Round 66 Discussion

[lonabis]

Reduce nukes to 75% casualty count, and add way stronger DA's, force people to buy soldiers and maintain them. I think the problem with TE is early game turtling 

[firingline]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:57 PM, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

 

If the defeat alert is increased to the point it'd might rapidly bankrupt the defending party unfairly \

 

 

 

That's why you do it as a percent of aid over a certain amount. Once you sink to a certain threshold of cash, DAs start becoming weak. That way DAs can't bankrupt someone (well, unless it goes on for months) - it just prevents turtles from hoarding huge sums of cash and waiting for a rebuild to a stronger level as soon as the war ends.

 

Edited May 9 by firingline

[Johnny Apocalypse]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:57 AM, firingline said:

 

That's why you do it as a percent of aid over a certain amount. Once you sink to a certain threshold of cash, DAs start becoming weak. That way DAs can't bankrupt someone (well, unless it goes on for months) - it just prevents turtles from hoarding huge sums of cash and waiting for a rebuild to a stronger level as soon as the war ends.

 

 

Stopping people from buying up beyond their initial declaring range after a declaration for a gratuitous advantage would also prevent turtling by people who don't just use it as their entire gameplan. When faced with a downdeclare it is the only strategy that can be used to  mitigate losses that wouldn't be possible if they hadn't bought up, so your suggestion punishes people unfairly in this instance.

 

As turtling and downdeclares are causing problems that disrupt the chance for balanced and remotely enjoyable gameplay; why not address ways to deal with both of these things?

 

From an individual perspective that isn't influenced by a bias toward either AW or OP (who knows what I'll choose to do next round, I don't yet) and is more interested in being able to play without encountering both of these hindrances to it being worthwhile to engage with this format of CN?  I'm less concerned with the turtlers than I am with the people using a loophole to ignore the declaration ranges in place to prevent getting hit by someone who just needs to buy infra after they've declared on me to cirumvent the parameters of this limitation to gain an advantage that can't be compensated for reasonably  🤷‍♂️

 

 

Meanwhile; your suggestion is to penalise the one possible approach a player can take to deal with that, which it seems is due to a personal vendetta you have against a specific group adopting it as part of an entire gameplan rather than a reasonable defensive measure in the right context,

Edited May 10 by Johnny Apocalypse

[firingline]

4 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

Stopping people from buying up beyond their initial declaring range after a declaration for a gratuitous advantage would also prevent turtling by people who don't just use it as their entire gameplan. When faced with a downdeclare it is the only strategy that can be used to  mitigate losses that wouldn't be possible if they hadn't bought up, so your suggestion punishes people unfairly in this instance.

 

As turtling and downdeclares are causing problems that disrupt the chance for balanced and remotely enjoyable gameplay; why not address ways to deal with both of these things?

 

From an individual perspective that isn't influenced by a bias toward either AW or OP (who knows what I'll choose to do next round, I don't yet) and is more interested in being able to play without encountering both of these hindrances to it being worthwhile to engage with this format of CN?  I'm less concerned with the turtlers than I am with the people using a loophole to ignore the declaration ranges in place to prevent getting hit by someone who just needs to buy infra after they've declared on me to cirumvent the parameters of this limitation to gain an advantage that can't be compensated for reasonably  🤷‍♂️

 

 

Meanwhile; your suggestion is to penalise the one possible approach a player can take to deal with that, which it seems is due to a personal vendetta you have against a specific group adopting it as part of an entire gameplan rather than a reasonable defensive measure in the right context,

Turtling with massive sums of cash on hand SHOULD be penalized, though. It goes against the entire point of the game. It has nothing to do with any sort of vendetta. I don’t care who’s doing it. It should be penalized.

 

 I’ll re-read and address your suggestion when I have a bit more time. 

[DavidMustaine]

Not to offend anyone here, but I think te should be all about less politics and more fighting, I think that's the reason admin made it in the first place.... 

[admin]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:18 PM, tehol said:

...Very impressive polling analysis...

Thank you tehol.

 

What does everyone think about these changes to FA and DAs for the upcoming round?

 

Foreign Aid:

Previous Round 65 levels: $50m, 2500 tech, 4000 soldiers

Proposed Round 66 levels: $10m, 200 tech, 4000 soldiers

 

Defeat Alerts:

Previous Round 65 (starting) levels: 40 infras, 10 tech, $600K

Proposed Round 66 (starting) levels: 100 infras, 50 tech, $5m

[firingline]

8 hours ago, admin said:

Thank you tehol.

 

What does everyone think about these changes to FA and DAs for the upcoming round?

 

Foreign Aid:

Previous Round 65 levels: $50m, 2500 tech, 4000 soldiers

Proposed Round 66 levels: $10m, 200 tech, 4000 soldiers

 

Defeat Alerts:

Previous Round 65 (starting) levels: 40 infras, 10 tech, $600K

Proposed Round 66 (starting) levels: 100 infras, 50 tech, $5m

 

I think the aid limits look good.

 

I think the cash amount on the DAs is a little low. Perhaps $7.5m? I would actually do that, and lower the tech / infra damage levels a bit to 50/25.

 

Finally, is there a way to radically shift the DA amount below a certain dollar amount? The concept here is to protect the ability to turtle to survive while eliminating the ability to turtle to profit - so I'd hate to see someone end a war with only $5m or $10m in the bank.

 

I've often heard $30m considered an emergency fund for a basic rebuild. But I'd be open other peoples' opinions - I think somewhere in a range of $25m to $45m is reasonable. After which point a DA should do much less damage.

 

I fully admit I don't know the complexity of these changes as far as coding goes so another mechanic might be better / easier, but again the goal would be to protect the ability to stay in the game in the spirit of TE while preventing abuse of that spirit.

[firingline]

One additional thought - perhaps a smaller number of aid slots per person as well? Maybe 2 fewer slots?

[StevieG]

12 hours ago, admin said:

Thank you tehol.

 

What does everyone think about these changes to FA and DAs for the upcoming round?

 

Foreign Aid:

Previous Round 65 levels: $50m, 2500 tech, 4000 soldiers

Proposed Round 66 levels: $10m, 200 tech, 4000 soldiers

 

Defeat Alerts:

Previous Round 65 (starting) levels: 40 infras, 10 tech, $600K

Proposed Round 66 (starting) levels: 100 infras, 50 tech, $5m

5mil DA is terrible.

You have essentially mainly polled 1 AA who likes to build early and then dunk on other smaller alliances.

Anything over 1/2 mil will screw people over and drive people away from the game when they get stomped early!

Nations don't have hundreds of millions until way later in the round. The first wars people only have 20 30 40 50m

That is completely unfair!

Some of us don't even like to dish the damage when we can as it can already be too harsh on small alliances.

 

That aid level is acceptable, as it likely takes away the overpowered aspect of FAC. Drop it to 100 tech even better.

It's still unfair to smaller groups, being weighted to whoever has more numbers, and not really needed.

[Komplex]

13 hours ago, admin said:

Thank you tehol.

 

What does everyone think about these changes to FA and DAs for the upcoming round?

 

Foreign Aid:

Previous Round 65 levels: $50m, 2500 tech, 4000 soldiers

Proposed Round 66 levels: $10m, 200 tech, 4000 soldiers

 

Defeat Alerts:

Previous Round 65 (starting) levels: 40 infras, 10 tech, $600K

Proposed Round 66 (starting) levels: 100 infras, 50 tech, $5m

 

 

 

 

The aid change is good. Not too much at all but just little bit more than SE for TE. 

 

defeat alert, leave it alone. It’s fine how it is. 

Edited May 15 by Komplex

[Overlord Wes]

raising the DA cap with no other change would be disastrous for broke/smaller/outnumbered nations

 

5% cap 600k -> max at 12m+
5% cap 5m -> 600k at 12m, 1.5m at 30m, 2.5m at 50m, max at 100m+
2% cap 5m -> 240k at 12m, 600k at 30m, 1.0m at 50m, 2m at 100m, max at 250m+
1.2% cap 5m -> 144k at 12m, 360k at 30m, 600k at 50m, 1.2m at 100m, 3m at 250m, max at 416.7m+

each one set 600k at different points [the inflection point of <-less/more-> lost than current]

[King Cyan]

Pardon, I thought it was already finalized that there wasn't going to be any aid next round?  Why the change? 

 

I don't really see any purpose upping DA penalties and / or making them giant percentage cash killers unless it's to make the game more like a certain other realm that shall not be named and / or it being the sole will of @firingline

 

 

[firingline]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:10 AM, StevieG said:

5mil DA is terrible.

 

Yeah, it's terrible for those who don't want any competition in this game. Unfortunately, you'll now be forced to play TE. Not simply take advantage of flawed mechanics to turtle for profit.

 

Quote

Anything over 1/2 mil will screw people over and drive people away from the game when they get stomped early!

Half a mil is effectively nothing. You lose $2.5m for a whole round of turtling, at least partially offset by lower bill costs? A literal joke. Might as well not even have DAs.

 

What's driving people away from this game is that it's essentially 'solved' - like Tic-Tac-Toe or Connect Four. Your alliance follows a predefined script that ensures it's impossible for you to lose. Even worse, the mechanics involved in your script have you just lie there, 'take it', and rebuild stronger - it's impossible to find something more effective at sucking the enjoyment out of the game than that strategy.

The fact that you're making such a big deal out of a potential value modification is proof at how reliant you are on this loophole. If it ends up being as disastrous as you predict, you could post numbers to back it up and admin could adjust next round (like he is for aid). You're determined to make this all as messy and whiny and negative as possible in the hopes that admin doesn't make any changes, because you know once a change is implemented, you won't be able to produce any data or logic to roll it back. It's easier for you to "flood the zone with &#33;@#&#036;" and hope admin gets tired of hearing about it.

 

Quote

Nations don't have hundreds of millions until way later in the round.

 

Nations have $75m+ within a week of first collection.

 

Quote

That is completely unfair!

 

Quite the opposite - it's finally fair. There should be meaningful consequences to turtling. It's why defeat alerts exist in the first place. Admin tried to set it low enough to avoid crippling people, inadvertently creating a loophole where you can turtle every time you're losing and just rebuild stronger. That was clearly not his intent.

Edited May 18 by firingline

[firingline]

On 5/15/2024 at 2:12 AM, Overlord Wes said:

raising the DA cap with no other change would be disastrous for broke/smaller/outnumbered nations

 

5% cap 600k -> max at 12m+
5% cap 5m -> 600k at 12m, 1.5m at 30m, 2.5m at 50m, max at 100m+
2% cap 5m -> 240k at 12m, 600k at 30m, 1.0m at 50m, 2m at 100m, max at 250m+
1.2% cap 5m -> 144k at 12m, 360k at 30m, 600k at 50m, 1.2m at 100m, 3m at 250m, max at 416.7m+

each one set 600k at different points [the inflection point of <-less/more-> lost than current]

 

I've deleted and retyped this twice now. I do think there is some merit to looking at these numbers carefully and having tiers. I'm not sure we really need all these levels for when people are low on cash, though. The current system is $600k DAs and nobody really complains about it.

 

Perhaps 4% if you're under $40m, and 10% up to $10m cap if you're above?

 

Let's compare someone getting hit at $35m looking to survive another round. They take 2 DAs in the course of legitimate fighting. Under my proposal above they'd walk away with $32.25m. If they turtle fully for 5 days they end up with $28.5m. Not an earth shattering difference. Either way, they can rebuild.

 

Now let's compare to Stevie The Turtler trying to avoid war with his $90m warchest who will eat 5 DAs. He'd end with:
-$59.3m with 8%

-$56.2m with 9%

-$53.1m with 10%

 

If he had competed in good faith and taken the same 2 DAs, he'd be at $76.2m / $74.5m / $72.9m respectively. Those are some good incentives to fight instead of turtling!

 

 

[tehol]

Thanks @admin.

I propose :

 

Aid:

- $25M cash limit, 0 tech, 4000 soldiers

- 4 aid slots (not 6)

 

DA starting:

- $5M cash

- same tech and infra as round 65

 

Both suggestions work together to encourage buying soldiers and fighting, while counteracting each other in terms of game-wide cash levels.

 

edit: also, round should be shorter. 120 days was too long. 60-90 probably good

edit 2: also if keeping aid, cant forget that infra minimum needs to increase to prevent sending starting round cash. Proposed: 3500 infra instead of 2000

Edited May 18 by tehol

[StevieG]

On 5/18/2024 at 12:04 PM, firingline said:

 

I've deleted and retyped this twice now. I do think there is some merit to looking at these numbers carefully and having tiers. I'm not sure we really need all these levels for when people are low on cash, though. The current system is $600k DAs and nobody really complains about it.

 

Perhaps 4% if you're under $40m, and 10% up to $10m cap if you're above?

 

Let's compare someone getting hit at $35m looking to survive another round. They take 2 DAs in the course of legitimate fighting. Under my proposal above they'd walk away with $32.25m. If they turtle fully for 5 days they end up with $28.5m. Not an earth shattering difference. Either way, they can rebuild.

 

Now let's compare to Stevie The Turtler trying to avoid war with his $90m warchest who will eat 5 DAs. He'd end with:
-$59.3m with 8%

-$56.2m with 9%

-$53.1m with 10%

 

If he had competed in good faith and taken the same 2 DAs, he'd be at $76.2m / $74.5m / $72.9m respectively. Those are some good incentives to fight instead of turtling!

 

 

Carry on being clueless. I/We did not turtle at all. We smashed you to bits.

 

As much as you try to make this about me, it simply is not. I can still do my work without a nation/with a dead nation or sitting idle at 3ns on none. Wrap your head around that if you can.

 

The disaster of last round is and was clear to all. Let's have another disaster round why not lol.

The alliance that suggested the disaster recipe, has another disastrous suggestion, go figure.

 

Competing in good faith does not stop getting DAd daily.

Receiving multiple (up to 14 when max slotted) ground defeats and looting does not stop DAs.

DAs are simply an addition to anything and everything else. One can fight as hard as they can daily, and simply not being on at update can mean they take DAs daily. This is not simply an anomaly, it is a regular occurrence in this game. It's not limited to not being update active either.

The disastrous nature of up to 5mil DAs will be evident if it does go through as soon as anyone gets dominated or ganged up on which happens a lot in "game politics".

 

Wolves has a history of aiming to  get out of the blocks fast and then using the early strength to dominate your opponents.

Maxing DAs would naturally help that strategy.

So it's a little facetious and incredibly short sighted that you (and tehol and any wolves) are arguing for game modifications to "help improve TE" when in reality it is to suit and assist your play style, while trying to argue that I am simply in it for my own interests. I call that hypocrisy.

 

Anyone and everyone can be ganged up on at some stage. We don't like participating in that stuff  anyways, so naturally we are against game modifications that will only serve to benefit the ganging up on others.

 

Leave OP and wolves out of the discussion and poll the likes of

Knights

Boognish

Defcon

Ask those smaller Alliances what they think about drastically increasing DAs?

 

Now, what really is driving people from the game?

Those that hoard millions?

Or those that indiscriminately dunk on anyone smaller than them? (And seek to increase the penalties that they will dish out)

 

You and I and all of us know the answer to that.

[StevieG]

On 5/18/2024 at 1:01 PM, tehol said:

Thanks @admin.

I propose :

 

Aid:

- $25M cash limit, 0 tech, 4000 soldiers

- 4 aid slots (not 6)

 

DA starting:

- $5M cash

- same tech and infra as round 65

 

Both suggestions work together to encourage buying soldiers and fighting, while counteracting each other in terms of game-wide cash levels.

 

edit: also, round should be shorter. 120 days was too long. 60-90 probably good

edit 2: also if keeping aid, cant forget that infra minimum needs to increase to prevent sending starting round cash. Proposed: 3500 infra instead of 2000

Just cash And no tech?

I kinda like it maybe. Anything that means FAC isn't OP I'm not going to hate.

But, what is the real purpose? To help poor nations recover? To help boost cash for strategic purposes? To increase inter alliance activity?

If it's just the last one, that's not enough for me tbh.

This still seems like I can "unfairly" boost nations 100m per cycle where needed.

 

Next point.

Why increase DAs hugely and then allow aid to simply cover it and more?

Im arguing that the increase will simply be heavily weighted towards penalizing the smaller alliances and the like, as they won't have the resources to just top nations up as they see fit.

And even without the DA increase, the benefit to aid is weighted towards the bigger alliances and teams.

So essentially aid plus increase in DAs is a double whammy for the smaller micro alliances and teams.

 

Edit; In reality what's stopping the game from growing (retaining members) IMO, is that micro and smaller alliances find it really hard to compete.

These suggestions and the addition of aid does not alleviate these issues but simply exacerbate them IMO.

Edited May 19 by StevieG

[firingline]

19 hours ago, StevieG said:

Carry on being clueless. I/We did not turtle at all.

 

Of course not. You had a 3-1 advantage in nations, so you didn't need to turtle. 

 

In anything resembling an equal war, or especially where you are at even the slightest disadvantage, you do turtle.

 

Quote

The disastrous nature of up to 5mil DAs will be evident if it does go through as soon as anyone gets dominated or ganged up on which happens a lot in "game politics".

 

It's not a disaster if you're getting your ass kicked - you lose another mil or two.

 

It's only a disaster if you're hoarding cash.

 

Quote

So it's a little facetious and incredibly short sighted that you (and tehol and any wolves) are arguing for game modifications to "help improve TE" 

 

No, it's not. Again, I literally cannot think of anything more boring than current TE. OP is winning? They carry on as normal. OP faces any adversity? They sell all their troops and fling nukes, and somehow get rewarded for not playing in good faith by immediately building up stronger than before the war they lost.

 

There's literally no point.

 

 

Quote

 

Now, what really is driving people from the game?

Those that hoard millions?

 

 

Yes.

 

The people that either win or turtle. The people that take any aspect of strategy out of the game. The people who kick and scream and fight to keep game mechanics that clearly go against the philosophy of the game.

 

Do you really think Kevin intended for CN:TE to be CN:TurtleEdition? Do you really think he wants alliances to just sell off all their soldiers and play possum if they aren't winning? You really think that's better for the health of the game than daring to experiment for bigger DAs for a single round?

 

Seriously. If it is really as disastrous as you claim, Admin can change the rules back. Why are you so adamant about not even trying this?

Edited May 20 by firingline

[StevieG]

9 hours ago, firingline said:

 

Of course not. You had a 3-1 advantage in nations, so you didn't need to turtle. 

 

In anything resembling an equal war, or especially where you are at even the slightest disadvantage, you do turtle.

 

 

It's not a disaster if you're getting your ass kicked - you lose another mil or two.

 

It's only a disaster if you're hoarding cash.

 

 

No, it's not. Again, I literally cannot think of anything more boring than current TE. OP is winning? They carry on as normal. OP faces any adversity? They sell all their troops and fling nukes, and somehow get rewarded for not playing in good faith by immediately building up stronger than before the war they lost.

 

There's literally no point.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

The people that either win or turtle. The people that take any aspect of strategy out of the game. The people who kick and scream and fight to keep game mechanics that clearly go against the philosophy of the game.

 

Do you really think Kevin intended for CN:TE to be CN:TurtleEdition? Do you really think he wants alliances to just sell off all their soldiers and play possum if they aren't winning? You really think that's better for the health of the game than daring to experiment for bigger DAs for a single round?

 

Seriously. If it is really as disastrous as you claim, Admin can change the rules back. Why are you so adamant about not even trying this?

1. So you admit we didn't turtle. At least half of your arguments for increasing DAs was to punish OP for turtling, which you now admit isn't even valid.

OP had equal or less members than wolves. If you want to try to lump knights and boognish into that, that's your own perogative, and wouldn't even make 2-1. The fact that we fought boogs and knights as much as we could makes your claim fail to hold water.

The fact is that politics can swing any which way. 

 

2. It won't be a disaster for OP, we are quite good. It probably won't be a disaster for wolves either unless you get dunked on.

Who it will be a disaster for are all the Micros and smaller alliances who may want to play. Already we see Micros get stomped by alliances such as Roman Empire and Wolves. Adding increased defeat alerts will only exacerbate the unfair pile on that they (or anyone) could receive.

The point of adding features to the  game is not to make it easier for the established Alliances to carry out their play style and plans.

 

3. It's not nearly that simple. Wolves and others have won plenty of their fair share. This is a ridiculous notion. I could make up a whole lot of garbage like you, and pretend it has something to do with wolves winning and it being unfair too.

Your argument of "just turtle and win" is the most stupid argument I've ever seen.

 

4. I'd argue that getting beat to a pulp and being wrecked 2-3 weeks into the game, and then limping through till their next beat down is by far the bigger issue for smaller alliances and regular players that aren't in wolves or OP.

Go ask knights and boogs what's the bigger issue. Others having way more money than them? Or the above. Il rest my case on that answer.

 

5. What happened with the last experiment? We were completely against it from the off because we knew how bad it was for the game, and we were dead right.

Now, the FAC is simply being converted into a supplementary extra. And that's still only gonna benefit the bigger alliances. This is not actually good for the game, it's just a little unfair quirk. It doesn't help the game at all.

Admin will be forced to change it if he does go ahead with this. You can quote me on that.

Admin doesn't play the game, and as such he is completely blind to how it actually plays out.

If we can stop admin making changes that are clearly political and only to try help your strategic goals then yeah that's a good thing.

 

 

So far you cannot reasonably articulate any good argument for increase in DAs.

 

"Turtles bad, OP bad, OP hog money, and turtle and rebuild. we must do something to kill your money"

"Yeah you didn't turtle because you had a 3-1 advantage"

Make this make sense, you cannot.

 

My argument is that any "benefit" to reducing rich nations cash with increased DAs, will merely create extra negative outcomes for the nations with less money. Which tend to be the smaller and newer alliances and players.

And not only that, later on when we get FACs we can just top up cash as we see fit with all our extra resources.

Way to stop OP winning?

[firingline]

1 hour ago, StevieG said:

1. So you admit we didn't turtle. At least half of your arguments for increasing DAs was to punish OP for turtling, which you now admit isn't even valid.

No. Stop acting in bad faith. I was extremely clear.

 

 

Quote

OP had equal or less members than wolves.

OP had a three-to-one advantage. You gave up claiming you were separate entities when you 1) declined to fight each other, 2) transferred all your tech from your outlying members to your core AA. The fact that you fought Boog/Knights months into the round doesn't change that and is yet another display of incredibly bad faith. You and I both know that scrimmaging Knights at the end of the round is not the same as fighting them at the beginning or middle of the round. Don't play dumb.

 

Quote

It won't be a disaster for OP

And yet you keep screeching about it. If you're fine with things, why not give it a try?

Quote

Already we see Micros get stomped by alliances such as Roman Empire and Wolves.

 

We don't see that at all. Again, though, you're clearly trying to 'flood the zone with &#33;@#&#036;'.  We're talking about game mechanics, not politics.

 

Quote

The point of adding features to the  game is not to make it easier for the established Alliances to carry out their play style and plans.

The point of modifying game rules is to ensure a competitive outcome. As stated, it has been discovered by a particular AA that if they are at risk of losing a conventional war, they can simply sell their soldiers and stop playing the game for a week, then log back in and do a full rebuild. I'm quite sure that was never Admin's vision for TE gameplay. I'm sorry that we now have to address that by looking at modifications that you don't like, but perhaps you should have considered that possibility when you started playing in a way that was the antithesis of the intent of TE.

 

Quote

I'd argue that getting beat to a pulp and being wrecked 2-3 weeks into the game, and then limping through till their next beat down is by far the bigger issue for smaller alliances and regular players that aren't in wolves or OP.

This isn't something that happened last round, so it's really weird that you're pretending it is. Instead what happened was "3 alliances" (one big functional AA) took turns attacking Wolves. That sure doesn't sound like micros being wrecked for 2-3 weeks.

 

Quote

What happened with the last experiment?

Gameplay was at its highest levels in years, and it was broadly agreed that aid was a positive addition and it is going to stick around for the long-term, with modified limits. That's what happened. Sounds like a success to me! 

 

 

Quote

Admin doesn't play the game, and as such he is completely blind to how it actually plays out.

He doesn't need to play to understand this problem: "hey admin, starting a few rounds ago, whenever the biggest alliance in the game starts losing, they just sell all their troops and sit there. Then, because defeat alerts are so weak, they only lose a couple million bucks, and with half-price infra, they're able to rebuild to where they were and beyond immediately. This is incredibly boring, why even play?"

 

 

Quote

So far you cannot reasonably articulate any good argument for increase in DAs.

lmao.

 

[King Cyan]

 

14 hours ago, firingline said:

 

OP had a three-to-one advantage. You gave up claiming you were separate entities when you 1) declined to fight each other, 2) transferred all your tech from your outlying members to your core AA. The fact that you fought Boog/Knights months into the round doesn't change that and is yet another display of incredibly bad faith. You and I both know that scrimmaging Knights at the end of the round is not the same as fighting them at the beginning or middle of the round. Don't play dumb.

 

 

This isn't something that happened last round, so it's really weird that you're pretending it is. Instead what happened was "3 alliances" (one big functional AA) took turns attacking Wolves. That sure doesn't sound like micros being wrecked for 2-3 weeks.

 

 

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."  How many of your fellow wooves back you up on all that, just wondering? 

 

 

14 hours ago, firingline said:

Gameplay was at its highest levels in years, and it was broadly agreed that aid was a positive addition and it is going to stick around for the long-term, with modified limits. That's what happened. Sounds like a success to me!

 

When supposedly more players were allured by promises of SE tech and recruitment drives happen from leaders of MULTIPLE CN SE alliances to make TE nations (albeit this past round actually ALL for ONE certain TE AA) then I don't think you can really fairly correlate TE gameplay level and TE aid as "success."  Also considering my previous sentence here as well it's probably not proper for you to be accusing others of being political.  Again, just because you as fiwinwine says somethin dont always make it da troof! 

 

14 hours ago, firingline said:

As stated, it has been discovered by a particular AA that if they are at risk of losing a conventional war, they can simply sell their soldiers and stop playing the game for a week, then log back in and do a full rebuild.

Can you even legitimately define what a 'full rebuild' is?  Is it free of so called 'dirty spy ops'?  What about blockades?  Pardon, but I don't really seem to be missing a lot when missing what you already claim "as stated." 

 

14 hours ago, firingline said:

I'm quite sure that was never Admin's vision for TE gameplay.

So sayeth Roman Farseer Fiwinwine.  Suspiciously sure to be sure... for one who landed on TE almost the same round with that new Roman Empire them brief rounds ago (not even TEN rounds ago)!  Clearly you are a prophet who must know everything, be 100% followed to the latter, and no one can match thine infinite wisdom. 

 

14 hours ago, firingline said:

The point of modifying game rules is to ensure a competitive outcome.

I'd argue that you and your fellow wooves tried exactly the opposite this past round, using this said method of modifying game rules (more knowing how effective it'd be earlier on, perhaps before most everybody else) then using that in attempting to Roman Empire the planet again, yet still failed in the most spectacular way possible.  Now here you are, back at square one.  Ah well, if at first you don't succeed...

 

[firingline]

1 hour ago, King Cyan said:

So sayeth Roman Farseer Fiwinwine.  Suspiciously sure to be sure... for one who landed on TE almost the same round with that new Roman Empire them brief rounds ago (not even TEN rounds ago)!  Clearly you are a prophet who must know everything, be 100% followed to the latter, and no one can match thine infinite wisdom. 

 

Yeah, you're right. Admin definitely intended for turtling to be the predominant strategy of CN:TE. It's exactly what he had in mind. "Let's make a game where if you're losing, you just stop playing for a week then build back stronger. It'll be so much fun for everybody!"

[King Cyan]

16 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

Yeah, you're right. Admin definitely intended for turtling to be the predominant strategy of CN:TE. It's exactly what he had in mind. "Let's make a game where if you're losing, you just stop playing for a week then build back stronger. It'll be so much fun for everybody!"

Was it still the 'predominant strategy' when you and em Romans got rounds 58 and 59?  Also brings me back to this:

 

2 hours ago, King Cyan said:

Can you even legitimately define what a 'full rebuild' is?  Is it free of so called 'dirty spy ops'?  What about blockades?

 

[firingline]

9 hours ago, King Cyan said:

Was it still the 'predominant strategy' when you and em Romans got rounds 58 and 59?  Also brings me back to this:

 

 

 

Do you have an actual argument to make in favor of turtling in TE, or nah? The gaslighting is getting a little old.

[King Cyan]

14 hours ago, firingline said:

 

Do you have an actual argument to make in favor of turtling in TE, or nah? The gaslighting is getting a little old.

By all means if I'm gaslighting then you as FiringLine should ignite all these nauseous gasoline fumes. 

 

Let me rephrase for you: How was it 'predominant' as you say when supposedly your new Roman Empire of old supposedly never turtled and still pretty much won everything in those rounds?