Jump to content

God-tier Myth


Unknown Smurf
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You expect truth in a propaganda newspaper?


To be fair, that's a direct quote. It's not like the team over at PNN made that up to score political points, as you're implying.

We asked the questions, and printed the answers. Edited by Scourge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average nation is 28,833 NS. Getting hit by a supertier guy is not making the average guy give up, he can't even reach one.

Edited by Auctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 !@#$@#$ !@#$% 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.

The word of the lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think it is a very good analysis.

 

 

 

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).

 

The historical portion was the most interesting to me personally, although the first two set of circumstances were a very brief time period. I think if we were to divide historical periods by prehistory and history, your analysis could definitely be worked into that (as the Party only concerns itself with politics, history could be defined in political terms as the period in which politics was the predominant factor in warfare). You article will be posted in the Party Congress for further discussion.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are "super god tier" nations (SGTNs) that can dominate down to the 250th-300th rank, which means that they can significantly influence much lower than that: by removing the enemy "god tier" nations - GTNs - from the equation, they can help the allied GTNs acquire number superiority in lower ranges.
I don't think you actually ignored this, US, but you didn't mention it either (or I didn't realize you did?)

Except for those that want to keep a big nation at all costs, anyway, you're right that SGTNs and GTNs can't just reach down enough to keep permanently bothering those that don't align with them, assuming of course that they don't also have the political leverage to do so...

...which brings up the main issue that hasn't been mentioned yet: how much political leverage can you have if you control the SGTN range?
This is a problem similar to the the traditional analysis of the influence that can be achieved by controlling the sheer numbers, or the high tech nations. The difference is that SGTNs are (now) much less numerous, thus the political system needed to organize and to "control" them will have different "requirements" (for example, it will probably be more oriented to the individual nations).

Interesting discussion, anyway. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good OP overall, US.
 

The common factor amongst the best military alliances is not just owning the upper tier its about owning any tier.


This is it exactly. Add high activity levels and you have the definition of "elite" in my opinion. However, it takes a lot of coordination and team effort to reach such an ideal. From my experience, most nations don't want to be elite fighters, they want to grow their nations as large as possible. Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed from the OS quote is that he's talking about TOP-NpO dominating things while complaining about the top tier nations dominating. NpO only has 6 nations above 100k, and is a very heavy mid-tier alliance. So, I wouldn't exactly say it's time to abandon ship because there are large nations grouped together. 

 

Alot of times these nations play themselves out of effective range. You can't win a war by controlling only the top-tier. This is where alliances like NPO, NpO, RnR come in. I think the competition is still there, and the jockeying for influence over the super tier nations will be a fun to watch political aspect coming into play. Look for DBDC and DT to continue to exert influence, and in the future I can see them leading coalitions upper tiers, and weighing great influence with said coalitions, as TOP/Umb did this war. It's not a game ending aspect - just another element to the political game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for those that want to keep a big nation at all costs, anyway, you're right that SGTNs and GTNs can't just reach down enough to keep permanently bothering those that don't align with them, assuming of course that they don't also have the political leverage to do so...

...which brings up the main issue that hasn't been mentioned yet: how much political leverage can you have if you control the SGTN range?
 

 

That's what I'm most interested in watching play out. We really don't know the full extent of the political/psychological influence that these super tier nations can wield by threatening upper tier nations across the world with absolute destruction, with little hope for creating significant damage in return. At the very least, they can play the kingmaker role and swing the upper tier battle for any conflict. So far DBDC has done a great job of testing the waters while dealing massive damage, without overplaying their hand.

 

Of course, there are a great number of very large neutral nations that could effectively isolate the super tier nations (ranking-wise) from the rest of the political world, if they knock everyone down too efficiently. This would create a really interesting tension due to the neutrals inadvertently standing in the way of super tier nations wielding their power. Some might say it's already started. :v:

Edited by Prodigal Moon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this nonsense? Intellectual posting, civil agreement and discourse, [i]everyone[/i] getting along...

 

oh wait, it's only the world affairs subforum. /ignore

 

 

Except for those that want to keep a big nation at all costs, anyway, you're right that SGTNs and GTNs can't just reach down enough to keep permanently bothering those that don't align with them, assuming of course that they don't also have the political leverage to do so...

 

SGTN's are noted for their simply ungodly numbers. The only wars that happen at that level are tantamount to Zeus couping Chronus. GTN's are forces of nature. Sometimes you can shoot bazookas at thunderclouds, or lob a grenade at a tornado. TTN's are the world superpowers, and everyone else lands where they fall.

 

As master senseless debater, I see your down and raise you upIhopeyou'resingingthesongnow:

  1. The Bat$#!+ crazy gazillionaires and the World- Basically all SGTN's and GTN's just say "fuck it, we'll do it live!" and then just state a whole bunch of senseless demands for the world of planet Bob. We see a harmless, nevertheless annoying, transition in senility from the unreachable. The world of bob, fed up by this reality, throw away boundaries and divide the world into the SG/G tier fighters and the SG/G tier makers. In the over industrialization of this rigorous process, the world of bob inflates exponentially creating a gap (chasms across) between fighters and makers. Until finally, we have only SG/G tiers and farm countries. This will breed new kinds of predators (e.g. raiders), ones I will simply refer to as "bullies". They'll be those few middle-ranged nations that will stick around to poke and abuse the small tier ones (as it's presumed all uppers have headed towards goddom). All smaller tier nations during this new "era of senility" will in turn evolve themselves into something more "mogorian" (essentially sharper spikes, thicker hide and shell). In short the whole world takes a twisted turn toward the Tim Burtonesque.

Personally, if I were asked where I thought the future was going, I'd hope in this. Because you can get all "franco'n'shit" and start quoting from manifestos and referencing political theories, but really, you just gotta be the change you want to see inthe world; be who you wanna be(<--for mogar)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An additional advantage in having a larger and better equipped upper tier is that often the enemy upper tier will enter PM to prevent having their upper tier lost in what would be a lost cause anyway. This allows the upper tier remaining in warmode the ability to aid bomb the various nations in the lower tiers requiring aid on a constant and long term basis. This was proven up until recently by the example in a few conflicts of umbrella being able to aid GOONS with Umbrella rarely having any serious issues of their own within their own NS ranges to bother about. This was proven particularly so in the DH-NPO war a few years back when even though the NPO lower and middle tier nations were mostly better equipped and possessed larger warchests, the constant supply of aid sent to GOONS from Umbrella allowed GOONS to wear the lower and middle tiers of NPO down until defeat was all but inevitable and this was due in part to the lack of aid being able to be sent to these middle and lower tier nations from the upper tier nations who were mostly stuck in PM.

 

So in short, having a large upper tier in comparison to other alliances isn't merely just the possession of a tier able to destroy enemy rations within direct range, it's a tool that can indirectly secure victory on other fronts and NS ranges too. That I believe is the main benefit to be derived since once the enemy's upper tier is relegated to PM you have robbed the enemy of being able to send aid to their members in need to a large extent. Yes, every alliance, some more than others have a substantial amount of their members in possession of large amounts of surplus cash ready to aid others but being able to prevent an alliance from being able to send aid on a constant and complete basis will in turn impact on an alliance's ability to fight.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An additional advantage in having a larger and better equipped upper tier is that often the enemy upper tier will enter PM to prevent having their upper tier lost in what would be a lost cause anyway. This allows the upper tier remaining in warmode the ability to aid bomb the various nations in the lower tiers requiring aid on a constant and long term basis. This was proven up until recently by the example in a few conflicts of umbrella being able to aid GOONS with Umbrella rarely having any serious issues of their own within their own NS ranges to bother about. This was proven particularly so in the DH-NPO war a few years back when even though the NPO lower and middle tier nations were mostly better equipped and possessed larger warchests, the constant supply of aid sent to GOONS from Umbrella allowed GOONS to wear the lower and middle tiers of NPO down until defeat was all but inevitable and this was due in part to the lack of aid being able to be sent to these middle and lower tier nations from the upper tier nations who were mostly stuck in PM.

 

So in short, having a large upper tier in comparison to other alliances isn't merely just the possession of a tier able to destroy enemy rations within direct range, it's a tool that can indirectly secure victory on other fronts and NS ranges too. That I believe is the main benefit to be derived since once the enemy's upper tier is relegated to PM you have robbed the enemy of being able to send aid to their members in need to a large extent. Yes, every alliance, some more than others have a substantial amount of their members in possession of large amounts of surplus cash ready to aid others but being able to prevent an alliance from being able to send aid on a constant and complete basis will in turn impact on an alliance's ability to fight.

 

Both our alliances have quite a few nations that have more than enough cash to drop ns, come into mid tier and still have plenty left after months of fighting to make their way back into top tier whilst being able to constantly aidbomb nations, that's the benefit of being efficient/active/experienced membership group I suppose. 

Edited by Amossio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone argue with me. I'm bored. 

 

The only points I'd argue is that the utility of leaving some beat-down nations in the lower tiers seemed obvious to me at least as early as BiPolar. At the time, it was the fastest way to keep some of the heat off the lower tier nations that just could not effectively fight the nations being knocked into their range by the 3rd or 4th round (even earlier now, it seems).  Rephrased as controlling the tiers one can control is a more general application of the idea, I would still agree.

 

Your points regarding warchest building are in line with my own experience, so there isn't much room for me to argue against them.

 

I'll also admit to agreeing that some aspects of this war have me seeing a renewed use for banker nations. However, in that regard I'll disagree that they would need to be in the 80k NS range. Given that aid isn't limited to cash, having well-funded bankers sitting as low as 20k NS can be a distinct advantage.

 

Good OP overall, US.
 

This is it exactly. Add high activity levels and you have the definition of "elite" in my opinion. However, it takes a lot of coordination and team effort to reach such an ideal. From my experience, most nations don't want to be elite fighters, they want to grow their nations as large as possible.

 

That was my own initial goal, growing my nation as fast as the system would allow. A few rebuilds later, I'm more interested in whether my growth goals put me in a good starting position towards getting my nation and as many of my alliance's nations through to the end of the next war.  In retrospect, VE's middle tier going into Eq was clearly of the "growth good, small bad" majority, and IRON/AI tore right through that tier.

 

That same war, however, showed that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of coordination to get very satisfactory results. I still think Baron Aaron should have put together a slide show on the topic of "This is is what happens when you work with/listen to me; this is what happens when you don't!"  Even fighting against him, I managed to pick up a couple of new tricks . . . That brings another point to Unknown Smurf's table that fits well with your own about "elite" alliances: to succeed much beyond minimum survival, an alliance and its members need to be willing to learn from their mistakes and to adapt tactics to the conditions they face. 

 

If nothing else, it's more satisfying than just playing "shoot, shoot, bang, bang!" for 5 minutes a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone will have to brief me on the whole "Super God Tier Nation" concept. Are they not considered titans then?

 

Short answer: DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE

 

More detailed description: Any nation ranked  within +/- 250 spots of your own nation ranking by NS (thank Admin it's not by casualty count ranking) can declare war on your nation. That makes the top 250 or so a free-for-all zone in which a 140k NS nation can be attacked by nations with 4x its strength, and probably 4+ times the resources. As a result, 3 nations like that can knock my alliance's top nation into my range in one round. 

 

Some alliances now deal with that by putting their top nations into PM.  But not always, as there's always the chance that the opposing alliance's lower tier nations will take that bait, and get pulverized once he takes a minute or two to rebuild. The downside of that, in turn, is that the lower tier nation taking the bait might just be able to hang on and keep the aging behemoth in nuclear anarchy and unable to do further damage to its alliance.  As White Chocolate points out, with the appropriate coordination amongst an alliance's active members, many of the opposition's tactics can be derailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...