Nintenderek Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) And this is one of the reasons I am going to miss CG. Politics aside for a second, they are probably one of the only alliances their size to get their disbandment thread this big. They brought a lot to the game and made it interesting. Not many alliances can say that, and maybe it's one of the reasons they get so much hate. Edited August 28, 2009 by Nintenderek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 It's going fairly well, actually. You can read it here: http://pacificorder.net/forum/index.php?sh...view=getnewpostGiven his most recent posts on financial matters though, I doubt he's going to replace Cortath tomorrow. Clearly that is going to disappoint 95% of the worlds population and our happiness should go down as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 And this is one of the reasons I am going to miss C&G. Politics aside for a second, they are probably one of the only alliances their size to get their disbandment thread this big. They brought a lot to the game and made it interesting. Not many alliances can say that, and maybe it's one of the reasons they get so much hate. Wait, Complaints and Grievances are breaking up and NOBODY TOLD ME? heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 And this is one of the reasons I am going to miss C&G. Politics aside for a second, they are probably one of the only alliances their size to get their disbandment thread this big. They brought a lot to the game and made it interesting. Not many alliances can say that, and maybe it's one of the reasons they get so much hate. i read this and thought for a sec "OH MY GOD WTF COMPLAINTS & GRIEVANCES BROKE UP" and then i realized that you added an & where you shouldnt have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Wait, Complaints and Grievances are breaking up and NOBODY TOLD ME?heh. I never said that Edited August 28, 2009 by Nintenderek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikking Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 dont add teh ebil AND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) And this is one of the reasons I am going to miss CG. Politics aside for a second, they are probably one of the only alliances their size to get their disbandment thread this big. They brought a lot to the game and made it interesting. Not many alliances can say that, and maybe it's one of the reasons they get so much hate. Only because the people who built this failboat are fairly well known. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it past Edict #2. Edited August 28, 2009 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Aweful lot of hatred in here, which is !@#$ in a disbandment thread, so a lot of things went wrong with CG and I hope you them who attempted to make CG learn from it. I must be the odd one out who likes Fran, but I'd like to wish her the best. A nice person despite the !@#$ she's done and now is taking the flak for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Only because the people who built this failboat are fairly well known. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made it past Edict #2. I fail to see how it's a failboat. I mean, this alliance survived two unmentionable people and a war. I would say that's a lot better then a lot of micro alliances do. No, people just hate them because they are a good target to hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I fail to see how it's a failboat. I mean, this alliance survived two unmentionable people and a war. I would say that's a lot better then a lot of micro alliances do. No, people just hate them because they are a good target to hate. When people from NpO, RAD, Valhalla, NSO, Invicta, STA, and about 2 dozen other alliances are telling you that someone is doing it wrong, by God that is a sign in 50 foot neon that puts the 'HOLLYWOOD' sign to shame that you are doing it wrong. It's not a "good target to hate" thing, it's solid gold FUBAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Edict #7It 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. IS decided not to send tech, we only have money reps. 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 If I had 1 nation for my entire CN career my casualties would have been close to double that, you can't compare a 50 day old nation to a 900 day old nation. Tech gives close to no benefit in ground battles themselves. What matters in ground battles is wonders, improvements and amounts of soldiers. The more tech you have, the more your NS, meaning people with more infrastructure and less technology can attack you. The point of war is to destroy your opponent's nation, not plunder, unless you're a tech raider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 28, 2009 Author 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. What about mine? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Tech gives close to no benefit in ground battles themselves. What matters in ground battles is wonders, improvements and amounts of soldiers. The more tech you have, the more your NS, meaning people with more infrastructure and less technology can attack you. The point of war is to destroy your opponent's nation, not plunder, unless you're a tech raider. You sir have lots to learn about warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 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. My goal with sending the aid to the assigned nations was to increase their infrastructure and consequently their income. You gain more income comparatively with 3M when you send the aid to a smaller nation. 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? What makes you think there was anything elitist on the assignment of the aid? The smaller guy got aided... One thing is being rational about the money you have and using it in the way that best suits the alliance and other thing is attempting to please everyone and making a less productive usage of the aid. Which one do you think was my choice? Members who expressed a need for aid had their slots filled by invicta anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 IS decided not to send tech, we only have money reps.If I had 1 nation for my entire CN career my casualties would have been close to double that, you can't compare a 50 day old nation to a 900 day old nation. Tech gives close to no benefit in ground battles themselves. What matters in ground battles is wonders, improvements and amounts of soldiers. The more tech you have, the more your NS, meaning people with more infrastructure and less technology can attack you. The point of war is to destroy your opponent's nation, not plunder, unless you're a tech raider. Somehow, I doubt the first statement, but I'll let it slide. Your second statement is wrong...again. I'll just re-quote what ChairmanHal quoted and let you read it again. 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. Also, you admit that the point of war is to destroy your opponent's nation. Do you realize that the more tech you have the more damage you can do? The higher planes you can buy and do more damage? If tech was so useless, every top tier nation wouldn't have all their slots filled with tech deals. Get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Don't forget the nuke bonus aswell. Especially when you own a WRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I agree with HellScream, tech is utterly useless. So, as a community service, I announce the STA Technology Removal Service. That's right, send all that useless, worthless technology to an STA member and we'll look after it for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vizard Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I agree with HellScream, tech is utterly useless. So, as a community service, I announce the STA Technology Removal Service. That's right, send all that useless, worthless technology to an STA member and we'll look after it for free. ZOMG! Finally, a place we can get rid of all our unwanted tech...tell me, do you do refunds? I'm kinda surprised the thread has grown this large. A lot of you are whining about how CG did so many things wrong during their tenure on Red, well, honestly? I'm pretty sure we've had worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Tech gives close to no benefit in ground battles themselves. What matters in ground battles is wonders, improvements and amounts of soldiers. The more tech you have, the more your NS, meaning people with more infrastructure and less technology can attack you. The point of war is to destroy your opponent's nation, not plunder, unless you're a tech raider. Save for the fact that Admin long ago changed the amount multiplier that tech gives to the NS equation from x20 to x5. So in reality tech does little to "inflate" NS. More from the Information Index, since it isn't sinking in: Nations involved in ground attacks performed between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM game time will receive a 5% bonus to their technology bonus for attacking/defending at night. Ground attacks performed between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM will receive a 1% bonus to their soldier efficiency strength. (Not considering your opponent, if you have less than 1,000 technology it is better to attack during the day otherwise it is better to attack at night.) Gee, I wonder what sort of attacks go on/tactics are employed between 6 pm and 6 am that would benefit from higher tech...? EDIT: Thank you Haflinger Edited August 28, 2009 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Save for the fact that Admin long ago changed the amount multiplier that tech gives to the NS equation from x5 to x3. So in reality tech does little to "inflate" NS. Err, he changed it from x20 to x5 actually. Infra is the x3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Err, he changed it from x20 to x5 actually. Infra is the x3. You sir, are correct. I looked at the wrong number before the caffeine kicked in. But that just reinforces my point. The days of "NS inflation" through tech have long since passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr 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. So aiding only a select few of tiny nations that took little (if any) damage, then disbanding so that the higher nations who took the brunt get nothing, was in the best interest for the collective? Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen MoP Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Actually, Hell Scream is right. And wrong. So is everyone else. If you're a tiny infra nation, having tech really doesn't mean a lot. I've had battles where I had more TECH than the other guy had infra, but I got pounded in every ground battle because he had a crapton more infra. If you're tiny, tech does just inflate your NS so you're facing people with twice the infra you have. Tech doesn't help a lot when the guy has twice the soldiers you do. Tech is still useful for everything else. When I was a tiny infra, high tech nation I won almost every air battle. I never lost on spy ops. My nukes did a crapton of damage. This is great as long as you have a big warchest so that losing a few thousand infra is no big deal and rebuying at low infra levels is super easy. If you're a tiny nation with no wonders who eeks out ever penny from his nation, losing ground battles, meaning you lose infra and precious, precious money, is devastating. If you're a huge and rich nation, tech is important because you don't really care if you lose a few million in ground battles. If you're a dinky nation you can lose huge chunks of your warchest in a few ground battles, so tech just means bigger infra people crush you. I've fought from both sides of that coin. Also, since apparently war casualties are the measure of whether we know what we're talking about: 1,203,806 Attacking + 1,166,170 Defending = 2,369,976 Casualties Edited August 28, 2009 by Glen MoP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 When people from NpO, RAD, Valhalla, NSO, Invicta, STA, and about 2 dozen other alliances are telling you that someone is doing it wrong, by God that is a sign in 50 foot neon that puts the 'HOLLYWOOD' sign to shame that you are doing it wrong. It's not a "good target to hate" thing, it's solid gold FUBAR. Oh come on Hal, I would think an experienced CNer like you should know by now that sometimes the world is wrong when it comes to opinions on alliances. Just because they do it differently, doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I am Jack Diorno and I am am glad this alliance is no longer alive. 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.