Caesar’s Total War Roguery Guide

[Corinan]

Who are you Yoda now?

However seriously, Sponge having ran one of the strongest alliances in Bob for a little over 2 years even in his current state is a far better candidate on this than you are. Sponge outclasses you here, sir.

@Corinan- Well if you've noticed, more and more folk are actually... y'know... gaining minds of their own nowadays and some are even getting fed up with BS that NPO tends to spew every time one of those bumps in the road you talked about comes along. Problem is those bumps are becoming bigger and bigger every time and generally involve someone who was at one point your ally. With Q hemmoraging NS and more alliances beginning to think for themselves, I think people are finally coming to with the fact that maybe it's not a great idea to ally with NPO. Just maybe.

Or Vox Populi is just full of crap. Just maybe. Also, I said "bumps in the night." Kinda messes up your already not very good analogy.

[LiquidMercury]

I forgot to add the tech-to-infra ratio. The amount of technology should be very low because technology has very little effect in war when it comes to the majority of your opponents, who will have high infra but less tech. I found that technology wore me down and got me in a NS range that did not give me the greatest advantage. This was not true in the past during diskord's time, but now I believe it does. It is better to have 2-3 times more infra than tech, even when going rogue because there will be more troops available to defend and attack, and there is very little chance your opponents will have as much tech as you since the majority of alliances pump up their smallest nations with tech deals. Even nations above 5000 infra act as factories for tech to sell, and most of the time they will not have over a 1000 tech. This is a trend that is set in stone on CN because a lot of smaller nations have no other way of growing and catching up with the largest of nations that have been here for over a year. With the cap on aid at $3 million, a nation can take so much, even with donations and wars.

I will add the above to my guide. This guide started at the beginning of the year, and I added a little bit at a time until I finally stopped launching nukes.

I strongly disagree. I like the fact that I do 921.84 infra dmg 237.04 tech dmg and 1,128.78 land dmg per DAY.

[astronaut jones]

I strongly disagree. I like the fact that I do 921.84 infra dmg 237.04 tech dmg and 1,128.78 land dmg per DAY.

rogues won't do as much damage as that, so it's best that they hit lower, where their damage will be lasting and much more devastating.

Also, word? word.

[jer]

I strongly disagree. I like the fact that I do 921.84 infra dmg 237.04 tech dmg and 1,128.78 land dmg per DAY.

How many 12k tech nations go rogue though? I can understand you not wanting to sell your tech at that range because it's such a huge and generally useful amount, but well developed nations like yours are highly unlikely to go rogue in the first place which explains why they're not accommodated in a guide like this.

Also, a big part of Caesar's success was being able to fight against nations who were low NS and unable to compete with his military wonders and his experience. A large amount of tech will just keep you in range of more prepared targets who can stomp you down and wear away your warchest more easily than their lower NS counterparts, which would reduce the lifespan of a rogue who's intention is to be a thorn in the side of his opponents for as long as possible.

[Geoffron X]

rogues won't do as much damage as that, so it's best that they hit lower, where their damage will be lasting and much more devastating.

Also, word? word.

How would it be lasting? It's cheaper to rebuild lower level amounts of infra.

[Mogar]

How would it be lasting? It's cheaper to rebuild lower level amounts of infra.

not if the nations quit the game, like the nations MK attacked during the War of the Coalition, which I assume would be the goal of a coordinated nuke rogue program.

[jer]

How would it be lasting? It's cheaper to rebuild lower level amounts of infra.

Infra isn't the be all and end all.

If a well stacked rogue can stay at lower ranges and maintain their high warchest they can cause a great amount of annoyance to the nations in the firing line... if done correctly the targets will not even get the opportunity to rebuild for a good while. This in turn can affect the morale of the alliance as a whole as there could be complaints over why the rogue hasn't been dealt with, or why the attacked members aren't getting more aid, or complaints that all of the aid is being sapped by the rogue, and so on. These complaints could lead to friction within the alliance or even members leaving. And if it's well known that a rogue is attacking a certain range in an alliance, what nation in that range would want to join, if they're just putting themselves in the firing line?

All hypothetical of course, but I don't think the above scenarios are too far-fetched, and they may well be more rewarding to a rogue than a one-off hit at a high level (causing a great deal of infra damage for a week on nations who are well-established and high earners themselves) before being constantly engaged all the way down the NS range until his warchest is depleted and he's no longer a threat.

E: Or what Mogar said >.>

Edited February 24, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[astronaut jones]

How would it be lasting? It's cheaper to rebuild lower level amounts of infra.

Again, a sustained attack, over the course of months and months, will do more than just destroy infrastructure. If done properly, with propaganda and whatnot, you will demoralize the members of said alliance and they will waste time, money, and effort in trying to rebuild the lower nations, and they will lose members who don't want to get nuked to hell.

Simple as that, really.

[astronaut jones]

The reason I don't think people are quite getting what we're saying here is because there really has never been anything like it in CN before. Nuke rogues generally don't last longer than 20 days, but if someone had enough money and enough determination to last months, even a year or so if their warchest is high enough, then I think they'd understand.

As aimee mann said, everything we've said is merely hypothetical, but really, why would it not work?

[Mirreille]

As aimee mann said, everything we've said is merely hypothetical, but really, why would it not work?

Because the levels of vindictiveness and preparedness required are seldom found in CN. I would say that most of the people who would go rogue would not be capable of preparing to the degree you are talking about. You see rogues attacking without even a full stockpile, much less a warchest. Roma was also exceptional in that he had the will to keep doing this for months on end.

It SHOULD work, you just have to find the right (or wrong?) sort of person. I would think this is what FAN has been working towards for some time now. The MP was a godsend so far as they were concerned.

[enderland]

I'm sure sometime someone will go rogue with a "well stocked" nation but most people willing to put that much time into a nation wisely do not want to throw it away

[astronaut jones]

Because the levels of vindictiveness and preparedness required are seldom found in CN. I would say that most of the people who would go rogue would not be capable of preparing to the degree you are talking about. You see rogues attacking without even a full stockpile, much less a warchest. Roma was also exceptional in that he had the will to keep doing this for months on end.

It SHOULD work, you just have to find the right (or wrong?) sort of person. I would think this is what FAN has been working towards for some time now. The MP was a godsend so far as they were concerned.

I don't believe vindictiveness has anything to do with going rogue. A lot of the time it does though, but it should just be another act for a person, like collecting taxes or paying bills. There should be no more vindictiveness, or hatred involved than that.

Going rogue as we've all stated, if it were to be done, would require someone who was calculating, and had the patience to see it through to the end.

I think a person should revel in the destruction they cause, but not do it out of revenge.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I you're going to go rogue make sure you do it right. Far too many times I have seen people with less than 20 nukes decide to hit 3 nations.

Also no guide is necessary unless you're a complete idiot. Chances are if you need a guide you don't know how to work the war system and will likely fail anyway.

And finally a rogue these days should have billions and every single military wonder. You need to at least have fun with it!

[astronaut jones]

I you're going to go rogue make sure you do it right. Far too many times I have seen people with less than 20 nukes decide to hit 3 nations.

Also no guide is necessary unless you're a complete idiot. Chances are if you need a guide you don't know how to work the war system and will likely fail anyway.

And finally a rogue these days should have billions and every single military wonder. You need to at least have fun with it!

The sharing of information is never a bad thing, whether you think you need it or not.

In fact, I've been toying with the idea of writing a warguide just to share it here.

[Bob Janova]

It SHOULD work, you just have to find the right (or wrong?) sort of person. I would think this is what FAN has been working towards for some time now. The MP was a godsend so far as they were concerned.

Yes, I believe they are doing so, although the long months of constant attack have eroded their support significantly. They have 14 nations with MPs in the main AA at the minute. Also, interesting mini-fact from looking that up: FAN has grown by 25,000 (around 3½%) in the last 30 days. NPO has grown by a little under 400,000 (around 1¾%) in the same period.