Jump to content

Reminiscing about old times


evilgm
 Share

Do you miss the original settings?  

111 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

link shows a thread I posted on the old days. I place it here before you now for discussion.

What really disappoints me is the people who seem so hell bent on superiority of numbers and making this a dumb point-and-click game. Quercus was spot on in his assessment that the game used to be strategic in nature. Being forced to fight only +/- 250 of your current rank was an amazing stroke of genius at the time of creation. It was a sad day when that changed. It effectively made sheer numbers the only currency that mattered. Skill was largely a thing of the past in a "Me wantz moar FITES!!!11one1!!!" mentality that seemed to prevail. Small alliances used to have a chance. Along with that was the ability to launch nukes whenever you want, not this 24-hour BS that we have now. Those two changes in the game irrevocably altered the game in favor of large blocs. Nukes were a deterrent before, now they mean little to nothing to a small alliance.

When GOONS first came into cybernations, they had so many members at once that they seemed like a wave that would alter the game forever. Everyone wanted to be their friend. Imagine if you owned 400 consecutive rankings and the 250 rule was in effect. You were insulated and protected. You had the ability to be diplomatically immune if you played your cards right and had discipline as a group. People who can't attack you don't bother you. You can ignore them without consequences. Using land, soldiers, and infra for manipulation to precisely hit a target in either buying or selling... those were the days.

For those of you saying how much you are disappointed with the tightening of the DoW stats, you really just don't get the strategy this game used to have, how much more balance it gave the game, and how much it protected the little guy. Expansion of the DoW ability only allowed large alliances to dominate the game in the way they never could before. Further decapitating the rights of the little guy was the removal of the instant nuke. Now a small alliance doesn't have a chance. Ever. The only strategy now is superior numbers. Weep for the game you never got to play, and dream that it could come back again.

I miss the old ways. Anyone else share my opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bcause the reason I don't miss instant nuking is because it allows an attacker to instantly Anarchy his target, making an even half-way decent update blitz make any possibility of counter attack by the defender physically impossible as they can no longer declare war. It has nothing to do with rogues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bcause the reason I don't miss instant nuking is because it allows an attacker to instantly Anarchy his target, making an even half-way decent update blitz make any possibility of counter attack by the defender physically impossible as they can no longer declare war. It has nothing to do with rogues.

You consider this a bad thing? Yes, you can no longer "declare" war until your anarchy is done, but in most cases people know when war is coming. And that's what allies are for. I think that this added an element of surprise that is sorely lacking from today's game. When a war starts today, there is no element of surprise. There is no "can alliance X take out alliance y." In almost all cases now the victor is the one who has the largest number of nations. There is virtually no other stat that matters. Money helps of course. If one alliance has 2x the war chest total of another alliance, all else being equal the ones with the most money will win. Nukes are game changers (or at least they were).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your poll options are awful for extracting any meaningful data.

You assume I wanted my poll to extract meaningful data. I was hoping to generate discussion, not numbers. The reason why people don't like a given option can be many and varied. The reverse is also true. I provided a limited number of options because I wanted to force people to actually talk about the issue. I'm glad to see you could be constructive. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You consider this a bad thing? Yes, you can no longer "declare" war until your anarchy is done, but in most cases people know when war is coming. And that's what allies are for. I think that this added an element of surprise that is sorely lacking from today's game. When a war starts today, there is no element of surprise. There is no "can alliance X take out alliance y." In almost all cases now the victor is the one who has the largest number of nations. There is virtually no other stat that matters. Money helps of course. If one alliance has 2x the war chest total of another alliance, all else being equal the ones with the most money will win. Nukes are game changers (or at least they were).

No, nukes were "the attacker wins" and guess what. The bigger guy is generally the attacker, seeing as they're more likely to win. Instant nuclear attacks meant that even a well prepared alliance expecting an attack would have an almost impossible time defending. Unless you have a combination lke you did with TORN vs GR where the attacker botches the blitz and the defender is sufficiently prepared to counter before the initial blitz even starts, it makes it physically impossible to counter attack the attacker.

Unless the attacker is incredibly incompetent, there is no "can x beat y" there is only "x attacked y so x wins" because with this method, anyone who has even a general concept of how to manage a war can keep an opponent in constant anarchy from the moment the war begins until 2-3 weeks later. This means the attacker effectively gets to choose every battle and the defemder can declare 0 wars in the upper ranks assuming the attacker isn't stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, nukes were "the attacker wins" and guess what. The bigger guy is generally the attacker, seeing as they're more likely to win. Instant nuclear attacks meant that even a well prepared alliance expecting an attack would have an almost impossible time defending. Unless you have a combination lke you did with TORN vs GR where the attacker botches the blitz and the defender is sufficiently prepared to counter before the initial blitz even starts, it makes it physically impossible to counter attack the attacker.

Unless the attacker is incredibly incompetent, there is no "can x beat y" there is only "x attacked y so x wins" because with this method, anyone who has even a general concept of how to manage a war can keep an opponent in constant anarchy from the moment the war begins until 2-3 weeks later. This means the attacker effectively gets to choose every battle and the defemder can declare 0 wars in the upper ranks assuming the attacker isn't stupid.

I took a look at your nation and you're about as old as I am. Surely you remember the old days of warfare? Using nukes actually meant something. Now they are just a little bigger CM. It used to be in prep for war that many nations went into peace mode so that they could come out and attack higher ups as needed. There was more planning and strategy involved. Not every conflict was guaranteed to be nuclear. I differ with your analysis of how things were. Attacking first did not guarantee victory, even with the inability to declare new wars. Anarchy isn't the end of the world, it just means that you can't help others for a bit. Friends and allies are the saving grace. Also, bear in mind that the 250 rule was in effect.

I really meant what I said about smaller alliances though. Consider a 30-member alliance of moderate size. They are all around the same nation strength and have nukes. With the instant nuke and 250 rank rule in effect, they could possibly defeat any alliance even twice their size with a well-planned strike. Use today's rules and even the element of a 3-man update attack might throw several nations in anarchy, but size would overwhelm them. Alliances meant more back in the day. Politics were more real, because everyone was a potential threat. Now the game appears stale. Reintroduction of these rules would make things exciting again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I disagree with your assertion that attacker wins. That simply wasn't the case. Preparation meant more back then, and the most prepared alliance usually did well. What constitutes preparation today versus yesterday is very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that both of these things should be reinstated. I think that the 250 +/- and insta nuke rules were smart. I think that if any of these could be instantiated I would rather have the 250 rule, but if we got that I would also like the insta nuke option. I wasn't arguing for the insta nuke all by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

250+/-?

Where's my 75 up, 50 down?

Ranks, not percentage.

I can't agree with the idea that the alliance that declares first wins in an instant-nuke environment. If the two alliances are +/-100% the same size and of a similar strength distribution, if there are no other alliances involved and if the attack is carried out flawlessly, yes, otherwise diplomacy and allies are going to play a far more important role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Yenisey.

But EGM you have to realize that ladder mobility was awesome back then because tech was worth 4x what it is now and the nations were pretty small. Ladder mobility for Urgul is pretty much impossible, even if tech was worth 100 NS per point.

What ranks would do is allow active alliances to organize their growth for local superiority on the ladder. An alliance with solid units and a decent level of esprit de corps could put 50 at the same strength and probably hold that part of the ladder in even a curb stomp.

So ranks would be bad for the hegemon and their associates, but good for the little trouble makers in the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quercus, I think that your point is well considered, and one that I admit I had no done. My mobility however is somewhat moot as I would be in the top 100's crossfire and no one else's, so my ability to go up/down isn't a big factor. However, I think that the idea of using the ranks again would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

getting to the level of owning a nuke is not easy now. At the very least it requires many, many months of planning. The only problem with it in the past was with people deciding to "go out with a bang" and nuke a ton of people on the way out. Not that I care about that so much. I've been hit with a few of those in my time. However, I will state that instant nukes make nukes a real deterrent. Now they are just one of many tools for warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way I miss the +/- 250 ranking system, but probably just because it brings back memories more than anything. I like the current system we have. Voted no.

As for instant nuclear capability. I read it wrong. I thought you meant that people were able to get into nuclear range so much quicker in the older days, but now I see what you mean. I voted ambivalent, but I think I would have to go with yes on this one.

Edited by Drai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

right now I see no deterrent to having nukes. Smaller alliances had a chance to inflict some surprise attacks in the past and really shake things up. It made life more exciting. Consider though that the game last for well over a year with nukes and first strikes allowed. What made the game so unplayable back then that it had to be changed? I think that the instant nukes would make the game interesting again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right now I see no deterrent to having nukes. Smaller alliances had a chance to inflict some surprise attacks in the past and really shake things up. It made life more exciting. Consider though that the game last for well over a year with nukes and first strikes allowed. What made the game so unplayable back then that it had to be changed? I think that the instant nukes would make the game interesting again.

Yeah it would mean that going rogue would take on a whole new meaning :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instant nuking would be ok IF nuclear anarchy didn't prevent offensive war declarations. Because that and the ability to collect before being put in nuclear anarchy would be the only practical difference. Otherwise you're just getting nuked a day later which isn't really that big of a difference.

Given that the attacker is almost always the larger side, this would just hurt the smaller side as they'd no longer have the ability to engage in counter attacks to any reasonable degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

idk, it used to be that using nukes was considered a taboo/red line for war. That is no longer the case. The game has certainly changed since back then. Immediate nukes allowed people to pull off surprises. I logged into my nation to find it glowing more than once. It made life more crazy, but I like living on the edge. To each his own.

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...