Essenia Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Essenia, you can't derive an alliance's NS distribution from their wonder count. Wonder count is a better indicator of an alliance's potential than NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Wonder count is a better indicator of an alliance's potential than NS. No essenia, I said NS distribution. They're different concepts. Raw NS doesn't mean much, of course, but the distribution of NSs within an alliance does. For instance, a great deal of the wonders numbered for, say, SF can't reach a great deal of the wonders listed off for Citadel. The ultimate proof surely would be looking at the NPO's wonder stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 No essenia, I said NS distribution. They're different concepts. Raw NS doesn't mean much, of course, but the distribution of NSs within an alliance does. For instance, a great deal of the wonders numbered for, say, SF can't reach a great deal of the wonders listed off for Citadel. The ultimate proof surely would be looking at the NPO's wonder stats. If there are a number of Citadel wonders that are unreachable by SF, it's Citadel's loss, because those nations don't actually do anything. Having 40 or so nations out of 220 that won't get hit much by your enemies won't save you from getting beaten in an alliance war. Also, it's considerably harder for Citadel raise its NS than it is for the other blocs- a nation at 14k isn't going to stay out of range of an 11k nation forever, because its quite profitable for the 11k nation to buy infra, while the same is not really true for the 14k nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) If there are a number of Citadel wonders that are unreachable by SF, it's Citadel's loss, because those nations don't actually do anything. Having 40 or so nations out of 220 that won't get hit much by your enemies won't save you from getting beaten in an alliance war.Also, it's considerably harder for Citadel raise its NS than it is for the other blocs- a nation at 14k isn't going to stay out of range of an 11k nation forever, because its quite profitable for the 11k nation to buy infra, while the same is not really true for the 14k nation. Yes, but the majority of citadel's are unreachable, except if the non-citadel nations are willing to challenge up in a war by many an ns point. In essence, you've got the situation reversed. It's not 40 citadel nations that aren't attacking. It's 40 non citadel nations that are. 'Course citadel's smaller guys would get hung out to dry, but they're more of a minority and don't really matter with regards to citadel security. And besides, TOP and friends can't be paper tigers if they single-handedly started the Karma War (and also made NPO lose it) over the course of the two days just prior to it. Edited July 25, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I myself got into TOP with a 234 ns nation. Maybe NS requirements aren't such a bad idea after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yes, but the majority of citadel's are unreachable, except if the non-citadel nations are willing to challenge up in a war by many an ns point. In essence, you've got the situation reversed. It's not 40 citadel nations that aren't attacking. It's 40 non citadel nations that are. The majority of citadel is not 'unreachable'. That is just wrong. There will be NS mismatches, but there will also be numbers mismatches against Citadel. 'Course citadel's smaller guys would get hung out to dry, but they're more of a minority and don't really matter with regards to citadel security. I'm not sure what you're defining as 'citadel security'. A small number of upper tier nations be able to sustain themselves for a long time is not the same as security for the whole bloc. And besides, TOP and friends can't be paper tigers if they single-handedly started the Karma War (and also made NPO lose it) over the course of the two days just prior to it. Paper tigers? Not at all. I'm talking about a situation where Citadel is outnumbered overall more than 2:1 in total NS, but still saying it has an advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Having the largest bloc in the game continuing its isolationist, borderline neutrality, policies pushes on a society used to a unipolarity world the practices that lead to stagnation. isolationist? Argent has 3 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, and 3 other of a non-Citadel non-Defensive nature TOP has 6 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, as well as a few color treaties Umbrella has 7 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, as well as NOIR FCC has 1 MDP+ outside of Citadel and per their records, about 9 Sister/Cousin treaties Gremlins have 4 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel Considering that a few, such as Mushroom Kingdom, MHA and FOK share friends acrossed a few partners, that is still a lot of friends for "isolationists". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The majority of citadel is not 'unreachable'. That is just wrong. There will be NS mismatches, but there will also be numbers mismatches against Citadel.I'm not sure what you're defining as 'citadel security'. A small number of upper tier nations be able to sustain themselves for a long time is not the same as security for the whole bloc. The NS mismatches will almost universally be in the aid of Citadel, and most of your nations won't get hit- it's like I alluded: I took a look at the NS distributions, you haven't. There's no likely situation where you end up in an even fight going head to head. The majority of your members will be safe and sound from serious fighting. I'm talking about defending the Citadel core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 All of Citadel is it's core. No part is more or less important than any other. Except maybe Longbowe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 All of Citadel is it's core. No part is more or less important than any other. Except maybe Longbowe. That's cute, idealistic, and utterly unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) The NS mismatches will almost universally be in the aid of Citadel, and most of your nations won't get hit- it's like I alluded: I took a look at the NS distributions, you haven't. There's no likely situation where you end up in an even fight going head to head. The majority of your members will be safe and sound from serious fighting.I'm talking about defending the Citadel core. I have looked at the NS matches plenty of times and unlike you I'm not assuming things will simply be static. Citadel has considerably less increase potential than the other blocs. Also, the idea of a crucial 'core' of nations that won't be in range of most of their enemies is rather laughable. The great majority of Citadel nations could be damaged very heavily, the fact that a small number won't isn't the gamebreaker you portray. Edited July 25, 2009 by essenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I have looked at the NS matches plenty of times and unlike you I'm not assuming things will simply be static. Citadel has considerably less increase potential than the other blocs. Also, the idea of a crucial 'core' of nations that won't be in range of most of their enemies is rather laughable. The great majority of Citadel nations could be damaged very heavily, the fact that a small number won't isn't the gamebreaker you portray. You're assuming that everyone else will be growing at a pace far more rapid than is realistic. Naw, you misread me. I'm not talking about a core of nation's that are out of range of an enemy. I'm talking about the groups that are most important to the alliances in Citadel. Because let's face it, a guy in TOP with 257 ns just isn't quite as important to the alliance's security. And essenia, the vast majority wouldn't be taking heavy damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Keep trying to sell us as the enemy. Others play that game better, so I'm glad it's you with the transparent attempts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Problems with the argument of OP: 1. Assumes but never tries to prove that everyone is out to "rule the world" and "win the game" - whatever that means. 2. Assumes but never tries to prove that everyone is as manipulative and deceptive as the NSO. 3. Completely fail to understand what team unity is all about. 4. Pushing own NSO's agenda of being able to do whatever they want without considering the moral and ethical implications of said actions. 5. Assuming but never proving that all alliances are driven by a lust for power and influence as opposed to finer things, such as ideals and morals. 6. Conclusion doesn't at all follow on from the (flawed) argument. IMO, more like NSO looking at the entire world as full of alliances identical to the NSO. 2/10 for effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 That's cute, idealistic, and utterly unrealistic. Citadel is a small enough bloc (in terms of number of members) that they don't really have a core and fringe. You really only see that with megablocs such as WUT and Q. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 isolationist?Argent has 3 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, and 3 other of a non-Citadel non-Defensive nature TOP has 6 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, as well as a few color treaties Umbrella has 7 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel, as well as NOIR FCC has 1 MDP+ outside of Citadel and per their records, about 9 Sister/Cousin treaties Gremlins have 4 MDP+ treaties outside of Citadel Considering that a few, such as Mushroom Kingdom, MHA and FOK share friends acrossed a few partners, that is still a lot of friends for "isolationists". I my analysis I was looking at Citadel itself, without regards to its allies. Those allies are what make you relevent to the rest of the CN. Without any allies there would be no one looking to fight you, and since you are not an aggressive bloc, no one to fight. So that makes you an isolated bloc by nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) IMO, more like NSO looking at the entire world as full of alliances identical to the NSO. This is the kicker. When someone made the correct point that Citadel alliances are highly egalitarian he simply brushed it off as idealistic. In fact, in both of the Citadel alliances I've been in, the opinion and predicament of individual members are taken into account far more than in other alliances I've been in. The fact that we are democratic alliances that value the opinion of all our members is not an idealistic fantasy- it's simply true. edit: in before 'Democracy is a lie' Edited July 25, 2009 by essenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 This is the kicker. When someone made the correct point that Citadel alliances are highly egalitarian he simply brushed it off as idealistic. In fact, in both of the Citadel alliances I've been in, the opinion and predicament of individual members are taken into account far more than in other alliances I've been in. The fact that we are democratic alliances that value the opinion of all our members is not an idealistic fantasy- it's simply true.edit: in before 'Democracy is a lie' I really wouldn't say that democracy is a "lie." It's just a very inefficient system of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I really wouldn't say that democracy is a "lie." It's just a very inefficient system of government. Isn't TOP #1, and a democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Isn't TOP #1, and a democracy? Their system of government has nothing to do with their ability to buy infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Their system of government has nothing to do with their ability to buy infrastructure. Neither does yours, so why aren't you up there next to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Neither does yours, so why aren't you up there next to them? Well I guess for starters, we've only been around for five months. EXCUSES, EXCUSES I know............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well I guess for starters, we've only been around for five months. EXCUSES, EXCUSES I know............ But if your system of governing is so much better, shouldn't you attract their players? I mean clearly, they want to be in one of the best alliances in CN, and I would guess you'd claim that NSO fits that bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I my analysis I was looking at Citadel itself, without regards to its allies. Those allies are what make you relevent to the rest of the CN. Without any allies there would be no one looking to fight you, and since you are not an aggressive bloc, no one to fight. So that makes you an isolated bloc by nature. So all the other blocs are aggressive blocs out looking to start fights? That's what makes one "not isolated"? I would maintain that there may or may not be people looking to fight us as well. People certainly do delight in trying to paint us as the next world police. Does that translate into wanting to roll Citadel? Maybe. Maybe not. To say however, that no one is looking to do so is both naive and short sighted. This war just ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) This whole topic is ridicolous funny, you guys projecting your ideas and ideals to another entity and don´t understand why your projection doesn´t fit but in your view that can´t be, it must fit and so you drive your own in fact wrong conclusions about said entity. It´s either that or the first attempt to portray Citadel as a useless, old horse that better is shot before it suffers to much and if can´t be shot because it may buckles to much then at least don´t trust the character of that old horse. Well to answer in a stereotype: Do something about it Wait i have a better one, to quote old ES: Bring it. Edited July 25, 2009 by Steelrat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.