The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Rogues, invasions and other threats always think they are special, but in the end they are no different than any other threats we faced since our foundation in 2014. "In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war." Edited February 7, 2017 by Immortan Junka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 If your definition of success against rogues is attrition, I feel bad for the members of ISX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Alonso Quixano said: If your definition of success against rogues is attrition, I feel bad for the members of ISX. Is this a deliberately asinine comment, or are you saying we should disband instead of facing someone because he has some upper tier goodies and tech? If NPO can handle TPF, and Legion can handle NSO, I'm sure we will be fine. Edited February 7, 2017 by Immortan Junka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Immortan Junka said: Is this a deliberately asinine comment, or are you saying we should disband instead of facing someone because he has some upper tier goodies and tech? If NPO can handle TPF, and Legion can handle NSO, I'm sure we will be fine. They must have cut back special education funding for the kingdom when you went to school, let me explain it to you. You should be able to get it, since you consider yourself such a brilliant strategist. You yourself, on multiple occasions, aka more than once, have said you like to shed dead weight, and that NS doesn't matter to the Imperium. If that's the case, why put your smaller members through a war of attrition? When you can have heavy wonder nations sell down to reach down to the same levels of said rogue. It wouldn't be attrition for your smaller members, as the sold down nations can take the hit better, and dish out more damage. You are putting smaller nations through attrition to beat this rogue, when you don't have to. As Darrin brought up, he is killing your smaller nations, rightly so with all those wonders. Unless your nations doesn't share the same value of NS as you do, it does not make sense to have smaller nation(s0) do a war of attrition when you can fight the rogue head on with sold down nations. Since they are sold down nations, they should have a large enough war chest, to buy back infra, and you can keep rotating out large sold down nations to exhaust the nation. Unless your large nations don't have war chest to do it. Then I sincerely agree with your attrition policy. Also. Again, funding must have been cut off, because no where did I say disband. Also. TPF are not rogues, nor is NSO rogues. They are full alliances that are engaging in alliance wide warfare. So there are two differences to your situation. 1. They are alliances, not a singular member. 2. They are alliances, not rogues. So. Please. Hopefully you'll get it through your head. Words have meaning, learn their meanings. Edited February 7, 2017 by Alonso Quixano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Maybe you should look at the war screen before commenting because a heavy wonder drop-down nation is engaging The Rebel as we speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Maybe you should look at the war screen before commenting because a heavy wonder drop-down nation is engaging The Rebel as we speak. One doesn't make it a policy, it makes it the only one active, because it looks like ISX almost let their rogue slip into peace mode, because they didn't have a stagger. Looking at the other nations that have engaged, at the lower NS ranges, it seems they were not heavy wonder nations, and have been spanked. So, again. Please. Words matter, you should articulate a response that isn't so easily fact checked. Let's go over the facts. 1. ISX almost let their rogue, who they've been fighting for months go into peace, because of poor military planning. 2. The only active member to engage Khan in the smaller NS ranges finally had a nation with more wonders. 3. Junka continues to talk about moderation issues, and throw around players who he wants to be multi's. So he can have someone deleted, without having to deal with them. Edited February 7, 2017 by Alonso Quixano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 29 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said: You are putting smaller nations through attrition to beat this rogue, when you don't have to. As Darrin brought up, he is killing your smaller nations, rightly so with all those wonders. Unless your nations doesn't share the same value of NS as you do, it does not make sense to have smaller nation(s0) do a war of attrition when you can fight the rogue head on with sold down nations. Since they are sold down nations, they should have a large enough war chest, to buy back infra, and you can keep rotating out large sold down nations to exhaust the nation. Unless your large nations don't have war chest to do it. Then I sincerely agree with your attrition policy. I'm not sure I agree with this, if I am understanding what you are saying that it is better to have multiple mid tier nations sell down than the same number of lower tier nations fight him where they are. Obviously the total economic damage is lower to nations at a lower infra level, and keeping stronger nations at below their standard infra level for extended periods would of course result in additional "damage". If their strategy is to destroy his warchest, which it pretty much has to be if he is in it for the long term, then damage doesn't really matter, so long as the nations hitting him have CIAs, SDIs and MPs the results are pretty similar TBH. In a sense "damage" to this kind of nation may be counter productive, the more damage he takes the faster his tech falls, meaning his military costs go down. Additionally once his tech is gone he is in range of very small nations, and also has the ability to reduce his NS to ~0 in order to escape staggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Correct, most of our lower-tier nations are not a decade old and are not as well equipped with wonders, tech and warchest. If it ever becomes such an issue that we can't deal with it, we will simply lead an invasion into another world and take our collective donations there. I don't have respect for cheaters who taunt us as to their identity. However, that doesn't mean we will rollover just yet. I also don't need any lectures on military planning from a pissant who is mad we caught him leaking info to Lord Hitchcock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Blackatron said: I'm not sure I agree with this, if I am understanding what you are saying that it is better to have multiple mid tier nations sell down than the same number of lower tier nations fight him where they are. Obviously the total economic damage is lower to nations at a lower infra level, and keeping stronger nations at below their standard infra level for extended periods would of course result in additional "damage". If their strategy is to destroy his warchest, which it pretty much has to be if he is in it for the long term, then damage doesn't really matter, so long as the nations hitting him have CIAs, SDIs and MPs the results are pretty similar TBH. In a sense "damage" to this kind of nation may be counter productive, the more damage he takes the faster his tech falls, meaning his military costs go down. Additionally once his tech is gone he is in range of very small nations, and also has the ability to reduce his NS to ~0 in order to escape staggers. I'd normally agree, but the smaller nations without the land, or wonders, can't possibly run ops on said nation. If NS doesn't matter, and there is a large enough warchest, it's economically better to keep growing smaller/mid tier nations, while the large wonder heavy nations take the hit, and can use the money to rebuy. It's not about damage per say, but being able to absorb the damage easier, without using aid slots to build back up from damage. The larger nation with the better warchest can absorb that damage, and dish out better damage without the need to use aid slots to rebuild. Edit, it's also the strategy of the rogue, as Junka has said, to buy/be in the range of 30k-50k as they are statistically weak there. If you have the nations drop down into that range it allows steady staggers to move far easier then waiting for him to build back up into a range where they have less nations to stagger said rogue. The massive advantage of his war chest is the money he needs to buy infra is so low it doesn't matter to keep buying back to that level where there is a greater chance to slip into peace mode to restock. By moving down larger nations into that range it makes it harder for the rogue to go into peace mode. Edited February 7, 2017 by Alonso Quixano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Immortan Junka said: Correct, most of our lower-tier nations are not a decade old and are not as well equipped with wonders, tech and warchest. If it ever becomes such an issue that we can't deal with it, we will simply lead an invasion into another world and take our collective donations there. I don't have respect for cheaters who taunt us as to their identity. However, that doesn't mean we will rollover just yet. I also don't need any lectures on military planning from a pissant who is mad we caught him leaking info to Lord Hitchcock. You didn't catch me leaking any information, you've lied to people to make it look like I did. No one whom i've presented evidence to believes that I've leaked any information. Also, once they find out we canceled on ISX for giving MINC peace, they realize that it is stupid that we would help them. You can keep trying to push the logic that we canceled on an ally because of peace, then worked with the alliance that got peace to leak them information. Again, logic, son, logic. Yes. You do need military lectures because you are throwing your smaller nations to the wolf, and are using aid slots when they don't have to be. Again, words, and logic. No one said roll over. Actually debate points in the post, without speaking out your bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Everyone involved in the sting knows it was you, unless you are saying that I gave the pm to Lord Hitchcock directly, or someone in Magnus Opus did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Everyone involved in the sting knows it was you, unless you are saying that I gave the pm to Lord Hitchcock directly, or someone in Magnus Opus did. That's not true, and people in VaG government believe it wasn't me. So, again speaking without facts. I don't know what happened, I don't need to prove it wasn't me, you have to prove it was me. I have given screenshots of the forums where I posted the screenshot of the message to prepare our allies to be ready for an oA if we went in with VaG. So, there were anywhere between 2, and 150 people who saw it who could have leaked it. But, please, don't let facts get in the way of you trying to bad mouth myself or POSSE. Secondly. Are you saying we allied ISX, to influence MINC getting peace? Then once MINC got peace eventually cancel when all your wars were over? Then also tell VaG that we would attack MINC with them. Or maybe we don't like MINC, and didn't leak information of you planning a war to them. Or maybe you're just a conspiracy theorist. who tried to have two allies cancel on each other, to weaken a brown team alliance. Which sounds like ISX is trying to destabilize brown. I guess no one has ever accused you of having logic. Edited February 7, 2017 by Alonso Quixano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 You're not in PoSSE so no, I am talking about you. The sting wasn't even organized by me, but run by others who needed my PM, and I was informed it was specifically to flush you out as a leak. Pretty fair considering LH's chumminess towards you on the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Just now, Immortan Junka said: You're not in PoSSE so no, I am talking about you. The sting wasn't even organized by me, but run by others who needed my PM, and I was informed it was specifically to flush you out as a leak. Pretty fair considering LH's chumminess towards you on the OWF. I am in POSSE, shows how much you pay attention. Chumminess? Maybe, it's because we both have a dislike for you. Let it be know, we (POSSE) don't like MINC, and if one of our allies is planning a war on them, we will willingly participate in said war. How's that for chumminess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said: I am in POSSE, shows how much you pay attention. Chumminess? Maybe, it's because we both have a dislike for you. Let it be know, we (POSSE) don't like MINC, and if one of our allies is planning a war on them, we will willingly participate in said war. How's that for chumminess? If you are in PoSSE why are you on a separate AA going rogue? Are you trying to get them in trouble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Just now, Immortan Junka said: If you are in PoSSE why are you on a separate AA going rogue? Are you trying to get them in trouble? Rogue? Sigh. Just because someone raids, doesn't mean they are rogue. Anyone can be on any AA, and still be in the alliance, I wouldn't expect you to understand freedom. I don't expect you to get the nuances of being in a free alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Anything else you want to take a shot in the dark about to try to slander myself, or POSSE? Or do you prefer to keep making things up until something sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Alright you've blown any credibility you have at this point, have a nice day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: Alright you've blown any credibility you have at this point, have a nice day. I love how you think you can bends words to mean something else. Have a lovely day taking your balls, and going home. I look forward to our next debate over how you don't know how to comprehend small words, sentence structure, your lack of military knowledge, and your slander. Edited February 7, 2017 by Alonso Quixano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: If you are in PoSSE why are you on a separate AA going rogue? Are you trying to get them in trouble? He appears to be raiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alonso Quixano Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said: He appears to be raiding. Junka doesn't let facts get in the way of his posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted February 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Blackatron said: I'm not sure I agree with this, if I am understanding what you are saying that it is better to have multiple mid tier nations sell down than the same number of lower tier nations fight him where they are. Obviously the total economic damage is lower to nations at a lower infra level, and keeping stronger nations at below their standard infra level for extended periods would of course result in additional "damage". If their strategy is to destroy his warchest, which it pretty much has to be if he is in it for the long term, then damage doesn't really matter, so long as the nations hitting him have CIAs, SDIs and MPs the results are pretty similar TBH. In a sense "damage" to this kind of nation may be counter productive, the more damage he takes the faster his tech falls, meaning his military costs go down. Additionally once his tech is gone he is in range of very small nations, and also has the ability to reduce his NS to ~0 in order to escape staggers. This is a well thought out reply, however rather comical with Junka's failed attempt in creating a 'super lower teir'... his essays never came to fruition (per the norm) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) If I wanted "super lower tier" I would just have our upper tier send off tech as part of our aid program and bomb our lower tier with more cash (which would be 10x more effective than Minc starting dumb wars all the time). EDIT now that I think about it, don't think Minc would survive if we sunk our entire upper tier down to 20k NS. Edited February 8, 2017 by Immortan Junka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted February 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said: If I wanted "super lower tier" I would just have our upper tier send off tech as part of our aid program and bomb our lower tier with more cash (which would be 10x more effective than Minc starting dumb wars all the time). EDIT now that I think about it, don't think Minc would survive if we sunk our entire upper tier down to 20k NS. You've tried this before, against us, and failed miserably. Edited February 8, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said: You've tried this before, against us, and failed miserably. We beat you in two out of the three wars Minc started against us. The only reason you are a factor at all is because you hide your tier 4 nations well below the range of the majority of your opponent's equivalent nations. If the entire upper tier of ISX, Legion or any other normal alliance existed at your NS range you would be absolutely buried and begging for peace within a week. Edited February 8, 2017 by Immortan Junka 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.