects INT to suddenly come flying to their rescue when they screwed up right before MK is about to start that Dave War (I still don't even know what it was about). Any rational alliance would of not taken the obvious bait setup to give the enemy side the initiative, but you know how everyone is around here in regards to name calling when somebody says no. // Also, people don't care about history because the exact same alliances that formed the Hegemony are now pushing to be put back in power. I think it's laughable that people call Mushroom Kingdom evil when half the alliances fighting on NEO-Hegemony's side were fighting for Mushroom Kingdom and now changed sides when it was convenient.

NEO Hegemony is on the return.

The Return of the Hegemony http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hegemony_%28Power_Sphere%29

Way to be opportunist and attack your former ally, NEW (and LSF). I guess LSF forgot how the CPCN (now INT) got NV to not-perma ZI them after how many years stuck in peace mode? I guess people have short-term memories these days.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1358858605' post='3083618'] this escalated quickly. i mean, things got out of hand fast. [/quote] They've been planning this for a while. Seems a little too convenient that alliances that had their treaties cancelled with less than a month ago are suddenly attacking their former treaty-mates. Really shows you how low Cybernations has sunk too.

[quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1358778368' post='3082226'] How do you think it feels to see an alliance who at one time stood up to The Initiative and The Continuum at every chance turn into a lapdog of some rehashed version of the Unjust Path? [/quote] And IRON and NPO helped MK crush the same alliances who are suddenly on their side. I mean, you can call me old school, but when I saw NPO and IRON fighting on DH/C&G side I knew something was wrong.

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1358777378' post='3082212'] That doesnt really dispute the fact Umbrella has intentionally ensured anyone who even came close to them(fark) got curbstomped twice, I don't get why people on your side try to pretend like they havent intentionally avoided any close war for quite a long time and attempted to ensure umbrella simply doesnt have anyone in range that isnt their ally. [/quote] Every war it's always the same named alliances marching into the front battle so we're creating a meat-grinder effect where the NS growth over x amount of months is reversed. Long established top tier nations end up being pummelled down into low tiers and have a huge advantage in terms of money, tech, and wonders over younger nations which just makes things even worse. Also, every global war the last few years ends up with one side outnumbering the other by 50% (and people hide in peace mode en masse) so eventually you get to the point where you can pick and choose your fights. Top tier nations are rare and they're usually ultra-rich so damage against them is repaired immediately after the war, but some people who have their long-term nations completely ruined usually end up quitting. Basically the reason why there aren't more Umbrella alliances is because we aren't letting our nations get to that point. Literally I'm @ the same point I was 6 months ago from the last war, but with every military wonder now and double the tech + cash. I already know I'm going to be back to where I was 6 months ago so it's a never ending cycle. Basically Cybernations is a minitature version of what it was back during Karma.

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1358776710' post='3082207'] In this war it is a little different since ODN's sugardad (MK) needed their b&$&h as a meatshield. [/quote] Like any alliance in Cybernations attacks solo or when the odds are even. It's ironic watching the same alliances who helped tear down the Hegemony are helping to build it back up.

Last time INT fought NATO they were whining to us about being nuked. I hope you've grown up since then.

So what can you realistically do to an alliance who's average war chest is over 5 billion? Wait until you knock down those Umbrella nations with 10k+ tech to the 60k range.

Time for a commie beat down. Craig still owes me an AR-15.

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1348018067' post='3031627'] By bailing on allies who were literally steamrolled into the ground? I come from a different time, but that's not respectable. Whether or not they deserved it, well, that's a different argument. [/quote] Like any alliances start fights in this game unless they know they have a massive advantage on their side. The only winner in the Dave war was NoR because they got a free pass under a trumped up major war to stomp their ideological opponent.

[quote]Anti-Air Defense Network - Reduces odds of incoming aircraft attacks against your nation -25%.[/quote] I'm curious on how this wonder works. Is it.. * A flat 25% reduced chance for aircraft attacks to fail? or * A 25% multiplier bonus to your defending aircraft strength?

I mean, regardless if LSF did or didn't do an act of war, the only reason they were attacked was because it was a moment of opportunity. A global war was brewing up and it could have easily given CSN's side the initiative by forcing INT to attack, be counter-attacked, and then draw in their allies. IRON attacking LSF was just a way to prevent INT from attacking (not bashing IRON) in my opinion. If there was no global war I [u]highly[/u] doubt NoR would of attacked. You can butter it up all you want.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1342487513' post='3010966'] Hiding an entire upper tier in peace mode for the entire duration of a war is a sure way to destroy an alliance's prestige and reputation. One could argue that this is more harmful in the long term than losing that upper-tier strength. Nation strength can be rebuild in fairly short order, especially compared to the rather extensive time (and substantial effort) that it takes for an alliance to escape political ignominy. [/quote] War is just a means to a political end and peace mode really just serves as a way to slow down the process. I understand the tactical asset of rotating units, but really to just sit in it the entire war is just mind boggling. I mean, if there was no peace mode than wars would be relatively short and sweet instead of being dragged out like they have always been. Also, people complaining about being in PM isn't new. People complained about it back in Karma.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1342465706' post='3010801'] I have yet to see a period of time, even right after your DoW, where Fark didn't have more offensive wars on you, then you on it. Deinos is known for being pretty awful fighters, so you are just reinforcing that viewpoint bro. I'm sure you have waves and we all cycled some in peace mode, but still 60% is hilarious when you consider you were almost double the nearest alliance on the winning side and rivaling MCXA even. So there is more to it than that, as we all are cycling and yet no one approaches 60%. And why do you have 4 nations in PM above 90K, nearly 50%, when Fark doesn't have a single [i]nation [/i]above 75k (54k if you only count war mode)? [/quote] To be fair, you can't always control your nations. People will go into PM regardless if you tell them to or not. I mean, what are you going to do? Threaten your own nation? lol

[quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1342464913' post='3010792'] I think the point of Walford's words (and I am not speaking on his behalf by any means) is the game started as a political simulator that contained a fighting component. Now not everybody was really politically savvy, so the fighting component garnered more attention and as it became more important to some, the game shifted from being a political simulator to a stat collection game. When people decided that having huge stats and amassing massive blocks was the way to garner power, it became really irrelevant to build real political links with each other. We end up with the results we have today. Alliances becoming "friends" out of convenience to amass power in stats (might makes right) and having ties that are really not that meaningful beyond their stat lines. I mean, we have all seen how when a beat down is coming, an alliance will sever ties or find a "moral" reason to not be part of the beating etc. This mentality of "playing" the game has created an atmosphere that is rather juvenile and leads to wars starting because "herp derp, u stayed in PM last time, come get ur beating" and other grudge related reasons.[/quote] It's because the game has basically "shrunk" is the best way to put it because of the declining player pool. More alliances are merging out of convenience than anything anything else. Why be a bunch of weak alliances when you can merge and become powerful? Seems the logical solution. Also, alliances didn't go to war unless they had really good reasons. It seems now people are just going to war for revenge or out of boredom and basically everyone has to ride the train. I mean, my favorite war was Karma because of the built up feelings across Cybernations finally hit the breaking point. Politics are becoming less influential because after so many great wars people know who their friends are. I mean, I was so used to IRON+NPO being "the enemy" from years ago that I was surprised to see them fighting on our side. [quote]The thing is, unless you are pouring money into your nation, via in-game donations, you truly have nothing to lose. Getting "beat" in a war really means nothing anymore as politically the game is dead, and a wars outcome is determined before it is started via analysis of the treaty web. With the fickleness of alliances these days, even the treaty web has become a very loose indicator of how a wars outcome will turn out. [/quote] Really what you lose is time, nothing else. Increasing the donation rewards makes it relatively easy to recover from damages when you can pump yourself full of 500 infra every month. I mean, you have two aspects of the game; build and destroy. You spend more time building than destroying because big wars are relatively rare occurrences. You can't become good at war unless you build. It's just getting crazy on how fast you can destroy. I really think they should lower the amount of damages or decrease how many slots you can fill. I can just imagine the feelings of the people who are always on the "losing side." I mean, it may be fun to completely annihilate the other side, but if 20% of the people quit because of it than the games going to be down to 5,000 players in a few years.

Forgot to add, wars back before nukes were flying weren't as destructive. Nukes were for the deterrence of not using nukes. It was MK who made their stand on NPO and unloaded nukes on them like they were going out of style that changed the nature of the games war. Now wars are leaps more destructive than they use to be and you can look at TOP for example who had like 40% of the games entire top tier nations and then get beat down so bad half their members quit. Really the ease that a couple of coordinated guys on IRC can put somebody back in the stone age is really the cause of the rapid decline in player populations. I mean, I literally saw INT beat some CRAP guy down from 100k to 18k in 7 days. Tech just keeps getting inflated higher and higher as time goes on and the wars get more destructive because of that. Before nukes we had mega alliances with 20 mil NS and 1,000 players in them, but now the biggest alliances have a 1/3rd as many players. The only people that win these wars are those who've been sitting on their money for years because they can just lick their wounds and get back to their old size. Also, wars in this game are always curb stomps. One side has to outnumber the other by 50% before somebody will lift a fist. I mean, would NOR attack LSF if LSF was the same size of them? I doubt it.

[quote name='bkphysics' timestamp='1342462415' post='3010783'] It is refreshing to see you post again. As for your hope, I think one day we will get there, but it will take a major shift in thinking across the playing field to make it happen. I know myself and others will keep on trying since there is truly nothing to lose. [/quote] NPO said that during the 1v-GATO war because GATO was hopelessly outmatched and NPO dominated the game. Moo himself said that if everyone in PM didn't get out of PM they would be permanently ZI'd.

I think the bigger problem than peace modes is these 100k NS nations that keep getting beat down to the mid-tiers every war. Basically the top tiers get dominated by one side and then run rampant as war nations with 1k infra and 8k tech in the 50k range. It's getting worse every war to the point that the people who are younger nations don't even have any fair battles. I mean, if I look at my enemy nations in my NS range they all have 4-7k tech, low infra, and 10 more wonders and that's in the 45k range because they got beat down from the 80k range. If you look at it, you're doing those top tiers a favor by bumping them down because there's nobody that can effectively respond to them other than other war nations. Hell, I saw a 80k nation get it's ass handed to them so bad they went down to 18k NS and now he's pwning up the lowbies. A few more global wars and the 60k tier will be the new 100k. -- Also, my opinion about peace mode is it just a means of slowing down the end. If everyone wasn't in PM than the wars would last weeks, not months.