Do Meat shields help an alliance?

[Sephiroth]

If they're really not fighting and doing nothing but get attacked by the enemy, then it might help the enemy by giving them an easy source of raid loot everyday. After the first nuke, if someone isn't putting up a fight the intelligent fighter would use that target to steal money with ground attacks and not waste daily nukes on them. So there are benefits and downsides to meatshields who don't fight, but if they are at least doing enough fighting to cause their opponent to waste several nukes on them, then they might be more useful than inactive meatshields.

[K1L1O]

We used to be meatshields on few wars, here are some advantages on my opinion:

1. Targets everywhere
2. CN addictive level raises
3. More fun
4. Casualties rises, casualty is the only thing you can't buy on CN
5. Alliance reputation raises

[SniperJolly]

Huh, how does one go about acquiring a "meatshield?" Is there a formal process? What differentiates a meatshield from any other player?

[img]http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp300/Sniperjolly/Pony/SoReady.jpg[/img]

[Krack]

[quote name='SniperJolly' timestamp='1324150308' post='2880627']
Huh, how does one go about acquiring a "meatshield?" Is there a formal process?
[/quote]

Proper management of meatshields is kind of like being a crack dealer. You give them a little of something they want as part of a bargain ... then in return you use them to eliminate anyone they could run to in the future ... then, when there is no where else to go, you constantly remind them that they do as you say or you're cutting them off from the good stuff.

[quote]What differentiates a meatshield from any other player?[/quote]

Ambition and self-respect. Neutrals aside, the vast majority of CN are meatshield (or aspiring-meatshield) alliances.

[Proest]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324020489' post='2879713']
Yeah, they do help. You're a moron if you say otherwise.

If you need psychological motivation in a text-based clicking game there's something wrong with you.
[/quote]
Lol this is where I stop reading. /thread

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324020489' post='2879713']
Yeah, they do help. You're a moron if you say otherwise.

If you need psychological motivation in a text-based clicking game there's something wrong with you.
[/quote]

Guess you can mark me down as a moron.

Having a bunch of useless nations in your alliance is usually detrimental. Having meat shields as allies is usually helpful, even though active allies are preferred.

I've gone from an alliance consisting of mostly inactive meat shields to TOP where there were maybe only a handful of inactives. The difference is night and day. Even if you think "something is wrong with me" for believing this, an alliance's spirit is very important. If members see that they are all fighting well and doing as much or even more damage to the enemy they are likely to want to continue fighting hard for much longer than members in an alliance that is losing half its nation strength while causing little damage to the enemy. The members in the latter alliance will feel defeated very early into the war and this is the reason you see so many alliances surrender in a week or two. When you are in an active alliance you see that you are doing damage to your enemy and see that your alliance mates are doing the same which gives you the feeling that you are making a difference. In an inactive alliance you may be doing damage to your enemy, but at the same time you look around and see your alliance mates aren't even fighting back. This makes you feel as if your effort is all for nothing.

And if you don't believe me that meat shields usually make your alliance suck, just look at the actual in game examples. Alliances that have historically consisted of mostly inactives such as MHA and Sparta have proven to be horrible on the battlefield while the "elite" alliances such as TOP, MK, Umbrella, Gremlins, etc... have proven to be fierce fighters.

[Alterego]

Any help is better than no help unless your allies are the most useless knackers ever.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Alterego

[Proest]

Don't be rude and forget about Nordreich! 170+ members and never more than 2 ghosts and 90% active.

[Prodigal Moon]

If every alliance eliminated its meatshield nations, I think we'd be looking at alliance wars on the scale of a game of football. Some wars would probably be duels.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324091662' post='2880243']
How do you figure this?

You think that a nation who is being attacked just rebuys troops and doesn't launch any CM's, nukes, et al?

And that ghosts/inactives have great warchests?
[/quote]
you figure people will simply nuke inactive targets?

[Monster]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1324151535' post='2880641']
Proper management of meatshields is kind of like being a crack dealer. You give them a little of something they want as part of a bargain ... then in return you use them to eliminate anyone they could run to in the future ... then, when there is no where else to go, you constantly remind them that they do as you say or you're cutting them off from the good stuff.



Ambition and self-respect. Neutrals aside, the vast majority of CN are meatshield (or aspiring-meatshield) alliances.
[/quote]

Username makes post. I don't know if anyone qualifies as meatshield in this strict fashion though.

[New Frontier]

I know Deinos has been pretty pleased with Umbrella as a meatshield.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324038932' post='2879813']
This doesn't make sense.

You wouldn't assign a ghost offensive war slots or expect them to attack, in fact, it's a bonus if they do.
[/quote]
I'm not talking about ghosts. I'm talking about people who are nominally in your alliance but totally inactive and won't bother declaring like told.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1324151535' post='2880641']
Proper management of meatshields is kind of like being a crack dealer. You give them a little of something they want as part of a bargain ... then in return you use them to eliminate anyone they could run to in the future ... then, when there is no where else to go, you constantly remind them that they do as you say or you're cutting them off from the good stuff.


Ambition and self-respect. Neutrals aside, the vast majority of CN are meatshield (or aspiring-meatshield) alliances.
[/quote]


Meatshield nations? Absolutely not. I support treating people who don't fight or respond to orders as resources to be harvested or people to attack for sport when wars are few and far between. Here is why:

[b][u]Reasons why having meatshield nations in your alliance is bad[/u][/b]

- Makes IA coordination a lot harder, as you don't know who will do what.
[i](Harder to get aid, leadership attention, education, etc to deserving members. Hurts the useful members)[/i]

- Damages alliance members morale.
[i](Alliance members are instinctively aware of all the factors on this list)[/i]

- Damages the reputation of an alliance (laughingstock), which hurts you politically.
[i](Sparta have mostly had a solid layer of muscle under the fat, but having the fat at all
has always killed them politically)[/i]

- Can cause enemy coalition planners to overestimate your alliance, sending in more NS on
you than they would have otherwise, causing the fighting membership to perform worse,
causing you to become more of a laughingstock.
[i]As a classic example, see FAN+TOP vs Legion in GWIII.[/i]

- Can cause enemies in a coalition war to clamor to the coalition leadership to simply
pile onto you (or to pile on regardless), in the hope of hitting easy targets
that deliver minimal damage.
[i]As an example, notice GOD's magnetism to easy targets, such as GDA, UPN, etc.[/i]




A lot of people seem to have taken this question to be alliance-based. I am not sure what a meatshield alliance is. I am not sure that I buy the term. Is an alliance a meatshield for being a good team player and subordinating their individual interests to the goals of a greater coalition, or other alliances? If this is the case then MK was a fine meatshield, for the duty they did in Karma and the TPF war. So was Athens, for our actions in noCB and DH-NPO war. So is essentially every alliance. I don't consider it demeaning for an alliance to help their friend's goals for an era or a period of time - in fact, cooperation pretty much necessitates this.

The way I see alliances is mostly in terms of whether they won't fight or put out a good effort in a war. You have all kinds of alliances - alliances who are big and ripped, with muscles and hard bodies like MK, alliances who are fat and out of shape but somewhat muscular like Sparta that everyone makes fun of for being fat but can still beat up some guys, alliances that are small but ripped (like BAPS) who can really get in there and put a hurting on people but aren't quite big enough to deliver the death pounding to the big guys all by themselves.

Then you have the guys that are fat, weak, out of shape, avoid wars at all costs, make excuses about why they can't fight, and rely on their buddies to accomplish anything at all. An alliance like the old NATO is the prototypical example of this (unconvinced whether or not they are still like this, but suspicious). These are the ones I see as the meatshield alliances. I think they are of marginal use unless they are very large. If they are very large they can do some damage in a war to your enemies just by their sheer numbers, they can tie up a significant alliance. If they are smaller and crappy, then you've expended a treaty (with all the effort that goes into maintaining that relationship and the perception that having increasing numbers of treaties gives). So, big "meatshield alliances" of minimal quality can be ok allies (as good as a much smaller competent alliance), but midsized and smaller ones just aren't really worth the treaty slot.

[Cerridwyn]

I came not to vote, but as a peaceful persona, to find out how you defined meatshield. Coming from a background of MUDs and dice based FRPs, I always loved having meatshields with me - to protect the priest/cleric/mage/wizard types.

I'm going to have to think about how you define them. It's interesting.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1324173609' post='2880812']
I came not to vote, but as a peaceful persona, to find out how you defined meatshield. Coming from a background of MUDs and dice based FRPs, I always loved having meatshields with me - to protect the priest/cleric/mage/wizard types.

I'm going to have to think about how you define them. It's interesting.
[/quote]
I still haven't voted as well with lack of a clear definition, if they're just giving the enemy $2m in loot daily and causing their alliance's NS to drop faster, then I think they might be helping the enemy more than their own alliance. If they're active enough to spend their money hurting the enemy rather than let the enemy get full loot from them daily, then I think they would be somewhat helpful by distracting enemies and costing the enemy money, even if they aren't great fighters they would have some use at least.

Although when I fight I always fight with 3 offensive wars, as I find having a few easy targets to raid money from daily will extend how long I can effectively fight. By looting the 'meatshields' I'm able to fund my wars with the non-meatshields.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Methrage

[Krack]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1324171505' post='2880801']
Meatshield nations? Absolutely not.
[/quote]

Of course not. I refuse to call "inactives" or "ghosts" by the term meatshield just because the OP apparently doesn't know what any of the terms mean within the context of CN.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, having inactives is better than not having inactives (and having ghosts is better than not having ghosts), too. But that's not what I was discussing prior.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Krack

[AzureShadow]

No, meatshield nations don't help an alliance whatsoever. Anyone who was on the losing side of GWIII should know that, and anyone who has ever been a member of the Legion should know that. We were, after all, the very epitome of that sort of thing back in the day.
They hurt more than they help unless you can coordinate them very, very well.

[MrMuz]

I'd define a meatshield as someone normally inactive who declares minimum wars, yet fights the ones they're in by launching minimum CMs/nukes. Deserters are a different category; meatshields are fairly loyal and would rather delete than desert, though they have a much lower pain resistance than the loyal core. They tend not to declare offensive wars unless specifically told to and if untrained, tend to do that whole 50 bombers thing.

Yes, they are fairly worthless offensively, completely worthless in a curbstomp. But they work well defensively, and in any real war, they soften the counters. Even the best elite fighters are blunted when forced to fight 2 or 3 on 1, especially against SDIs.

And they're made even more useful thanks to regular CN war tactics, that assume that every opponent is a threat. "Don't mess up staggers." "Hold all opponents in nuclear anarchy (make sure they all get nuked once every 3 days or so)" "If it turtles, keep nuking it." "Make sure they're all in anarchy except the ones in peace mode." Even if a meatshield does nothing except collect taxes, he's absorbing a lot of nukes defensively.. and one of the bigger contributions you can make is softening the blow from nukes.

I find it a little perplexing that so many people claim they do more harm than good but don't actively root them out before war. Or perhaps everyone associates them with having poor admission standards, and won't admit to having meatshields in their alliance. Or in a sense, an alliance's fighting ability is not judged by the skill of their best fighters, but by the number of bad fighters they have.

I think everyone assumes that they can change meatshields into elite fighters, when the reality is that there will always be meatshields in the game. What separates the good sanctioned alliances from the bad ones is how well they mobilize them for war.

[caleb ryals]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324020489' post='2879713']If you need psychological motivation in a text-based clicking game there's something wrong with you.
[/quote]

"like!"

[Louisa]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1324155941' post='2880678']
you figure people will simply nuke inactive targets?
[/quote]

I know I am. (Is that doing it wrong?)

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Louisa' timestamp='1324533551' post='2883877']
I know I am. (Is that doing it wrong?)
[/quote]
Depends if you're low on nukes or not, if you have a lot more than you need might as well use them.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1324161473' post='2880727']
I'm not talking about ghosts. I'm talking about people who are nominally in your alliance but totally inactive and won't bother declaring like told.
[/quote]

Don't you think people would know who is and who isn't going to respond?

Even if they don't, it still assumes their nations are fair game for getting slaughtered, which doesn't need their activity or permission to do, but certainly soaks up defensive war slots that could be used elsewhere.

I would rather have 80 elite users and one inactive in an alliance than 80 elite users and 0 inactive.

Same way as I'd rather have 120 elite users and 300 inactive users than 120 elite users and 0 inactive users.

Edited December 22, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Robster83]

Yes, by tautology.

[Olaf Styke]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1324021665' post='2879721']
War competent alliances (like Valhalla, MK, BAPS, an active FOK, the old Athens etc) might be valuable, but against significantly superior numbers they aren't hugely effective. In a short war, meatshields aren't useful. But in these grudge match wars we now have we need numbers and warvchests to help extend the war (and therefore the negotiating).

Alliances like IRON and the ODN are probably the best war machines *overall* because of their size, even if they have a greater share of inactives than smaller, elite alliances.
[/quote]

By that logic, MHA is one of the best military alliances in the game.