Jump to content

Another Open Letter to GGA


zzzptm
 Share

Recommended Posts

I need more entertainment, your heckling is getting quite stale, CN. We're the GGA, surely we deserve your AAA level insults instead of something you toss out the back of the store for the dogs. I'd hate to think we've gotten boring so soon.

Your insistence that we insult you is very passive-aggressive. Get some help there, seriously. The first step toward solving a problem is admitting you have one, and that's something you need to do. Don't hide behind a wall of braggadocio when you really need some quiet introspection - the salvation of your alliance and the brothers and sisters you have in it should come before any personal pride.

Of course there's nothing I could say that would bring as big a laugh as looking at the GGA alliance stats page. There's no defense or excuse for ugly like that. So how about instead of insults, I hurl some nation and alliance building advice out your way. Why curse the darkness when we can light some candles, eh?

Now for the help...

There are 26 nations in the GGA that can - and should - have a WRC right now based on infrastructure. However, of them, four do not have the requisite 2000 tech. My recommendation is to get your alliance's tech deals revved up and focused on internal development. My alliance, Nueva Vida, has less than 2/3rds the number of members that GGA has, yet has more tech deals humming along right now. Granted, we could be doing better, but GGA can be doing much, much better.

Saying that NPO will bail you out in any event, making military development unnecessary is a bad line of reasoning. The political landscape is changing and NPO/GGA could actually wind up on the short end of the numbers calculation and when that happens, there are individual nations and alliances that would love to rip GGA to its component particles. If it can defend itself MK-style then it might have a chance of surviving in the future. In its current state, it's little more than a lamb carrying a stick labeled "gun." Let's look at the numbers to see where GGA needs to bulk up if it really and truly wants to be taken seriously as something other than an extension of NPO made up of "useful idiots" - people unaware of their own disposable nature used as an actor in the larger scheme of things to prevent its larger partner from direct involvement when such direct involvement would be inconvenient.

Again, let's run some comparisons with NV.

GGA: 295 members

NV: 182 members

OK, so proportionally, we should have 60% of everything GGA has. If we take what GGA has and divide it into what NV has, any result over 60% should be taken as a warning sign that GGA has fallen behind in terms of overall nation and alliance development.

NV has 79% of GGA's total NS. That indicates the nations of NV are better developed on the whole, as evidenced by their much higher average NS. Where is that growth coming from?

In terms of land, NV and GGA are equally weighted there. NV has 73% of GGAs infra and 87% of its tech. That tech number is a key indicator of GGA's lack of internal market development for tech deals.

Looking at nuclear numbers, NV has 133% of GGA's total nukes, and 181% of GGA's Manhattan Projects. The MP is the path to nuclear development for nations not blessed enough to be in the top 5% of Digiterra's nations by NS. Get more MPs to have more nukes, which will mean a great deal more respect for GGA's military potential.

Along with those, the WRC is necessary for nuclear weapons to do their most damage possible. NV has 11, GGA 1 when GGA should have 17 in an equal-weighting setup. GGA is also weak on SDIs, with NV having 106% of GGA's total.

What wonders has GGA been buying instead of the military ones? Either none, or bad ones. GGA has five FACs, which are useless, and 24 space programs, which are not as important as the other wonders. 9 MICs, 26 ADCs, 4 NEOs, and 2 fallout shelters round out the picture of opportunities lost in wonder purchases.

Claiming economic development ahead of military development would not be an excuse, either: NV exceeds proportionality with GGA in the area of key economic wonders such as Social Security Systems, Stock Markets, Internets, Interstate Highway Systems, and Disaster Recovery Agencies, to name a few. Economically, Nueva Vida nations should be expected to outperform GGA nations.

Looking at the improvement figures, both NV and GGA are doing a good job of getting their young nations set up with a harbor. GGA nations are also proportional with NV in the area of factories and banks. After that, GGA starts to lag - indicating a lack of mid-size national development programs. One key is GGA's relative lack of Foreign Ministries - these are a must-have in order to get those tech markets jumping. Nearly every NV nation has one - 88% - while only 73% of GGA nations have one. Get that fixed ASAP and then the twin problems of tech-poor upper rank nations and stunted mid-level nations can be addressed simultaneously.

Looking at the other improvement numbers, GGA has a gap in stadiums, schools/universities, clinics/hospitals, churches, police stations, and intel agencies. This is indicative, again, of a lack of development programs past the startup level. If you have them, then they are either not effective or not being taken advantage of.

Could I offer more help in this matter? Hard to say, short of GGA allowing me to access their forums to observe culture, level of activity, and to make suggestions. Ochocinco would make a great viceroy, no question about it: he has a great personality and can get things going anywhere he goes. If GGA wants less than that, it can ask around. It should ask its allies if they themselves are capable enough of putting their own house in order. GGA could profit from guidance and a closer working relationship, methinks.

I have no stake in the issue. I'm just tired of seeing GGA flail around publicly. It's funny for the first few posts, but by page 17 it's pitiable.

Should my words sting anywhere, they were not meant with anger or intent of insult and therefore such stings would be sign of thin skins, resistance to change, a state of delusion, and/or an aversion to truth. One person calling out GGA is an annoyance. Two is a band of disgruntled ex-alliance members. Three is lines being drawn. Four or more is serious, especially when many of those voices are respected members of the world community that really would like to see GGA do better, even if it is not directly allied to them - or possibly even on an opposite of the growing divide in the world.

I'll make no secret of my strategy: if my nation were to be involved in a war with One Vision in general, I would attack GGA nations in order to have a chance of replacing the tech and land my nation would be losing from its inbound wars. GGA nations would be the easiest to both raid and wound, increasing the total amount of damage my nation would be able to inflict during the conflict. Yes, I'd see a wrecked and ruined Himynamistan at the conclusion of such an affair but I'd also know that I took down other nations with mine and extended my nation's ability to fight on by targeting relatively weaker nations for replenishing my losses. For this strategy to be invalid, GGA must cease to be the weakest member of One Vision.

I do not anticipate a war with One Vision or GGA in the near future. I merely offer that up as an indication of where not only I, but many leaders of nations see GGA at present: that the "Grand" is oxymoronic. This is a public, open letter, and no doubt others will step forward and concur with all or part of what I have said, adding their esteem to my suggestions and comments.

If you need a second witness to at least some of what I am saying, you need look no further than Ironchef's comments in the recent past. They have been made public and some bring them up to ridicule GGA. I only bring them up to encourage GGA to reverse its direction and to get some help.

With due respect,

Zzzptm Nezahualcoyotl

First Speaker of Himynamistan

(Of course, my comments are my own and not reflective of Nueva Vida foreign policy. I make these comments as the head of state of my nation, and with those credentials alone.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where did I ever say that the GGA didn't have a problem? More common sense before opening your mouth next time would be much appreciated.

Edit : Also, it's Planet Bob, not that abortion of a phrase "Digiterra".

Edited by SilverHawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that comparing GGA to NV is unfair.

I could compare NV to The Grämlins, and because the discrepancy in the number of members, you should be much stronger than Grämlins, but we know that's not the case. Alliances are built differently.

Does GGA need to turn themselves around? Absolutely. Should they do it because in comparison with another alliance that alliance is better built? No, they should do it because they see in themselves that they need to turn it around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zzzptm: Hey, here's some well though out, valid advice to help you guys out.

You: F*** you.

Pretty much really, we already know what needs to be done to fix our alliance and are doing so at all possible speed. We don't need another thread that I can bet my 401K on will devolve into petty GGA insults and trolling.

Edit : You would do well to know that the GGA is very bottom heavy with new nations compared to well developed higher NS Nations. Your numbers don't really mean anything because of that. Newer nations will have less improvements and less wonders.

Edited by SilverHawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that comparing GGA to NV is unfair.

I could compare NV to The Grämlins, and because the discrepancy in the number of members, you should be much stronger than Grämlins, but we know that's not the case. Alliances are built differently.

Does GGA need to turn themselves around? Absolutely. Should they do it because in comparison with another alliance that alliance is better built? No, they should do it because they see in themselves that they need to turn it around.

NV has a similar admissions policy to GGA, whereas Gramlins are much more elitist. NV is a perfectly valid comparison point for GGA, the disadvantage would be on NV's side for having fought in a losing war (WoC) and being a newer alliance than GGA. GGA should have a major wonder advantage based off that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much really, we already know what needs to be done to fix our alliance and are doing so at all possible speed. We don't need another thread that I can bet my 401K on will devolve into petty GGA insults and trolling.

I don't believe you. (I don't need you to convince me, I'm just saying, the proof will be in the pudding.)

But the correct response, if you are telling the truth, would either be a "thank you" or to not say anything. If you tire of people discussing GGA's issues in public, I suggest you no longer make them public. I also suggest you (you as in you, not as in GGA) stop making comments in GGA threads which lead to threads like these.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Kevin McDonald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NV has a similar admissions policy to GGA, whereas Gramlins are much more elitist. NV is a perfectly valid comparison point for GGA, the disadvantage would be on NV's side for having fought in a losing war (WoC) and being a newer alliance than GGA. GGA should have a major wonder advantage based off that.

How's that? We're a bottom heavy alliance, the comparsion is moot because we take in a greater volume of new nations. If nation age was similar across the board then the comparsion could be made that the GGA doesn't know what the hell it's doing rather then having new nations with low amounts of infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you. (I don't need you to convince me, I'm just saying, the proof will be in the pudding.)

But the correct response, if you are telling the truth, would either be a "thank you" or to not say anything. If you tire of people discussing GGA's issues in public, I suggest you no longer make them public. I also suggest you (you as in you, not as in GGA) stop making comments in GGA threads which lead to threads like these.

Edit: Typo

Honestly, people are going to find something to pick on, twist it around and then use it as a soap-box to loudly proclaim how the GGA needs to do this and that instantly like we can just flick our wrists and *poof* every nation in the GGA would be a 40K powerhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when I'm agreeing with zzz about something, things are going strange.

I'll just point out another thing. Invicta has about the same number of members as NV, but we're hardly known as a warmongering alliance.

And yet.

GGA has 34 nations at 2K tech or higher, Invicta has 32. GGA's highest tech nation is 6.5K, ours is 8.5K. We also have 4 WRCs to GGA's 1. We have just under 2/3 as many members as GGA, about 70% the NS, and yet - the same number of high-tech nations, basically.

You guys do have a few more SDIs. That's something I guess. :)

Oh yeah. We're also a lot younger. When Invicta was a few nations with around 50K total NS, GGA was a sanctioned alliance.

And no, we never got any aidfalls or whatever. We sold tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when I'm agreeing with zzz about something, things are going strange.

I'll just point out another thing. Invicta has about the same number of members as NV, but we're hardly known as a warmongering alliance.

And yet.

GGA has 34 nations at 2K tech or higher, Invicta has 32. GGA's highest tech nation is 6.5K, ours is 8.5K. We also have 4 WRCs to GGA's 1. We have just under 2/3 as many members as GGA, about 70% the NS, and yet - the same number of high-tech nations, basically.

You guys do have a few more SDIs. That's something I guess. :)

Oh yeah. We're also a lot younger. When Invicta was a few nations with around 50K total NS, GGA was a sanctioned alliance.

And no, we never got any aidfalls or whatever. We sold tech.

Like I said, the majority of our member nations are new and as such, smaller and less developed. If you have enough 2's you can add them up to 1,000,000. You need to look less at our overall NS and rather what the spread of NS makes up that number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's that? We're a bottom heavy alliance, the comparsion is moot because we take in a greater volume of new nations. If nation age was similar across the board then the comparsion could be made that the GGA doesn't know what the hell it's doing rather then having new nations with low amounts of infrastructure.
Asteria

[Ruler: Hamilton]

404

Days

5,494.091

Quatsch

[Ruler: couchpotatodx]

313

Days

5,330.051

Strange

[Ruler: The Strangest]

429

Days

5,313.388

Bottomheavy? Yes. However, when you have nations at 5k NS who are 429 days old..nation age is the same across the board.

That was just a sampling :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, people are going to find something to pick on, twist it around and then use it as a soap-box to loudly proclaim how the GGA needs to do this and that instantly like we can just flick our wrists and *poof* every nation in the GGA would be a 40K powerhouse.

That I agree with. However, it will take people a long time stop offering advice. If you do not wish to take the advice, it's one thing, but actively insulting those who offer it is uncalled for.

If you ignore the advice given, and the people giving it to you, for long enough, eventually it will stop coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottomheavy? Yes. However, when you have nations at 5k NS who are 429 days old..nation age is the same across the board.

That was just a sampling :)

I myself never said I approved of the lay abouts we call members, I think we could honestly do with a good membership purge and leave the good and smart people behind, would make the GGA much less a laughing stock.

That I agree with. However, it will take people a long time stop offering advice. If you do not wish to take the advice, it's one thing, but actively insulting those who offer it is uncalled for.

If you ignore the advice given, and the people giving it to you, for long enough, eventually it will stop coming

The advice isn't being ignored, it's simply getting tiresome how we aren't being given anytime to ACT on it. If I had the power, I would nation sit 100 nations and run them myself and you'd see change right quick for the better.

Edited by SilverHawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zzzptm, I understand that you made this thread with the best of intentions, indeed to help the GGA. However, all this does is rub salt in their wounds and allow those who wish to harm them more chances to verbally attack them. From what I've seen, they know what they need to do, the question is just how they will be able to execute these things.

Wow, I just defended the GGA, that was hard to do.

Edited by President Obama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself never said I approved of the lay abouts we call members, I think we could honestly do with a good membership purge and leave the good and smart people behind, would make the GGA much less a laughing stock.

Thing is, you did say, and I quote "the comparsion is moot because we take in a greater volume of new nations. If nation age was similar across the board then the comparsion could be made that the GGA doesn't know what the hell it's doing rather then having new nations with low amounts of infrastructure."

While you may take in more newer nations, you don't have a proper system of education it appears or at least some of them would be bigger. You have a large amount of inactive lower members :/

Also, I definitely think your opinion on a membership purge is a great idea. Get rid of those ghosts that you have and fix up your alliance. Work on those WRCs as well, and soon you will see people laughing at GGA a lot less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, the majority of our member nations are new and as such, smaller and less developed. If you have enough 2's you can add them up to 1,000,000. You need to look less at our overall NS and rather what the spread of NS makes up that number.

You have 76 nations who have joined you in the past 90 days, and some of those are larger nations (6 over 1K tech). When you realize that I was comparing total numbers of nations past thresholds, rather than average strengths, you'll probably understand my point better. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you may take in more newer nations, you don't have a proper system of education it appears or at least some of them would be bigger. You have a large amount of inactive lower members :/

Also, I definitely think your opinion on a membership purge is a great idea. Get rid of those ghosts that you have and fix up your alliance. Work on those WRCs as well, and soon you will see people laughing at GGA a lot less.

You won't find an argument from me, no excuse for being 300+ days old and a measly 5K NS, truely pathetic that is. You would take me wrong to think the way the GGA is doesn't anger me greatly, if I may bring in OOC into this, my current service in the military shows me that when people don't work together or pull their weight, everybody looks like a fool and everybody is responsible for the failure of the whole.

But sadly, this is not the military, it is a browser game and you can't force people to act their age or take an active interest in their alliance and it's forums. (Which we do have and have up-to-date guides on how to build up your nation, tech circle and trade circle functions, military guides, etc.)

We are simply paying the price for gobbling up all the newb nations who never take that extra step to get involved in the game and here's the expected result, poor development, hanger-on syndrome and just all around asshattery.

If I wasen't so passive myself, I'd probably have jumped shiped a year ago.

Edited by SilverHawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, and some good advice. Some people just don't know how to take advice easily.

*taps his watch* It's called time, give us some instead of stuffing more of the same retreaded advice and thinly veiled backhanded compliments down our throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I wasen't so passive myself, I'd probably have jumped shiped a year ago.

So you publicly ridicule GGA, but get angry when others do? Give your head a shake, man, and leave this thread. Not necessarily in that order.

Seriously, how can you think comments like that help you, and the advice given in the OP does not? Wow... I am utterly shocked right now.

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...