Unknown Smurf Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 WANA What implications do you feel this war has on global politics, and Cybernations?OS This war has continued the rise of the "super nation". We saw in Equilibrium that these huge nations could hold par even against significantly more NS. In this war we are seeing how effective they can be in the winning coalition. The damage discrepancies for high Avg. Ns alliances such as DBDC, Umbrella and TOP have proven this model works. I believe mass-recruiting alliances are going to have adapt to compete going forward or continue to get pummeled into the ground. Global politics will now be centered around the TOP-NpO partnership going forward as long as that remains stable. Going forward I think your going to find its harder and harder for an average cybernations player to remain interested when the top 1-2% of nations can take over the entire game on a whim. We are going to continue to see a downward spiral in membership as long as this holds true I'm afraid. I doubt it. I think once they grow too large (and consolidate all the top non-neutral nations which they are already doing), they become a non-factor in wars. Mass recruiting alliances can go to war with them and not cave to the "bring your top tier out of peace mode" threat as long as they have the advantage sub-100k NS and permanent war isn't a serious threat. You can still receive tech in peacemode (assuming perpetual war for those above 100k NS if you refuse to bring them out), so those nations in the "mass recruiting alliances" can build their upper tier. I think it brings back the need for banks though as you'll need small 80k NS or smaller nations to aid the tech sellers and have the tech sellers send tech back to the PM guys. (or build 'em up in peace time). The common factor amongst the best military alliances is not just owning the upper tier its about owning any tier. In the 0-10k, 20-50k, 70-120k, or "God-tier" range, it doesn't matter. An alliances basic goal is the protection of its members. Originally this was done by hording as many nations as possible (pre-GWs), which eventually evolved to hording as much NS as possible (arms race with invasion alliances) which evolved to political security (having the best set of allies GW era to now). With beat-down, (almost)fully wondered nations and massive WCs there is no need to build up higher anymore. At 25k NS, I'll make over a billion in 5 cycles which is about 3 months. In this most recent 3 month long war I didn't even spend all of that (including rebuilding to pre-war infra strength and buying back infra a few times). We get wars at most every 6 months, my profit is more than I need. Now a lot of people want to try and spin this as anti-DBDC (or top tier heavy) alliances, but it's not. All I'm saying is part of Digiterra is taking what cards you have and playing them to the best of your ability. Just giving up and saying "oh they have all the biggest nations" is such a fucking pussy attitude and so is aligning yourselves with them just because they have the biggest nations. If you don't agree with them, don't align yourselves with them. That doesn't mean you have to align yourselves with the other side either. You can abstain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.