Upper End of the War

[Brehon]

So your saying you won't give us time to grow and will attack us soon after this war ends?

 

I said no such thing at all.  I am saying you never experienced it.  How does saying you never experienced something equate to some threat?  Come on Caliph you are better than that.

[King Louis the II]

 
So your saying you won't give us time to grow and will attack us soon after this war ends?

I cant say anything about the intentions of Brehon or any other Q leader but since karma we have seen frequently alliances being rolled twice (on purpose). It happened to Pacifica, to Polar, to XX.

It wouldnt surprise me if the same happens with DH.

PS. Assuming that DH will loose or get a "white peace", which is only a possibility.

ADDED: I think Brehon is right, while Umbrella is certainly very good at nation building (some credit to Roq by the way) this excellence was facilitated by pollitics, which by the way is also a very important (if not the MOST important) in an alliance. Edited February 21, 2013 by King Louis the II

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I was under the impression that you guys were invite only?  So you invite noobs and build them up from day one?  

 

It's a very sweeping generalization that you make, but are the vast majority of the nations in the "Competence Coalition" native to their respective uber alliances?  I'm not taking anything away from those individual ruler's nation building abilities, or even the efficiency of those same uber alliances to accelerate the growth of an already motivated and experienced member, but to put down the majority of us that play a less regimented game is a pretty broad brush.

 

(I'm someone who has stayed small throughout my entire CN career, first because it was part of the deal in an MP program we had, but then because it seems like rogues tend to be small and I like to fight.  Just to fill in your impromptu survey.)

I never implied my generalization applied solely to your side. There are plenty people bad at building nations, hell even among our own ranks in Paradoxia. Elite alliances do attract the best (large category), as a general rule, but it's by no means a sure thing. Since BiPolar, we've been really less than spectacular in slots use, to my great regret.

 

We don't recruit, you're right, but we do invite friends and esteemed adversaries to join our ranks if they seem interested. We also have several rerolls joining us. Back then, we had people from the Paradox Interactive forums. We still get a few per year.

[D34th]

Politics and nation building has their part on Umbrella nations size, but the most important one is how they were good at avoiding real wars, they had big nations for the same reason WTF and GPA have big nations, I remember going through Umbrella nations a year and some months ago and their top nations causality rank and it was in majority bellow 1k causalities.

[Baldr]

I'm getting a kick out of Yev as he disses anyone who doesn't have a lot of tech and brags on his nation development skills. He is 1500+ days old, with 1800 tech and all aid slots empty.

[rsoxbronco1]

Politics and nation building has their part on Umbrella nations size, but the most important one is how they were good at avoiding real wars, they had big nations for the same reason WTF and GPA have big nations, I remember going through Umbrella nations a year and some months ago and their top nations causality rank and it was in majority bellow 1k causalities.

[citation needed]

 

Unless you're somehow implying cuba and methax don't actually exist.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

I'm getting a kick out of Yev as he disses anyone who doesn't have a lot of tech and brags on his nation development skills. He is 1500+ days old, with 1800 tech and all aid slots empty.

You can go back one page before and read, from my own posts:

"Some people choose to voluntarily stay small."

 

I'm one of them. I fought to ZI in the LSF-NoR war, not very long ago. I'm also fresh out of PM. I couldn't use my slots before, as I was in PM. I can't import technology right now. My warchest, while more than decent for a 20k NS nation, is around a billion.

 

I understand you have no experience of prolonged warfare as any kind of commander - or experience as anything but a moralistic mouthbreather - but if you want your nations to fight for a long time, you need to prepare for it. If you had made the same argument during peace time, it maybe would have mattered. Unfortunately for you, save for episodes of inactivity because of RL, I never leave my slots open.

 

My nation is small because I like it that way. I like that I'm able to fight in every conflict. That I can go on a crusade if I want to, rogue at my pleasure and still rebuild easily.

 

Now, back to your hole.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[D34th]

[citation needed]

 

Unless you're somehow implying cuba and methax don't actually exist.

 

Do you understand the meaning of the "majority" word?

[IYIyTh]

Did you even read what I wrote? I added a part that said: "unless you're less than 500 days".

 

In 500 days, you have the time for 16 wonders. I don't know how you build your nations but the way we do it in TOP, not a single one of those months is wasted. Wonders every month. What you mean is that a 500 day old nation, sitting at around 70k NS, might get wrecked AND might not have the warchest to rebuild what was lost. It'd be a shame if he didn't have a billion or so saved up by then but it is possible. Then again, my point was simply to point out that people (e.g: most alliances out there, save for a few) have had the conditions to build upper tiers. They're just not dedicated OR make the choice not to go above a certain mark.

 

 

You're also assuming you're not fighting a single day of those 500 days. That's absolutely ridiculous. Unless you intend on screwing your allies over, never selling your alliance tech and not fighting in certain tiers where you 're outnumbered, or never fight at all in what poor excuse of an alliance you're, 500 days is not enough time when one nuke will send you back 100. 16 wonders lol.

 

It speaks more to the total disconnect players who have grown so large have with the rest of the game more than anything.

 

The game mechanics are flawed in allowing such enormous nations to exist where their upkeep is sustainable and damage exponentially extraordinary compared to the average nation.

 

A lot of these enormous nations existed in an era where "nuclear," wars were frowned upon (and also when you had to be in the top % to obtain them, no mp,) and it's unlikely they were part of the few on the receiving of enormous reperations for comparatively shorter wars than what we see now.

 

I've watched "How you do things in TOP," over the past few years and you aren't exactly the most efficient bunch. Maybe you were 3-4 years ago, but certainly not recently enough to pull the condescending elitist card when all it takes to be considered "good," in this game is have had a nation for 5-6 years and fight moderately, then inflate your casualties with scaling nuclear battles.

 

Yipeee!

Edited February 21, 2013 by IYIyTh

[Caliph]

You're also assuming you're not fighting a single day of those 500 days. That's absolutely ridiculous. Unless you intend on screwing your allies over, never selling your alliance tech and not fighting in certain tiers where you 're outnumbered, or never fight at all in what poor excuse of an alliance you're, 500 days is not enough time when one nuke will send you back 100.

 

It speaks more to the total disconnect players who have grown so large have with the rest of the game more than anything.

 

The game mechanics are flawed in allowing such enormous nations to exist where their upkeep is sustainable and damage exponentially extraordinary compared to the average nation.

 

A lot of these enormous nations existed in an era where "nuclear," wars were frowned upon (and also when you had to be in the top % to obtain them, no mp,) and it's unlikely they were part of the few on the receiving of enormous reperations for comparatively shorter wars than what we see now.

 

I've watched "How you do things in TOP," over the past few years and you aren't exactly the most efficient bunch. Maybe you were 3-4 years ago, but certainly not recently enough to pull the condescending elitist card when all it takes to be considered "good," in this game is have had a nation for 6 years and fight moderately, then inflate your casualties with scaling nuclear battles.

 

Yipeee!

 

Most of those nations you speak of are on your side of the battlefield.  We just got done handling them.  That was during your Hegemony days.  We grew our nations then to get the edge on your side.  Our nation building philosophy has been quality over quantity for years, while yours was quantity over quality.  Not saying you've never had quality members, but that was never your focus.

 

Umbrella, for example, formed after most of those wars where nuclear weapons were frowned upon by the Hegemony as a way to reduce the damage they took in wars.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Caliph

[IYIyTh]

Most of those nations you speak of are on your side of the battlefield.  We just got done handling them.  That was during your Hegemony days.  We grew our nations then to get the edge on your side.  Our nation building philosophy has been quality over quantity for years, while yours was quantity over quality.  Not saying you've never had quality members, but that was never your focus.

 

Umbrella, for example, formed after most of those wars where nuclear weapons were frowned upon by the Hegemony as a way to reduce the damage they took in wars.

 

 

I'm talking about all of them. And for god sakes stop talking about a "philosophy." Stop calling it that. It's the user. You have more active individual people using what has been legally allowed to exist, automated ("NOT AUTOMATED IT'S A PARSER,") systems. You have larger nations that have defected or come together from various parts of the world with already large nations whom you've helped grow larger through foreign policy and economic directives, but it's nothing that no one else couldn't replicate. You aren't better than anyone else, you just utilize a far more advanced system of guides, tools, and user interaction that likely isn't available to the average new user of Cybernations.

 

Additionally -- Umbrella has received quite the boon from a massive advantage of its unquestionable favorable F.A. position over the years (due to circumstance, (suck it i put a caveat here yeaaaah,(triple parentheses,))) 

Almost to the point it skews any comparison. For instance, Yev talks about what it would take to build a nation from scratch to 70k ns and 16 wonders, and a billion dollar warchest in 500 days. (lol.) 

 

Umbrella would just shove people like Cuba (You have before his current complications, for example,) into peace mode.

 

That's not a philosophy that's simply avoiding what the typical normal user would have to go through under normal circumstances.

 

 

Then they emerge from their cocoons as beautiful butterflies -- hardly actually playing the game as intended into a perverted version of someone bringing a machine gun to a paintball match against someone without such advantages.

 

It doesn't make you better, it just means you've managed to survive long enough for what I and, I'm not alone in saying it -- , seeing a huge game mechanic flaw in the disproportionate amount of advantages a nation whom falls from 300, 200, 100, 80, 60, and so on k NS has over someone (the average user,)  likely still figuring out their way around the game at 500 days.

[D34th]

Most of those nations you speak of are on your side of the battlefield.  We just got done handling them.  That was during your Hegemony days.  We grew our nations then to get the edge on your side.  Our nation building philosophy has been quality over quantity for years, while yours was quantity over quality.  Not saying you've never had quality members, but that was never your focus.

 

Umbrella, for example, formed after most of those wars where nuclear weapons were frowned upon by the Hegemony as a way to reduce the damage they took in wars.

 

Dude until sometime ago you were on zombie \m/, a laughable alliance statswise, so don't speak like you were a mastemind in nation bulding. 

[rsoxbronco1]

Do you understand the meaning of the "majority" word?

Do you understand the meaning of [citation needed]?

 

"I checked some Umbrella numbers back in 2011 and most of them were bad"

 

If you want to make propaganda, stick to pictures.  If you want to talk stats, cite your sources.

 

I'll show you how!

 

Now if I were to say something like, "If you combined the casualties for STA's top two nations, they still wouldn't equal the number dongs you can send in a single aid package," that would be easy to look up and verify because it is based on current information that is readily accessible to all people.

 

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=291824

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=311419

 

Doesn't really mean anything, but don't bring that weak "something from 2011 that I sort of remember" crap in here.

[IYIyTh]

In his defense, I do recall quite a few being very low. Pudge, formerly Umb, back to MHA and back to Umb again was rather low before the war began I know for sure. Otto too. Not sure where he's at now.

 

Casualties in general are a stupid benchmark because they do not enhance or prevent damage, which is limited or increased only by the user behind the computer.

 

If you have someone helping through the most timid of fighters at 300k ns, do you count the person whom is helping them and their casualties regarding their skill if they are guarenteed to fight whatever instance of war at their doorstep this very moment? 

Edited February 21, 2013 by IYIyTh

[rsoxbronco1]

In his defense, I do recall quite a few being very low. Pudge, formerly Umb, back to MHA and back to Umb again was rather low before the war began I know for sure. Otto too. Not sure where he's at now.

 

Casualties in general are a stupid benchmark because they do not enhance or prevent damage, which is limited or increased only by the user behind the computer.

 

If you have someone helping through the most timid of fighters at 300k ns, do you count the person whom is helping them and their casualties regarding their skill if they are guarenteed to fight whatever instance of war at their doorstep this very moment? 

I don't think casualties mean very much either in some circumstances, that is why I didn't bring them up.

 

I believe you'll find Pudge and Otto residing on the DBDC AA ;)

[IYIyTh]

I don't think casualties mean very much either in some circumstances, that is why I didn't bring them up.

 

I believe you'll find Pudge and Otto residing on the DBDC AA ;)

 

Does it really matter what aa in this war?

[D34th]

Do you understand the meaning of [citation needed]?

 

"I checked some Umbrella numbers back in 2011 and most of them were bad"

 

If you want to make propaganda, stick to pictures.  If you want to talk stats, cite your sources.

 

I don't have how to find the post where I made the statistics of it since this forums just show the last 1000 posts, but you are free to don't believe in me, anyone who checked Umbrella nations before 2 wars ago would knew that they had a small casualty count. 

 

Edit: The two STA links that you posted just help to prove my point, those nations are big because they hardly fought, Jyrinx for example was in Créole until sometime ago. 

Edited February 21, 2013 by D34th

[Auctor]

Jyrinx and conistonslim fought plenty.

[rsoxbronco1]

 

 anyone who checked Umbrella nations before 2 wars ago would knew that they had a small casualty count. 

 

Yes...that's how you get more casualties
 

Edited February 21, 2013 by rsoxbronco1

[D34th]

Yes...that's how you get more casualties
 

 

 

It's almost as you were intetionally ignoring what I said, so let me try one last time: 

The great majority of the nations that I checked in Umbrella top #20 had very low casualties and the fact that they were big nations with low casualties are no coincidence, the later is a consequence of the first, as you can see by yourself taking a look at WTF and GPA nations. So  my point is: In this game(Cybernations), you need to avoid war for sufficient time to build a big nation, after you build your big nation and stocked a huge warchest, you can play "might warriors" like the guys on your side are doing, but to do that they have to avoid wars in their first years of game.

 

Now you can ask: How you know they avoided wars? And I'll respond: Because I checked nations with more than 1500 days and with less them 1m of casualities.

This guy for example: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=128209

Do you think that he has this huge nation because he is a genius of nation building? Or because he never had to fight a losing war or any kind of real war, eat nukes, hit ZI, waste all his warchest rebulding just to face another losing war in less than one year, be zi'ed again and restart the whole cycle?

Now look at my nation, I doubt anyone in this game is more active than I am or has a better slot usage than me considering for how long I've been keeping it high. The last war I fought was one year ago(TOP-NpO war) and after all that time I have just 77k NS, that because I was lucky in not take part in dave war or it would be much lower. That's how normal nation rulers play this game, they don't hide in the corner until be big enough to start to play it. So people should stop to act superior because their alliances have a lot of big nations, this doesn't mean you're better players, just mean that your alliances is full of people who avoided war for a long time. There are exceptions? Of course, but they're just that: exceptions. 
 

Edited February 21, 2013 by D34th

[Zero-One]

blah

Edited February 22, 2013 by Zero-One

[Tick1]

It's almost as you were intetionally ignoring what I said, so let me try one last time: 

The great majority of the nations that I checked in Umbrella top #20 had very low casualties and the fact that they were big nations with low casualties are no coincidence, the later is a consequence of the first, as you can see by yourself taking a look at WTF and GPA nations. So  my point is: In this game(Cybernations), you need to avoid war for sufficient time to build a big nation, after you build your big nation and stocked a huge warchest, you can play "might warriors" like the guys on your side are doing, but to do that they have to avoid wars in their first years of game.

 

Now you can ask: How you know they avoided wars? And I'll respond: Because I checked nations with more than 1500 days and with less them 1m of casualities.

This guy for example: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=128209

Do you think that he has this huge nation because he is a genius of nation building? Or because he never had to fight a losing war or any kind of real war, eat nukes, hit ZI, waste all his warchest rebulding just to face another losing war in less than one year, be zi'ed again and restart the whole cycle?

Now look at my nation, I doubt anyone in this game is more active than I am or has a better slot usage than me considering for how long I've been keeping it high. The last war I fought was one year ago(TOP-NpO war) and after all that time I have just 77k NS, that because I was lucky in not take part in dave war or it would be much lower. That's how normal nation rulers play this game, they don't hide in the corner until be big enough to start to play it. So people should stop to act superior because their alliances have a lot of big nations, this doesn't mean you're better players, just mean that your alliances is full of people who avoided war for a long time. There are exceptions? Of course, but they're just that: exceptions. 
 

 

So are you saying these exceptions are better than you? Or somehow lucky? I don't follow, by your analysis exceptions shouldn't exist.

[magicninja]

I fought a war once.....quite overrated.

[Caliph]

It's almost as you were intetionally ignoring what I said, so let me try one last time: 

The great majority of the nations that I checked in Umbrella top #20 had very low casualties and the fact that they were big nations with low casualties are no coincidence, the later is a consequence of the first, as you can see by yourself taking a look at WTF and GPA nations. So  my point is: In this game(Cybernations), you need to avoid war for sufficient time to build a big nation, after you build your big nation and stocked a huge warchest, you can play "might warriors" like the guys on your side are doing, but to do that they have to avoid wars in their first years of game.

 

Now you can ask: How you know they avoided wars? And I'll respond: Because I checked nations with more than 1500 days and with less them 1m of casualities.

This guy for example: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=128209

Do you think that he has this huge nation because he is a genius of nation building? Or because he never had to fight a losing war or any kind of real war, eat nukes, hit ZI, waste all his warchest rebulding just to face another losing war in less than one year, be zi'ed again and restart the whole cycle?

Now look at my nation, I doubt anyone in this game is more active than I am or has a better slot usage than me considering for how long I've been keeping it high. The last war I fought was one year ago(TOP-NpO war) and after all that time I have just 77k NS, that because I was lucky in not take part in dave war or it would be much lower. That's how normal nation rulers play this game, they don't hide in the corner until be big enough to start to play it. So people should stop to act superior because their alliances have a lot of big nations, this doesn't mean you're better players, just mean that your alliances is full of people who avoided war for a long time. There are exceptions? Of course, but they're just that: exceptions. 
 

 

Incorrect.  We are better than you, or else how can we have comparably aged nations that are bigger than you but have fought in most the wars here?

 

It isn't our fault that when we did go to war the other side either folded like a house of cards in a strong breeze or hid themselves in peace mode to avoid fighting us.  

 

Quality vs quantity.  While eventually quantity might bring down quality, that doesn't make them better.  Zerg rush isn't a complex strategy, its akin to using a hammer to fix a round peg into a square hole.  Eventually it might work, but shit will get fucked up in the mean time.

[Caliph]

Dude until sometime ago you were on zombie \m/, a laughable alliance statswise, so don't speak like you were a mastemind in nation bulding. 

 

And before that I was on MK.  Before that I was on Grämlins in a past life.  

 

Your point?