jalap Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Finally :) But I see some hitchhikers who are declaring wars. Hope we're not going to declare more than NG did their first 24 hours. We've got a reputation to upkeep... MHAil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Ironic and impressive how this treaty lasted through everything. Do enjoy, NG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 WRC is a loser's game. War is about warchest destruction, not infra and tech destruction. Just so everyone knows, E is an excellent fighter, but I think he has too much of Planet Steve mindset stuck in him. The WRC is far more effective on Planet Bob when it comes to war because of the much larger warchests to support it, and the ability to destroy tech faster. A cost/benefit analysis would show it cause the enemy to lose money faster then yourself, which supports the latter part of your statement. But the first part of this comment was dumb. :| Also, what's up, E? Long time, no see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Umbrella is just that big of a deal Apparently not if Umbrella already being helped with NG by VE, DoD, MW, and LoSS had to call in MHA to help out while MHA blocmate Sparta is getting smacked around. Then followed by a dogpile on Nor? As much as I dislike Nor, what a complete waste. Either the people leading this coalition are clueless or the coalition is so fragile that it is stuck focusing on certain targets even though it does not help the war effort. Either way this war has been a cluster since it started, I expect it will continue its downward spiral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 WRC is a loser's game. War is about warchest destruction, not infra and tech destruction. Which is why soldiers, tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft, and nukes only destroy money. Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commanderragnar Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Oblivious roll Scutters o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Also, what's up, E? Long time, no see. Jesus Christ, my head is killing me this morning. I have vague memories of rebel-yelling in the MHA channel and DOWing some people. Did I do anything else dumb? :) Other than that, not bad. How about you? I assumed you were still in TE and just running silent like everyone else. Are you really out? And eh. I've just never been able to find the love for having WRC, 20k tech, etc etc etc. In a real war of extermination, all the expensive infra should be gone by week 2 anyway (or else you're not the one doing the exterminating, and are an idiot for not being in peace mode), so infra destruction is largely meaningless as a means of depleting warchests. Tech destruction is very useful, but since you get tech via tech trading and not actually buying it, then it's only modestly correlated with warchest. Once you're all down in the lowbie weeds, then what's the advantage? (And that shows the one reason that a person should get a WRC - once you're at 20k tech, you can avoid the lowbie weeds by using the prospect of instadeath nukes to deter attackers. But really, 20k tech? :work: And it appears that most SE players agree with me.) This plays into my nation building. I want 10k infra, enough tech for full econ bonuses, and as much money as I can horde. I could have gotten a WRC at the start of any war in the past few years, I just never saw a convincing reason to do so at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) This plays into my nation building. I want 10k infra, enough tech for full econ bonuses, and as much money as I can horde. I could have gotten a WRC at the start of any war in the past few years, I just never saw a convincing reason to do so at the time. I think the point is to make your enemies less capable of causing more damage to your alliance by removing their tech and infra faster. Making them less of a threat to you and your alliance mates which plays a part in protecting your warchests as faster tech loss harms your spy operations while increasing the odds of your enemies successfully removing cash from your nation. If you can't see the benefit of the WRC in war then you should not be anywhere near a war. Helping one's alliance more is a pretty convincing reason for most players including me, I bought a WRC the other day. Edited November 9, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Slydell Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Just so everyone knows, E is an excellent fighter, but I think he has too much of Planet Steve mindset stuck in him. The WRC is far more effective on Planet Bob when it comes to war because of the much larger warchests to support it, and the ability to destroy tech faster. A cost/benefit analysis would show it cause the enemy to lose money faster then yourself, which supports the latter part of your statement. But the first part of this comment was dumb. :| Also, what's up, E? Long time, no see. You can't argue with a straightforward efficiency assessment. Someone give this guy a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Jesus Christ, my head is killing me this morning. I have vague memories of rebel-yelling in the MHA channel and DOWing some people. Did I do anything else dumb? :) Other than that, not bad. How about you? I assumed you were still in TE and just running silent like everyone else. Are you really out? And eh. I've just never been able to find the love for having WRC, 20k tech, etc etc etc. In a real war of extermination, all the expensive infra should be gone by week 2 anyway (or else you're not the one doing the exterminating, and are an idiot for not being in peace mode), so infra destruction is largely meaningless as a means of depleting warchests. Tech destruction is very useful, but since you get tech via tech trading and not actually buying it, then it's only modestly correlated with warchest. Once you're all down in the lowbie weeds, then what's the advantage? (And that shows the one reason that a person should get a WRC - once you're at 20k tech, you can avoid the lowbie weeds by using the prospect of instadeath nukes to deter attackers. But really, 20k tech? :work: And it appears that most SE players agree with me.) This plays into my nation building. I want 10k infra, enough tech for full econ bonuses, and as much money as I can horde. I could have gotten a WRC at the start of any war in the past few years, I just never saw a convincing reason to do so at the time. Please -- if you have any love for your alliance at all -- just stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Ironic and impressive I don't know if I can agree with those choice of words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 My WRC is my favourite purchase of all time, I will love it and hug it and call it George. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Slydell Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think the point is to make your enemies less capable of causing more damage to your alliance by removing their tech and infra faster. Making them less of a threat to you and your alliance mates which plays a part in protecting your warchests as faster tech loss harms your spy operations while increasing the odds of your enemies successfully removing cash from your nation. If you can't see the benefit of the WRC in war then you should not be anywhere near a war. Helping one's alliance more is a pretty convincing reason for most players including me, I bought a WRC the other day. I have to agree with your conclusion. Ironically, his nation was the first one to get into the fight for MHA. Maybe MHA should consider an outsourcing solution for its wars. That, or they've got a strong need for some ISO 9000. Define the procedures, follow them, enjoy the benefits of doing things the right way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Let's see what did Scytale manage ;) Best of luck guys :D Wait. I was supposed to do something? Everyone! Hold the war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 My WRC is my favourite purchase of all time, I will love it and hug it and call it George. George is an awful name for a WRC. LOL MHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 More garbage for the fire, maybe MHA will manage more than 20 wars a round this time out. I think I had more than 20 wars myself last global war so I'll do my best to satisfy your wishes. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I think I had more than 20 wars myself last global war so I'll do my best to satisfy your wishes. ;) You do realize, that if you did, while it indeed reflects well on YOU personally, it makes the reflection on your alliance that much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 You do realize, that if you did, while it indeed reflects well on YOU personally, it makes the reflection on your alliance that much worse. When are you entering the war? I have 6.5B for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) You do realize, that if you did, while it indeed reflects well on YOU personally, it makes the reflection on your alliance that much worse. Lead by example? What am I kidding, me do work? I just want to fight. I believe we fought last war and remember it being fun. Want another round? :) Edit: left a few words out Edited November 9, 2013 by scytale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Jesus Christ, my head is killing me this morning. I have vague memories of rebel-yelling in the MHA channel and DOWing some people. Did I do anything else dumb? :) Other than that, not bad. How about you? I assumed you were still in TE and just running silent like everyone else. Are you really out? And eh. I've just never been able to find the love for having WRC, 20k tech, etc etc etc. In a real war of extermination, all the expensive infra should be gone by week 2 anyway (or else you're not the one doing the exterminating, and are an idiot for not being in peace mode), so infra destruction is largely meaningless as a means of depleting warchests. Tech destruction is very useful, but since you get tech via tech trading and not actually buying it, then it's only modestly correlated with warchest. Once you're all down in the lowbie weeds, then what's the advantage? (And that shows the one reason that a person should get a WRC - once you're at 20k tech, you can avoid the lowbie weeds by using the prospect of instadeath nukes to deter attackers. But really, 20k tech? :work: And it appears that most SE players agree with me.) This plays into my nation building. I want 10k infra, enough tech for full econ bonuses, and as much money as I can horde. I could have gotten a WRC at the start of any war in the past few years, I just never saw a convincing reason to do so at the time. Minus the part I address below, but CS pretty much has it right on the analysis. Also, my head and body was in pure agony this morning as well (OOC: too much drinking last night and can you believe I only spent 6 euros? hahaha, sucks I had class this morning on saturday.) As for my time on Planet Steve, I unfortunately sold my summer villa there and only own real estate on Planet Bob. I don't think I will be looking to buy there anytime soon either, so I think it's safe to say I have moved on. I think the point is to make your enemies less capable of causing more damage to your alliance by removing their tech and infra faster.Making them less of a threat to you and your alliance mates which plays a part in protecting your warchests as faster tech loss harms your spy operations while increasing the odds of your enemies successfully removing cash from your nation. If you can't see the benefit of the WRC in war then you should not be anywhere near a war.Helping one's alliance more is a pretty convincing reason for most players including me, I bought a WRC the other day. I can personally vouch for E and say that he's one hell of a fighter and I'd much rather have him on my side then the other. I just disagree, along with others on his analysis of a WRC. Edited November 9, 2013 by SoADarthCyfe6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Okay I kind of want to see if one of my opponents will let me return our war so I can attack an MHA member. I fought them in the previous three global wars so would be a fourpete for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I'm sure this will break NG. I'm sure that you shouldn't be casting stones, given that your alliance is in a state of functional irrelevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I'm sure that you shouldn't be casting stones, given that your alliance is in a state of functional irrelevance. Its funny.. that you point that out in THIS thread. What may or may not be true about Argent, does not change the fact about MHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Apparently not if Umbrella already being helped with NG by VE, DoD, MW, and LoSS had to call in MHA to help out while MHA blocmate Sparta is getting smacked around. Then followed by a dogpile on Nor? As much as I dislike Nor, what a complete waste. Either the people leading this coalition are clueless or the coalition is so fragile that it is stuck focusing on certain targets even though it does not help the war effort. Either way this war has been a cluster since it started, I expect it will continue its downward spiral. Not to make a peace mode joke......but since most of TOP and Umbrella are in peace mode, they do need other alliances to do the fighting for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Not to make a peace mode joke......but since most of TOP and Umbrella are in peace mode, they do need other alliances to do the fighting for them. Exactly, we are putting forth a minimal effort and using the rest of our coalition to carry the load. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.