Stewie Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) NG are in no position to start a war. Nor do we really care enough to start a war. You wanted NG neutered for years... well you got it. Enjoy your peace. Go start your own war instead of NG/NSO etc doing it for you. Or come and strike NG again like I know a number of alliances want to. Edited July 28, 2014 by Stewie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 NG are in no position to start a war. Nor do we really care enough to start a war.You wanted NG neutered for years... well you got it. Enjoy your peace.Go start your own war instead of NG/NSO etc doing it for you.Or come and strike NG again like I know a number of alliances want to.Global Stability! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 NG are in no position to start a war. Nor do we really care enough to start a war. You wanted NG neutered for years... well you got it. Enjoy your peace. Go start your own war instead of NG/NSO etc doing it for you. Or come and strike NG again like I know a number of alliances want to. This is why I am Pro Aggression, and don't mind NG/NSO as much as most people. Moralist will be the death of Planet Bob. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I for one am not a moralist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted July 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 NG are in no position to start a war. Nor do we really care enough to start a war. You wanted NG neutered for years... well you got it. Enjoy your peace. Go start your own war instead of NG/NSO etc doing it for you. Or come and strike NG again like I know a number of alliances want to. Overrated :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hershey Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Behold the Global Stability! All hail infra! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I for one am not a moralist. Thank God you told us, we were all anxiously awaiting your stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Brandon Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) The tier disparity is not really a result of war. Especially in this day and age. Yes it was/is... How do you think it happened? If you actually participate in every global war and get beaten in a certain range over and over again it creates a tier disparity. Edited July 29, 2014 by King Brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Yes it was/is... How do you think it happened? If you actually participate in every global war and get beaten in a certain range it creates a tier disparity.Perhaps in a time before aid slots were doubled, the real difference now is who is actively importing tech and who is not. It's actually created a lot of fluidity - old nations are getting passed by by young nations that are taking advantage of it.It's entirely possible to grow from lower midtier to upper midtier in the space of six months now. Not having a war for six months isn't really the same thing as shirking a fight. 10k tech in nine months is doable, and if alliances were really prioritizing it they could stamp out nations like that even faster. You might have a point in the supertiers, but I think we've been seeing a dozen examples in the last year or so of nations that grew very fast by purposefully engaging in wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Or come and strike NG again like I know a number of alliances want to. Don't flatter yourself, you're not that important anymore. ;) But seriously no one on our end feels this way if that's what you were implying, I can't speak for others but I haven't heard anything of the sort since the ceasefire. The tier disparity is not really a result of war. Especially in this day and age. I'm guessing you're talking about the fact that nations can grow from mid to upper tier in the span of a typical peacetime period now, but that's assuming constant activity with regular active sellers as well. Outside of DBDC there really isn't an alliance that can say that from top to bottom so I'd say that's an incorrect assumption. It's more viable than in the past perhaps but wars only exacerbate tier disparities, look at eQ as a prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) The fact that it's possible means it's impossible and can't be done? I don't get it.This really feeds back into the "people have given up and accepted the builds their alliances have" point I made. Edited July 29, 2014 by Auctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Or the fact that most alliances are dealing with severe activity issues and what you're saying requires consistently high levels of activity from seller and buyer alike. I didn't say it was impossible, rather that it's highly unlikely to happen for most. You also have to factor in people that didn't fight or barely fought last war and the rebuliding gap in starting points between those that actually fought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Sustained activity is worth a lot more than it used to be. The trick is getting it to scale. You can recover from a war a hell of a lot quicker with an active group -- looking over some of the AA's from last war, some of the ruins are still smoldering -- while others have picked themselves up and then some. In an age where all warchests are relatively robust and sustainable for a several month war -- and where people start getting war fatigue within a couple months -- while warchests are imperative for an alliances security it is increasingly becoming a matter of how you use it rather than if you have it. The new Wonders will accentuate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Or the fact that most alliances are dealing with severe activity issues and what you're saying requires consistently high levels of activity from seller and buyer alike. I didn't say it was impossible, rather that it's highly unlikely to happen for most. You also have to factor in people that didn't fight or barely fought last war and the rebuliding gap in starting points between those that actually fought. That's why more and more are consolidating into larger AA's. I literally only stayed in micros or smaller alliances because I despised large alliance politics up until I joined Polar. You just can't cut it with 4-5 active people in an alliance. It's alot more fun and efficient to be in a larger group with far more resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Sparta made it clear they wouldn't mind another punch on us and quite a few other alliances in your sphere have made it clear they don't like us SJ. So yes, there are alliances who want another NG hit. Issue being NG didn't act like your puppet at the end of the last war by dropping IRON like you all wanted so they didn't become toxic to be treaties to. Now what we have had for the lost war period is Sparta trying 3 ways from Sunday to either foster ties between XX and NPO/C&G/NG or to make inroads into an Aztec treaty. Neither worked because A: Aztec do what is best for Aztec. They have no desire to become a swing bloc. B: a Sparta - NPO treaty was clear to be used so that you could throw that sphere against Aztec and IRON. Welp. You guys really need ardus or 1337... Because your plots are about as useful as a cock flavoured lollypop. World Peace! Time to crack open the bottles of cyanide to celebrate :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Brandon Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Perhaps in a time before aid slots were doubled, the real difference now is who is actively importing tech and who is not. It's actually created a lot of fluidity - old nations are getting passed by by young nations that are taking advantage of it. It's entirely possible to grow from lower midtier to upper midtier in the space of six months now. Not having a war for six months isn't really the same thing as shirking a fight. 10k tech in nine months is doable, and if alliances were really prioritizing it they could stamp out nations like that even faster. You might have a point in the supertiers, but I think we've been seeing a dozen examples in the last year or so of nations that grew very fast by purposefully engaging in wars. You realize aid slots doubling did nothing right? It gave no one any advantage, the only thing that changed is that people that are completely dead weight just fall further behind. While everyone else still grows at the same ratio to one another. Yes it's faster to rebuild after getting beaten, but those who dealt the beaten are also building stronger faster. So it's basically all relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 You realize aid slots doubling did nothing right? It gave no one any advantage, the only thing that changed is that people that are completely dead weight just fall further behind. While everyone else still grows at the same ratio to one another. Yes it's faster to rebuild after getting beaten, but those who dealt the beaten are also building stronger faster. So it's basically all relative. I'm actually pretty sure that double aid slots don't apply to all alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hime Themis Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) I would be OK with more "kill the neutrals!!" posts. Kill the neutrals! :D Warmongers unite! You know you want to. Good Third KIng I have the perfect target for your anti-neutrality crusade. I can make introductions if you would like. :) About DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE: DBDC is a COMMUNITY that embraces soft neutrality, honour, peace and diplomacy. We promote peace and prosperity for all alliances and prefer diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution. Respectfully Dame Hime Themis Edited July 29, 2014 by Hime Themis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Good Third KIng I have the perfect target for your anti-neutrality crusade. I can make introductions if you would like. :) RespectfullyDame Hime Themis An unnecessary task Hime, I'm pretty good at math and I don't see that introduction even possible till the year 2018, that of course is with a standard algorithm and a few of them going inactive for 1 to 2 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Good Third KIng I have the perfect target for your anti-neutrality crusade. I can make introductions if you would like. :) About DOOMBIRD DOOMCAVE: DBDC is a COMMUNITY that embraces soft neutrality, honour, peace and diplomacy. We promote peace and prosperity for all alliances and prefer diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution. Respectfully Dame Hime Themis IRON & DBDC are allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 IRON & DBDC are allies. I won't speculate, however I think that comment was directed at one person and not an alliance, I could be wrong Stewie, it wouldn't be the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 OBR should encourage people to attack other alliances more often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dre4mwe4ver Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 IRON & DBDC are allies.I won't speculate, however I think that comment was directed at one person and not an alliance, I could be wrong Stewie, it wouldn't be the first time. I would interpret that as that being the whole point, actually. Support posts about killing a category of alliances. By their own description, your own allies fall under that same category. Nothing quite as classy as encouraging ally on ally violence. But I, too, could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I would interpret that as that being the whole point, actually. Support posts about killing a category of alliances. By their own description, your own allies fall under that same category. Nothing quite as classy as encouraging ally on ally violence. But I, too, could be wrong. hahaha. I miss our conversations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hime Themis Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 IRON & DBDC are allies. Good Stewie He did not mention the neutral Jihad would be constrained by the treaty they had signed. :) Respectfully Dame Hime Themis 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.