Jump to content

Red At Night, Communist's Delight


Jason8

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, SirWilliam said:

 

Lets all just agree that fringelanding is the WORST

 

You seem mad. Is it because you and your friends always end up losing to me in the most embarrassing possible ways? 

I will always be better than you, SW. The sooner you accept that the better off you will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see that the LSF was the most capable army again. Dividing damage dealt by damage received shows the LSF did 20% more damage than received 💪 while the mighty wolves only managed a meagre 6% 🤡

 

LSF 208736.33 / 173101.85 = 1.21
UCR 904754.97 / 971846.67 = 0.93
SWF 54819.49 / 79080.50 = 0.69
COMECON 5358.84 / 16566.26 = 0.32
TW 1240595.28 / 1173669.63 = 1.06

Edited by shwampy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, shwampy said:

Good to see that the LSF was the most capable army again. Dividing damage dealt by damage received shows the LSF did 20% more damage than received 💪 while the mighty wolves only managed a meagre 6% 🤡

 

LSF 208736.33 / 173101.85 = 1.21
UCR 904754.97 / 971846.67 = 0.93
SWF 54819.49 / 79080.50 = 0.69
COMECON 5358.84 / 16566.26 = 0.32
TW 1240595.28 / 1173669.63 = 1.06

We've always been the best because we've never cared about infra or much of anything really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations everyone involved for your peace/win/loss/however you call it.

 

Thanks for the amusing variations over FL's name, gotta love polite irony, they made me smile.

Nothing personal FL, I actually love your contributions to CN.

 

Random reminder that 5 DAs in 14 seconds tell two things, at least:

1. Al is really quick with that mouse!

2. All of his opponents had very little or no soldiers at all, obviously.

 

As the ruler of a nation that never has soldiers in the first place I'll certainly won't be the one making fun of #2.

(In fact I'm absolutely qualified to explain why it may actually make a lot of sense, depending on the objectives one set for themselves.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jerdge said:

As the ruler of a nation that never has soldiers in the first place I'll certainly won't be the one making fun of #2.

(In fact I'm absolutely qualified to explain why it may actually make a lot of sense, depending on the objectives one set for themselves.)

 

As a wise man once said:

 

Quote

BECAUSE YOU DONT TURTLE WHEN YOUR THE BUTT KICKER, YOU TURTLE WHEN YOU GETTING YOU BUTT KICKED.... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jerdge said:

Congratulations everyone involved for your peace/win/loss/however you call it.

 

Thanks for the amusing variations over FL's name, gotta love polite irony, they made me smile.

Nothing personal FL, I actually love your contributions to CN.

 

Random reminder that 5 DAs in 14 seconds tell two things, at least:

1. Al is really quick with that mouse!

2. All of his opponents had very little or no soldiers at all, obviously.

 

As the ruler of a nation that never has soldiers in the first place I'll certainly won't be the one making fun of #2.

(In fact I'm absolutely qualified to explain why it may actually make a lot of sense, depending on the objectives one set for themselves.)

Although i don't agree with never having soldier, i want poke fun at the ones that do. I will however make fun of the ones that just quit fighting especially when two had a way greater tech advantages and one was fresh to the war haha.

 

Al 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jerdge said:

As the ruler of a nation that never has soldiers in the first place I'll certainly won't be the one making fun of #2.

(In fact I'm absolutely qualified to explain why it may actually make a lot of sense, depending on the objectives one set for themselves.)

Incorrect, you have 1,930,074 casualties, so historically you had soldiers at one point, most likely when starting out / building the nation when it was the 20/25% of all citizens should be soldiers phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, firingline said:

As a wise man once said:

Quote

BECAUSE YOU DONT TURTLE WHEN YOUR THE BUTT KICKER, YOU TURTLE WHEN YOU GETTING YOU BUTT KICKED....

 

If one's objective is to ensure that their opponents don't get any loot, and/or that they earn as few casualties as possible, and/or that they have as little fun as possible, having no soldiers is good practice.

I'm in the first group, there's no way to earn any stat by attacking my nation. It makes sense to me, as I'm totally not interested in war and, according to my experience, most if not all high end raiders are absolute pixel huggers.

There's basically no downside, either economically or tactically (I can declare war with no soldiers, if need be, and in fact I've done it in the past).

Had I any inclination for war, things would be different, ofc.

 

 

33 minutes ago, AL Bundy said:

Although i don't agree with never having soldier, i want poke fun at the ones that do. I will however make fun of the ones that just quit fighting especially when two had a way greater tech advantages and one was fresh to the war haha.

 

Al 

Well I have no knowledge of your conflicts with those people, and the general situation you all were in, I'll just trust your judgement on them specifically.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

Incorrect, you have 1,930,074 casualties, so historically you had soldiers at one point, most likely when starting out / building the nation when it was the 20/25% of all citizens should be soldiers phase.

Maybe half of them were collected in very old eras, in which warfare was very different and high end nations hadn't any easy way to profit over raids. My position in this world was also quite different.

The other ones were collected mainly against Cuba. I don't have much to say about that conflict as my nation had been revived to defend the GPA, and it was being sat by someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jerdge said:

Well I have no knowledge of your conflicts with those people, and the general situation you all were in, I'll just trust your judgement on them specifically.

 

You are not a bad egg there jerdge haha! 

 

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jerdge said:

If one's objective is to ensure that their opponents don't get any loot, and/or that they earn as few casualties as possible, and/or that they have as little fun as possible, having no soldiers is good practice.

I'm in the first group, there's no way to earn any stat by attacking my nation. It makes sense to me, as I'm totally not interested in war and, according to my experience, most if not all high end raiders are absolute pixel huggers.

There's basically no downside, either economically or tactically (I can declare war with no soldiers, if need be, and in fact I've done it in the past).

Had I any inclination for war, things would be different, ofc.

 

I understand what you're saying and understand why high-tier nations go without soldiers.

 

That being said, there's plenty of tactical downsides to having no soldiers for the commies. For example, we were able to bleed Marx's entire warchest in 1v1's with defeat alerts. $6m per day is expensive. And it denies him the ability to do a significant portion of damage. Most wolves were fighting 1 on 3; he could easily take advantage.

 

I think my casualty count this war (2 million per month) makes it clear that tactic isn't denying me any of what I want.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...