LiquidMercury
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by LiquidMercury
-
-
13 hours ago, Thrash said:
Hello, LM. Long time no see.
Indeed - this is my once bi-yearly pitstop in the world of Bob to see if anything has changed.
-
22 hours ago, Thrash said:
If only that would have been nipped in the bud back then we might still have a thriving community.
Tried it, blew myself up instead.
-
So much is happening, it's just all shadowgov stuff.
-
I was simply making light of the situation. I have very little clue of what the treaty web looks like, who's friends with who, and who is next to be rolled. I'm simply living in the past.
-
Anyone up for a reenactment of Karma?
-
It's good to see you posting again my friend :)
i have a yearly quota to maintain. Plus war brings me out though sadly I realize my nation doesn't hit like it used to.
-
So we're at war?
-
I'd agree Karma was more defining in CN's history, but it was also more lop-sided. For the losers ( which I was on the losing side ), we went into to knowing we had 0 chance what-so-ever. So we don't remember it very fondly. (tho it was still fun)
Ironically we weren't sure we would win in the beginning so Archon and I kept on trying to blow it outwards more and more to bring in more NS (which is why it got so lopsided). I enjoyed it from a planning standpoint since it was the first time ghost DoW's had been utilized to make ridiculous chains (and showing how ridiculous treaties are in general).
BiPolar would have been the most fun had polar not reversed course, because from an NS standpoint it was going to be the most even war in history. When grub did what he did then I lost a large desire to play the game because I knew it was just going to be curbstomps forever more than likely. Karma was the most fun because of the level of anticipation and activity across the cyberverse.
-
Brb, couping Polar govt and then finding the answer to your question. :P
Already did it years ago.
-
UJW was kind of my first war. I was in GATO, we planned to hit FOK, but TOP came and wagged their finger so we balked and said nevermind. Went to Gre after that and helped lead War of the Coalition. After that it was enjoyable for me to get involved in conflicts on a very wide scale and the following few made an effort to give my input on scenarios. War of the Coalition showed how important top tiers were and lead me to create my FA around that.
-
Hi LM
Good times are good.
Cheers and beers old man. I really wish they would have had the comic with two old guys fighting with a cane and a walker.
-
I can see several flaws with this analysis.
First, most of the hordes thrown at Polar and Aftermath will not be building their warchests and tech base, while allied reserves do grow. Essentially our end of the treaty web is tying up an even larger chunk of the treaty web with comparable results for both sides. Even if our allies are smaller in number they are still growing at a normal pace. This was the flaw Dajobo was revealing in sending so many alliances in too early, which is not surprising from a military operation planned by amateurs. This is what Sun Tzu calls the Law of The Commander.
Second, both sides are fighting with different motives in mind. Those on the Polar side are fighting for survival and aside from a few weaklings this alone compels the rest to fight. Time is on the defenders side as the will of the more peripheral aggressors to fight, who have no vested interest in this war aside from political compliance, will wane over the next few months. This is called the Law of Heaven.
Third, our side is angry after having been harassed for months by DBDC and other aggressor alliances. This anger is a powerful source of motivation to fight a long war. It is anger borne from the realization that this conflict will never end even if peace is achieved. On the other side, you have an assortment of bandwaggoners, ignorant peripherals, and a top tier seeking to remain in the favor of DBDC and CubaQuerida. This is represented by Sun Tzu's Moral Law; "The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger."
Fourth, allied elements are well aware that their downfall is being plotted and naturally plan accordingly. With the greater portion of lulzist forces engaged against NpO and AFM this will give them room to maneuver. This is the law of Earth, of chance and maneuver.
Fifth, On the other side only Pacifica can match Polaris in discipline and order. However, because of the 20+ alliances engaged offensively, offensive coalition discipline will be poor, communication will continually fail and staggers will be repeatedly blown. This is the Law of Method and Disipline.
This war will go exactly to the Emperor's plan. Emperor Dajobo's plan that is.
First, while those pinning people down may not be building war chests at normal rates, those hiding in PM will not either. Further it's likely that allied entities have been suggested to stay at elevated military presence reducing their own capabilities to build war chests (to an extent, obviously not nearly so compared to one at war depending on the level of readiness one chooses to abide by).
Second, survivalists have fallen to conquerors time and again. History will repeat itself.
Third, the moral law may indeed push the people to be in line with their emperor, but that too has been shown to be strained time and again, especially in non-top tiers. Morality only comes into play so long as one may be able to actively be involved - to be actively involved this means you're not bill locking yourself indeterminately. Extended bill lock even wares down morality.
Fourth, room to maneuver only exists when the allied entities can be coordinated effectively, timely, and the opponent is fully allocated and cannot cover. That is far from the case.
Fifth, coalition coordination can be extremely effective when done right. It is simply a matter of who is control. This is also true of single alliance coordination.
-
For curiosities sake, and for someone who isn't exactly Polar old guard, what revenge is this related to?
Feel free to answer this one, Grub. ;)
Robbing me of what likely would have been the most even and fun war the cyberverse has ever seen. Where the radiation would have destroyed even Twinkies, the casualties would have been endless, and the reset would have been accomplished.
-
At least then it will be well documented.
I dislike polaris. There, it's documented. Vindictive? Yes. Stale? Sure. Lacking timeliness? Without a doubt. But hey, at least I keep my word.
I must admit I'm amused as well to see Grämlins sign a treaty during a war so they could bandwagon in safety with a ton of alliences for the reason of a "well documented" dislike that none have ever mentioned to us and I certainly didn't even know about!
Quality work Grämlins, your bravery is only matched by your abilities to communicate issues like adults.Treaty has been in the works for quite some time. Far from bandwagoning in safety, I voted to go in no-treaties (what can I say I'm consistent) and have for quite some time. Dajobo, I'd say whenever we're active, it's been stated that at least myself, does not care for you or grub - pretty sure I've stated it to both of you directly on quite a few occasions. To your credit though it's been over a few years, things have obviously evolved (though I have not as I am in a stasis as to whenever I went inactive and believe that all of CN went into hibernation waiting upon my return :smug: <-- does anyone still use that?).
On a slightly more serious/less egomaniac note, due to extremely minimal involvement over the past few years I figured I might as well simply pick up where I last left off - which was with me despising polar. Either way, enjoy the nukes, tell Thorr to come out of PM and let's play. I'll be the big spoon.
What stopped Gramlins from engaging Polaris during Disorder last war? Fear of losing precious stats?
If Gramlins cant engage Polar without 19 other alliances I dont think our Emperor will lose much sleep. Bring it ye cowards of Chaos!No one fed us after midnight.
-
Its fun to see one side signing numerous treaties during war to get suitable reinforcements for the war. Almost shows a lack of pre war planning for the aggressors, should of held off a little longer so you could get the strategy ironed out without it looking desperate.
Do you think we really needed a treaty to enter this? We signed this out of a mutual lack of suck.
-
I don't think there will ever be a world wide CN revolution becuase people are afraid to stand up. The only way for a CN wide revolt to be successful would be to have a lot of poeple who were ready to fight till ZI against overwhelming odds. Revolutions require one main thing, courage. For proof just look back at CN history, out of all the attempted world wide revolts, the only one that got attention from a descent amount of powerful alliances was the LCNR revolt (Involving 7 alliances). The reason that this revolt did better then the rest was because everyone of LCNR's members fought down to ZI without even attempting to surrender. Now if you could get a lot of people to do that, then a revolution would happen. But it most likey never will.
You need to re-read history.
-
LM, I think such a discussion should be moved towards the Suggestion Box where there are several threads at the moment about modifying the attack ranges.
LOUD NOISES. Also DBDC is the devil, and the world needs to gather against them. That better?
-
An interpretation of information you believe gives you reason to go to war. Depending on how good one is an offensive war can seem like a defensive war.
Methrage, it was a question intended as sarcasm. Remember I didn't even use a CB the last war I participated in. Also glad to see you're still around.
-
Tactics are a bit more complicated than that, just as acquiring a set of trades is more complicated than simply maxing out the number of bonus resources. I'm saying that once you are overpowered beyond a certain point, you can do a lot of things inefficiently and still destroy someone.
Let me restate so that we're clear and completely OOC: Even a casual player sees a 637k NS nation attacking a 144k NS nation and it doesn't pass their eyeball test--it just looks like something in the mechanics is broken, without any need to do any in depth analysis of who is in what alliance and whether or not they are neutral/pro-x/pro-y/pro-z, or taking the extra step of doing an analysis of the last 50-100 wars that lasted longer than 5 days involving top 250 nations. That people are turning this into an IC issue and guarding the current way of doing things like a clutch of prize eggs is to be expected. However, that doesn't mean that the current way of doing things should be the way things are done in the future.
But let's go back to November 2008. (DAC)Syzygy proposed the following:
I bolded some of that for emphasis. (DAC)Syzygy was attempting to address the same problem I see now. Admin implemented his suggestion on November 12th.
What I'm saying now is, and others as well, is that (DAC)Syzygy had the right idea, but it didn't go far enough or it may have gone far enough at the time, but no longer does. Removing the 250+/- rankings clause would be the solution I would implement. If Admin instead wishes to do something more incremental to see how it plays out, such as narrowing that down to 150 or 100 ranks, I'm fine with that too. But change is necessary for the good of the game. I understand that others may feel otherwise--I do not believe them to be the majority of players however.
[OOC]
Hal - the reason for the +/- 250 at the time was out of fear that neutrals would simply grow themselves out of range of us constantly fighting. It was a very different time in the top 100 or so with the majority being dominated by the neutrals with Citadel being the exception. None of us expected war to be the way to accelerated growth, nor raiding to become relatively unpunishable.
The removal of the 250 rule would indeed be good for the game and change things drastically. In some cases for the better (severely limits political power of top tier alliances) and for the worse in others (encourages a state of mediocrity in regards to individual nation building if you want to be a active warring nation).
[OOC]
-
I hate to disappoint, but uh...
It'd sure be nice though.
-
I imagine he means the first iteration... or did Gre just never disband?
It never disbanded. It was held hostage by Ram basically and many of us left. Then we came back and took the AA by force. Those of us in it still are the same that were there long before Karma. While our activity, ANS, and many other things have diminished, we have not left this universe and most of us will continue to play until the end of time (especially due to no deletion now).
-
1. NAAC
2. The Gramlins
3. LUE/MK
Pound for pound not many more alliances could deal as much damage as above. I'm surprised the original Gramlins aren't getting as much love tbh.
While inactive, we're not defunct. I appreciate the nod though. Also it's The Grämlins. Don't forget the dots :nuke:
-
Remember when people actually put a little effort into their Casus belli and treaties
What's a Casus belli?
-
[quote name='fireguy15207' timestamp='1340077675' post='2988433']
Pre-empting was already a valid tactic at the time.
[/quote]
Your welcome.
Brief Moment of Nostalgia ...
in Open World RP
Posted
Now where would the fun in that be? I am also a terrible member, really good at getting alliances kaboomed.