Jump to content

Helios

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    229

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Helios

  7. why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    If your tech is situated at 150k, and most of your opponents are at 50k or below, that tech is useless. In such a war scenario a 50k nation can pump just as much cash aid as a 150k nation, but in practice because a mass recruiting alliance has more membership there will probably be more aid slots being sent out. In such a conflict the majority of fighting that could take place would be among tech producing nations, were a tech denial strategy implemented by the low-tier producer alliance.

    This brings up some points:

    *The upper tier alliance will need low and mid-tier meatshields like R&R to fight effectively
    *Upper tier nations in mass-recruitment alliances will have their arm twisted by foreign parasitical interests
    *There is thus a political contradiction between producing nations and some upper tier nations in mass recruitment alliances

    So long as a few upper tier nations in otherwise productive alliances, typically the same nations who disobey orders and hide in peace mode during war, have political power, lower tier producers will never realize their full potential (and thus rarely obtain fair tech compensation). In fact although I bought the FAC many months ago, only in Polaris did it really pay itself off.

     

    150k is an arbitrary figure. What about "my" own 50k nations, who also have the benefit of 6/200 or 9/300 deals? My 40s, 60s and 70s? Seriously, if any alliance followed the ridiculous 9/100 tech plan, after the following conflict the only tier they'd ever be relevant in again is the lowest, unless they altered their economic policy. You again harp on about this "tech denial strategy" like it's some newfangled, brilliant concept. I've said this already elsewhere: you'd not be doing anything to tech sellers that wouldn't ordinarily happen during an extended conflict. And in any event, due to the pre-existing policies in place aren't my people already equipped with large quantities of tech, more than enough to blow away the puny amounts your people have collected?

     

    Let's be honest here, your heavily biased points pretty much equate to:

    - Fuck you R&R

    - Fuck you DBDC

    - Fuck all you upper tier nations

     

    As to your final point, well, it depends on the alliance. I'm sure your view of "fair tech compensation" is as equally skewed as your hatred of upper tier nations.

  8. why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    Seasoned buyers... No, older and sub 100k nations who have the wonders up to the WRC and have a decent trade circle.

    Can make 200 million every 20 days after bills so even after the 54 million deduction its only a quarter of their income.

    Making a billion every 100 days if buying nothing else isn't eating into their warchest.

     

    Hmm, I stand corrected then, if only partially; 54m for 600 tech is not a fair transaction. 

     

     

    This is a good example of an upper tier nation thinking from the perspective of exploitation. He is blind to the importance of having robust low tier nations and only sees their value in terms of providing him cheap tech. It is why in a more balanced conflict than the current war, between an upper tier parasite force and a lower tier producerist force the lower tier would would enjoy tech production dominance (the ability to deny tech production and even poach exploited tech producers).

     

    You talk about dominance yet you consistently fail to regard or otherwise deliberately ignore, the advantages of technology, specifically that it is the second prime warfighting resource after money. The ultimate use of tech is that of applying a destructive effect to your opponent. In a conflict between two nations, the one with the greater amount of tech almost always wins. How does a nation acquire more tech than the enemy? By performing advantageous tech deals. You can argue all day about whether buyers and sellers see each other as nothing more than tech/cash cows, it is ultimately irrelevant because it's based on individual interactions.

     

    You also overestimate massively the value of a robust lower tier- everybody has a lower tier that can be robust, everybody has the potential to disrupt tech production. What not everybody has is a technologically powerful upper/mid tier.

  9. why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    especially when warchests are so huge these days, a decent sized nations makes well over 9 mil a day. sending 9 mil every 10 days isn't going to break the bank, considering what it would cost to buy that tech yourself it's a jackpot.

     

    i will no longer do 6/100 deals. i hope more tech sellers do the same so we can put pressure on the tech market to increase the price to a more reasonable lvl. we sellers are a scare resource. what happens when a commodity is scarce, it becomes more valuable. we need to use our power to help ourselves!

     

    There's a reason warchests are so huge: necessity. Alliances fight wars based primarily on how long their warchests can exist for; no money in the bank means no weapons for the troops. Assuming a buyer with a DRA were to buy at a rate of 9/100, sending 54m on a regular basis- every twenty days or so- will eat into the warchest, especially at sub-100k levels. All in return for, what, a paltry 600 tech? Whereas a buyer purchasing tech at 6/200 effectively doubles his/her return, while 9/300 adds on a further 600 tech.

     

    To put this in perspective, at an income of 600 tech per month a buyer would expect to accumulate 3600 units over six months, while a buyer on an income of 1800 tech per month would expect to end up accumulating 10,800 units of tech within the same time frame.

     

    The fact that it costs so many millions to buy tech manually for oneself doesn't mean it's somehow reasonable to charge ridiculous prices on the market anyway. If sellers are scarce, it's because they grow too quickly and become tech buyers themselves within a few months of starting out. 

  10. Ambition

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

     

    If true, that's just a sad indictment of this global community.

     

    Not really. He makes no attempt at creating a rational argument, he's just crying like a pathetic child who just realised the world doesn't work the way he wants it to.

  14. The FARKLAND war

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Helios

    Can a 160k NS nation produce more cash aid for his alliance in a pinch than a 60k nation? No, not really. Not as part of a sustained effort either. In fact, I think a 60k NS ntion would be FAR more willing to give to his alliance than a 160k nation who is only concerned with procuring more 6/200 tech. Producers tend to come in all shapes and sizes, but by no means is 160k NS nation more valuable than a 60k or 6k nation solely on account of that NS.
     
    You are describing a situation where you enjoy numerical superiority like in this war. What about a war of equal or lesser numbers? Where you don't have the low and mid tier forces to continue grinding away for you?

    You're still not getting it. The value of a 160k nation isn't necessarily in the NS, it's in the fact he/she can lob out a couple hundred million and only make the faintest dent in the warchest. Can they do more in the same time frame than a 60k or 6k nation? No, obviously not and that's a straw man because you know full well the limitations in place. But 60k nations don't typically have a couple hundred mil to spare to spam out, certainly not during a war where they're likely to be facing a very large quantity of opponents of similar size. Whether or not a 60k nation is willing to give more to his alliance is based purely on personal preference. Your experience of that may be tainted but it's worthless as an argument.

     

    In a war of equal numbers, for all the reasons I made clear previously, my side would win. If you had heavy numerical superiority the war would simply go on for however long my middle and lower tier people were willing to fight it, within reason. With my upper tier unopposed, they can fund a lot of the fighting in the pit and hopefully secure a stalemate in an effort to collect a white peace, because there is no substitute for heavy numerical superiority and therefore victory is unlikely. The damage inflicted on you would make it a pyrrhic victory at best, moreover we'd rebuild faster because the upper tier is untouched.

     

    Go talk to Umbrella, Deinos and TLR about fighting Fark a few wars ago.
    Granted, TLR was about as active as a sloth and Deinos.. well, was Deinos.
    However, we essentially made the vast majority of Umbrella irrelevant, pulled those in our range down into the meat grinder and ran it to a white peace that came on our terms when we were ready for it.

    Look at them now eh? Some irrelevance.

     

    Don't worry Helios, Polaris has plenty of people who enjoy growing their nations large expressly so they can fight for longer.
    Being able to dominate an NS range (high or low) isn't about giving up on anything, it's about massing enough people in that range to be difficult to handle. Polaris will bounce back and quickly at that!

    It will certainly be interesting to observe Polaris post-war.

  15. The FARKLAND war

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    I'm not sure why Helios has such a hard time understanding the idea of an elite lower tier producer alliance. I'd rather have an army of hardened warriors in the low tier than a horde of infra-hugging sycophants in the upper tier.

     
    Funnily enough, my own alliance at present comes quite close to that description. I understand the concept perfectly, adapt to survive, I get that. But we both know it's a massive step down from what you were before, where the goal was to flourish and not just survive.
     
     

    If I am wrong then describe to me exactly why a 160k NS nation is so much more important than a 60k NS or 6k NS nation.

     

    This is just moronic, even for you. A 160k nation makes a damn sight more cash than a 60k or 6k nation ever will and would be extremely useful in replenishing the cash reserves of lower tier nations, both during war and more importantly, after it. Money is responsible for rebuilding efforts and it's how wars are won, combined with a little willpower and politics here and there.

     

    Hypothetically, if you come at me with a large force of sub-160k nations, chances are my 160k guys will hammer you down to the 90k, 60k and 30k meatgrinders. Once that purpose is fulfilled, they can spam cash to the other tiers week in week out while you have nobody who can do that, except perhaps allies, only they'd still not have the same freedom because they'd have their own issues to deal with. Granted, you'll likely have a wonder advantage the further down you go and you'll win a lot of combat when you hit rock bottom. But I have similar assets and over time, your only option becomes extended, heavy use of peace mode to preserve what few nations you have that still possess significant reserves of cash. Meanwhile, my guys are constantly rotating in and out of hippy with replenished nukes and are 54m to 108m better off.

     

    You could certainly opt to fight for a long time in some kind of low-tier crusade but so could me and mine, only we'd be doing it with a completely unhindered upper tier.

     

     

    What depleting war chests? If we need to, we're perfectly capable of keeping this war going at its current level for a whole lot longer than the rabble of alliances fighting us have the will to do. The alliances fighting us are taking a beating too, in their most vulnerable, and in some ways, most valuable (good luck growing your upper tiers when your tech sellers are all on fire). 

     

    You're not doing anything to tech sellers that wouldn't ordinarily happen anyway. As for your warchests, haha yeah I don't think so buddy.

  17. The FARKLAND war

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

     

    That's not very nice, is it? [EDIT: You're a diplomat?]

     

    The only thing I feel is embarrassed for you guys. It seems like the ones who are 'frustrated' are those on the other side and their sycophants who keep feeling the need to tell us how badly we have it. Over and over and over again.

     

     

    * walford checks - I don't see or feel anything, but you're obviously the expert on such matters.

     

    I don't play nice. I also don't believe a single letter of anything your alliance has uttered over the last few days about not giving a crap about pixels. It's been said before and it'll be said again but everybody knows it's !@#$%^&*. I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea of me being frustrated from, I'm simply calling you out on account of the sheer amount of !@#$ that's being thrown out there by representatives of Polaris wait I forgot there's a blockage of the thick and long variety up there so you can't reach it. Well you get the point.

     

     

     

    Hi Helios

     

    I know it is a difficult concept to understand, but not everyone shares your view of life, the universe or everything.  I am quite happy fighting forever and ever and ever and at no stage will I be butt-hurt about DBDC.  DBDC are not engaged with us and are now completely irrelevant almost forever to us.  We will of course entertain their toadies for a long time to come, but Cuba et al will find us suspiciously out of range for the foreseeable future.

     

    It always amused me when someone from a bowl smear alliance such as yourself wanders into a conversation and starts posturing about how I must be feeling when what they are really suggesting is how they would feel in the exact same situation.  This is not in fact correct,  Polaris is very happy with its current situation and most happy for it to continue until we are ready to think about discussing the end of it.  In the mean time, we will continue to declare wars against those we truly despise and counter such responses as come our way, choosing to spend our resources how we see fit.

     

    If you had the objectivity to rationally view the results of all the wars ever fought on Bob you would find some data right there that would suggest you turn at the wheel will be short lived and that the toadies you call friends will ultimately re-align themselves, divide into competing interests, backstab each other, reform into other alliances, change leadership, delete, merge or continue but in 12 months time the world will not look a hell of a lot like the one we have now.  You however can hang onto the fantasy that #1 I agree with your assertions, #2 my butt-hurt is obvious by the fact that I bother to engage with half tards such as yourself or #3 that I or anyone else gives a rat's fundamental orifice what you think or presume.

     

    Hello AlmightyGrub

     

    "DBDC are not engaged with us and are now completely irrelevant almost forever to us". Did you say that with a straight face? Yeah, I couldn't either. I also don't think Polaris being out of range of Doombirds to be suspicious at all, it's obvious what you're trying to do there and I don't think it'll work either; it'll be tougher to market yourselves as the "premier permanently low-tier blue-team alliance", am I right? Might wanna throw in a "seriously guys, don't grow above 90k NS kay?" with those recruitment messages. And what of your allies? Going to subject them to the same treatment?

     

    All the posturing at the moment is coming from you and yours, nobody else. I'm amazed at how warped you people are with this "behold my commitment" crap to the point that you express yourself as being very happy with getting kicked in the teeth. Fortunately I know better, so I know it's crap. I also observed many public expressions by Polaris at the outset of this war and boy did they sound everything but happy.

     

    Yes the world and the people in it will change. AlmightySherlock should be your new name if you ever opt to change it.

     

     

    You don't have to project how easily offended you are onto everyone, Agent Blue.

     

    Go back to cooking your meth in the corner quietly young man.

  20. The FARKLAND war

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

     

    Actually this thread was started by Nord Belka of WFF in a pathetic cry for the sympathy vote after WFF decided despite knowing the repercussions, they'd aid an alliance at war.

    All Fark have done is explain what happened.

     

    Perhaps the propaganda should stop because whilst your side feel obligated to oppose Fark's decision you know damn well it's a reasonable one.

     

    It may well be a reasonable decision but I'm having trouble seeing the military utility in it. Not only could Smontag's slots be put to much better use elsewhere but these nations will be rebuilt very quickly. I mean, if this is about principles or face-saving or hell maybe the Fark guy needs a holiday from the real fight then fair enough but I just don't see why there is a need to go to all this trouble, especially when it's unlikely to change WFF's views on whom they sell tech to.

×
×
  • Create New...