Gn0xious Jr Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Your alliance surrender to an alliance three times smaller than your alliance, I lol'd hard as well. I have a feeling that you don't care about the former CG, or how comments like the one you made above effect the name. If you don't see anything wrong with your comment, then there is no hope/no help for you, and you will continue to find your past on your doorstep. youngun attacked by bully cry to big brother big brother gets his friends and threaten bully big brother and friends leave youngun flexes muscles at bully saying "don't mess" also, no one said you shouldn't have received the 9m i think it was only pointed out that you did not take damage in the skirmish, while larger nations DID. the "right" thing to do, would have been to convert the 9m into tech, and have it sent to the larger nations. This would help them rebuild to where they WERE as they could concentrate their OWN money on rebuilding infra versus paying for tech deals. no one is arguing the fact that $$$ is better for smaller nations and Tech is better for larger... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murtagh Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 /me wonders when we will hear the end of this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. I'll read this again tonight when I go to bed in my head movies. But this head movie makes my eyes rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 That's convenient that you can't aid anyone.I understand economics. Don't patronize me. Your plan to help your alliance would be a great one if you didn't disband it. But, if what you say is true, why didn't any of your former alliance's large nations receive tech? There was no tech awarded in the reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. This isn't true, but you don't have enough tech to see it. I win plenty of ground battles against higher-infra opponents, because I frequently have a 2:1 tech advantage in my favour when I'm fighting upwards in infra. Also tech influences damage, which means you steal more stuff when you have more tech. But I count my tech in thousands, not hundreds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 There was no tech awarded in the reparations. Edict #7 Internet Superheroes agree to pay 84 million in reparations, payable in money or tech at a rate of 3m for 100 tech. It was most certainly an option... This is why people are suggesting that giving 9m to a small nation that didn't even take damage may not have been the most honorable move. CG could have requested Tech for the larger nations as reps to help them rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 It was most certainly an option...This is why people are suggesting that giving 9m to a small nation that didn't even take damage may not have been the most honorable move. CG could have requested Tech for the larger nations as reps to help them rebuild. The way that reads to me is, it was an option at IS' end. That is, they were allowed to send tech instead, if they wanted to, as NPO is allowed to substitute some of its cash reps for tech at its discretion. It's a poorly-written clause though. Some clarity would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 The way that reads to me is, it was an option at IS' end. That is, they were allowed to send tech instead, if they wanted to, as NPO is allowed to substitute some of its cash reps for tech at its discretion.It's a poorly-written clause though. Some clarity would be helpful. Makes sense but given the way Hell Scream has indicated he purposesly did not have any tech sent seems to suggest CG did have control over how the reps were sent. Although some clarity could definately be helpful, it doesnt matter too much either way as my previous post still stands correct and CG is incompetent either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadabethyname Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 tech has no effect in battle? force reps then disband before they're paid? i'm dumbfounded. i've read the last two pages and i see that you keep saying things, hell scream, but none of them really justify this kind of stupidity. what of those who actually fought? what of those who still had reps to receieve? did any of you even consider this? none of this makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xR1 Fatal Instinct Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I think its only right that Invicta will protect the nations flying the AA Crimson Gaurd for a period of 30 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 That turning your alliance into a collection of low tech, mid-range nations creates a nice grouping for someone to kill. Of course if you can baww enough in the OWRP and get people feeling sorry for you, you might even get reparations for it...which apparently would go to the low ranking nations in your alliance to create...more low tech, mid-range nations.*You say you went through Viridicide and such as a victim. Seems to me you liked GGA so much, your economic theories would re-create GGA in all its pre-Karma War "glory". * - unless they run off and join NPO first of course Well now you've gone and done it, CG. I'm agreeing with and completely enjoyed a post by ChairmanHal. You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. Let's just say you got lucky that the war ended before your alliance actually had to fight back (on its own). All that infrastructure and lack of technology would have come crumbling down quite quickly with that kind of mindset. While your soldiers would have had spears for your lack of technology, theirs would have had machine guns. Your alliance surrender to an alliance three times smaller than your alliance, I lol'd hard as well. Hmm. Let's see, CG fought on their own right? They didn't have 10 alliances issue a DoS and Invicta aiding them money throughout the whole thing right? It was all CG and no one else. Come on man,you're making yourself look more and more foolish with every additional post you make. The more you talk, the worse CG looks like after its disbanded. Let the dead lay in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 tech has no effect in battle?force reps then disband before they're paid? i'm dumbfounded. i've read the last two pages and i see that you keep saying things, hell scream, but none of them really justify this kind of stupidity. what of those who actually fought? what of those who still had reps to receieve? did any of you even consider this? none of this makes any sense. um... lrn 2 ECONOMEEZ b4 posting pl0x in all seriousness, I don't think any of this made sense to any of us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. One more thing. Are you really going to preach to ChairmanHal about ground battles and the tactics one should use for them? ChairmanHal's Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 715,150 Attacking + 885,198 Defending = 1,600,348 Casualties Hell Scream's Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 0 Attacking + 0 Defending = 0 Casualties Although your casualty count does not necessarily reveal how skilled of a fighter you are, I believe these numbers should reveal who has the right idea regarding tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Best of luck to all former CG members. May you all find good homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. Having a higher technology level allows you to equip your soldiers and tanks with better weapons and gear. Technology is the most important bonus in ground battles compared to the bonuses for defending infrastructure and defending land area. The technology bonus effect works for both attacking and defending nations and adds bonuses to each nations battle odds. Technology increases your chances of spy operation/counter-operation success with the following equation: Number of Spies + (Technology Purchased / 20). Technology increases damages caused in ground battles, cruise missile attacks, nuclear missile attacks, navy attacking and defending naval attacks, and aircraft bombing attacks by 0.01% per level of technology. If an attacking nation with 3,000 technology causes a defender to lose 20 infrastructure in a ground battle then based on this 'techbonus' the defender would lose a total of 26 infrastructure in the attack. (20 + (20 * (3000 * .01%))) OOC: I just hate it when Admin lies. IC: Infrastructure is important in war in that it is used to determine the maximum size of your ground and naval forces. It also helps to generate income prior to combat and thus build up your warchest. I realize that what I'm telling you is all news, since it's evident that you have seen combat only from the comfort of a bunker while brave men and women saw their soldiers die (save for your little ZI adventure that I'm certain you took rolled up in a ball in the fetal position). That is what people such as yourself do, right? Enjoy the comforts of the protection of others while depriving them of the tools they need to win wars? Go to NPO. Never leave. Don't worry about ever meeting me on the field of combat. Hide in Peace Mode whenever there is a hint of gunfire. You would never have the courage face me or any enemy even if you were to get in range. Edited August 28, 2009 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) I decided who would get the reps, not hellscream (since i was MoFW), and i focused the aid mainly in 3 nations. Hellscream, Shadow King and olaf eriksson. Olaf and shadow were not government members, so I kind of fail to see the point you are trying to make. Its almost as if reparations actually paid for the entire damage made in a war. I also sent some of the money from my own nation, and we were getting aid from our allies, all being very coordinated and organized in a way that it would develop individual nations as fast as possible, so that they could repay to the alliance in the future. It wasn't a scam. Period. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0An...NjS0E&hl=en Edited August 28, 2009 by deSouza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Keep in mind also that a lot of the nations that were actually involved in the war directly were getting aid from Invicta, too, guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird of Passage Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 You two seem very uneducated in economics. I didn't say that I am going to send tech to anyone, I said that Big nations get tech and small nations get money. Big nations never get money, it's not efficient. Nowhere did I say I am sending money to anyone.Let me tech you economics, again, since you seem to need a lesson. When you send 3mill to a small nation, and he uses that 3mill on infra, he gains the alliance more NS than if the 3 mill was sent to a big nation. If a small nation receives 3 mill and uses that to buy 100 tech(tech deal) and infra, the alliance gains less NS. So, it's imperative that money reparations are sent to small nations and the small nations use them in the most efficient way possible(the way that earns the most nation strength for the alliance)to benefit the alliance more. What you have said from start is that the bigger nations that were involved in the conflict should have received the reparations, but why? That brings a much smaller amount of NS for the alliance. (If you think i said I am sending tech to anyone, please learn to read. I am in NPO, I can't aid anyone) Nation Strength is not important in rebuilding, my friend, and I am rather disturbed that you are of this opinion. What is important is ensuring that the nations are repaired. As it is, the Guard is not sounding like an alliance, but a loose collective. I do not mean to turn against you, Hell Scream, but I am beginning to doubt your merits, in all honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Nation Strength is not important in rebuilding, my friend, and I am rather disturbed that you are of this opinion. What is important is ensuring that the nations are repaired. As it is, the Guard is not sounding like an alliance, but a loose collective.I do not mean to turn against you, Hell Scream, but I am beginning to doubt your merits, in all honesty. Id say that attempting to ensure individual reparations which would never effectively take place is the deed of a loose collective. An alliance thinks of the best for the collective in the long term, which was what was done. Edited August 28, 2009 by deSouza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 You must realize that Tech has close to no impact on ground battles. Having a low amount of tech, let's say 500 while having 4999 infra makes you have more infra than your opponents, since their tech just inflates their NS. More infra=more soldiers=you win.Tech, right now, is used to inflate Nation Strength, it is nearly useless in battle. LOLLLLLLLLLLLL You just keep thinking that. And be sure to inflate our nation strength moar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Crafty plot of extortion by CG's former leaders? It's simple - ZI the Batman Thieves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I am going to laugh at what is going to happen to Hell Scream when his application to the NPO gets denied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikking Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I am going to laugh at what is going to happen to Hell Scream when his application to the NPO gets denied. I might sign up on NPO forums JUST to see that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird of Passage Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Id say that attempting to ensure individual reparations which would never effectively take place is the deed of a loose collective.An alliance thinks of the best for the collective in the long term, which was what was done. Since when is the main concern when rebuilding and stabilizing ever been the alliance's collective Nation Strength? That is something that one acquires after rebuilding. As well, I was under the strict impression that the membership of the Guard was the top priority...elitism was an element that was considered in the planning stages, but that was never agreed upon, to my knowledge. Just what was the Guard meant to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I am going to laugh at what is going to happen to Hell Scream when his application to the NPO gets denied. It's going fairly well, actually. You can read it here: http://pacificorder.net/forum/index.php?sh...view=getnewpost Given his most recent posts on financial matters though, I doubt he's going to replace Cortath tomorrow. 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.