Cobalt Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think the OP is making the wrong connections. Experience is a product of many things, one of which is time spent playing the game. More experience with the game on political, organizational and mechanical levels are likely factors in producing a successful leader. Nation Strength is also tied to time spent in game, time being one of its factors. However, to equate the success of a nation with that nation's ruler's aptitude to lead a successful alliance is like saying 15 and 12 are equal because they both have 3 as a factor. Yes, the metaphor is horrendously oversimplified - but with a subject (leadership) involving so many intangibles a more complex one would just break down in a more spectacular fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) Several people with "bad" nations stick out as good leadership quality players -- your Jason8s (laugh all you want about the NSO war, he's a damn good leader) and Srqts and Van Hoos. You also have the people who manage important alliances like rsox of Athens who can hardly keep his nation in existence for more than two weeks. Many leaders have high NS nations because they've been around for a while (really, it's people 3 years + old that still run the cyberverse. You see very few "new" leaders.) [quote]Honestly that would be a good barometer of your success, how often you get nuked by some one with a vendetta. I've always thought that I've known I've "made it" when some one rogues me b/c they don't like me. I've been rogued twice, but both times I don't think it was personal. [/quote] I've been rogued by my MDoAP partner's MoFA. While he was still their MoFA (i.e. didn't resign.) Do I win? Edited January 15, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1295066927' post='2575748'] Many leaders have high NS nations because they've been around for a while (really, it's people 3 years + old that still run the cyberverse. You see very few "new" leaders.) [/quote] We're out here, but building an alliance from the ground up without the benefit of mergers is a lot tougher than it used to be. Maybe in 3 years we'll be the ones leading the cyberverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 There's no hard correlation between leaders and nation sizes that one can really point out. Leaders are almost always mechanically sound but may or may not care about nation building like others. This doesn't necessarily detract from their ability to drive to lead their alliance from an organization and decision making standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1295067864' post='2575759'] There's no hard correlation between leaders and nation sizes that one can really point out. Leaders are almost always mechanically sound but may or may not care about nation building like others. This doesn't necessarily detract from their ability to drive to lead their alliance from an organization and decision making standpoint. [/quote] I did have one point I wanted to make about this subject. Granted, a leader's management skills and personality have nothing to do with how they run their nation. However, in a game like this, I would be hard pressed to go to war for a leader and sacrifice my painstaking efforts building my pixels to have them destroyed for a leader who isn't willing to do the same. Being a leader, I wouldn't feel right asking my nations to stand on the battlefield while I sit back and eat popcorn because I didn't bother preparing my own nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) [quote]We're out here, but building an alliance from the ground up without the benefit of mergers is a lot tougher than it used to be. Maybe in 3 years we'll be the ones leading the cyberverse. [/quote] Sorry, but I've never heard of you to be honest... And yes, you'll be leading all 71 members of the cyberverse. [quote] However, in a game like this, I would be hard pressed to go to war for a leader and sacrifice my painstaking efforts building my pixels to have them destroyed for a leader who isn't willing to do the same. Being a leader, I wouldn't feel right asking my nations to stand on the battlefield while I sit back and eat popcorn because I didn't bother preparing my own nation. [/quote] What's your point here? We're talking about the "correlation" between NS and leadership abilities, not whether a leader leads from the front... Edited January 15, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Not really. Tons of people have mastered the mechanics of growing their nation. Few of them would be good alliance leaders. On the flipside, some people just can't be bothered with nation building, but have the skills necessary to lead an alliance. I don't see a correlation. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Zhaan' timestamp='1295068169' post='2575766'] I did have one point I wanted to make about this subject. Granted, a leader's management skills and personality have nothing to do with how they run their nation. However, in a game like this, I would be hard pressed to go to war for a leader and sacrifice my painstaking efforts building my pixels to have them destroyed for a leader who isn't willing to do the same. Being a leader, I wouldn't feel right asking my nations to stand on the battlefield while I sit back and eat popcorn because I didn't bother preparing my own nation. [/quote] I'm pretty sure most people are fine with such a scenario as long as said leader is competent enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1295068392' post='2575769'] Sorry, but I've never heard of you to be honest... [/quote] I don't wear a billboard or flashing neon sign around my neck to advertise my existence, but thanks for pointing out that I've flown under your radar. I wasn't aiming for an attention grab, just voicing my opinion. [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1295068392' post='2575769'] What's your point here? We're talking about the "correlation" between NS and leadership abilities, not whether a leader leads from the front... [/quote] The correlation is in how you define leadership. Those who know how to earn respect usually make good leaders, and there are those of us who can't respect a "leader" who asks more than he's willing to give, aka, the sacrifice of his member's nations without investing enough in his own to fight with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Nation Strength: 112,047.313 I approve of your theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) It's also worth noting that leaders of alliance tend to get a lot of special attention in wars, which may affect their standing. I'm actually kind of impressed my nation is doing as well as it is, all things considered. That time on PZI lists sure didn't help. Edit: And 4.5 years is not "almost 5". Don't make me feel older than I need to. Edited January 15, 2011 by TheNeverender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 The theory that the correlation in this scenario implies causation is illegitimate. I know a good many people who simply do not care about the game and their nations themselves, but rather focus merely on the human aspect of the game, as was mentioned as a quality of Ivan earlier in this thread. The only time in Polaris' history that this correlation has existed, to my knowledge, was during Grub's reign as Emperor, and to some extent during Penguin's, although his nation, compared to those listed as examples in the OP, is not terribly impressive. Most alliance leaders I know do not care for their nation, but rather focus on their alliance. I usually don't bother logging into my nation at all, and tend to go on there every now and then and find out I'm 17 days inactive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trikoupis Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) Good nation does not mean big nation. It means good trades, correct order of improvements, wonders, good T:I ratio, huge warchest. Sorry, but I can't trust a leader who doesn't have his trades' fixed and his slots put in good use. Ok, say he doesn't have time for his trades (orly?). But shouldn't he have appointed a good minister of finance working on trade circles? And say he doesn't care about tech deals. Shouldn't he at least spare the wealth to a few active young nations? Aren't they the future anyway? There also seems to be some confusion between "good leader" and "leader of a big alliance", prolly hiding a confusion between "good alliance" and "big alliance". So wait, isn't The Order of the Black Rose a good alliance then? Edited January 15, 2011 by Trikoupis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I have a pretty mediocre nation, but I'm the best leader on Digiterra. So, that's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I'll agree with the general refuting of the original post, although I will admit that I was surprised to find alliance leaders' Nation Strength scores tended to not be the highest. Then I was introduced to the concept of people exiting the game and leaving Trotsky's Revenge some souvenirs in the form of fissile uranium, slightly used. On the same subject, though, I think there's an expectation of leaders to still fight competently should a war happen. I don't have any experience, aside from doing the fighting..how does that usually go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I'm a two time member of the 25+ days inactive club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 What correlation does exist can be chalked up to the fact that a good alliance leader needs to be intelligent and active, and both of those qualities contribute to a person's ability to grow a nation. Beyond that, though, there are plenty of people with decent nations that would make terrible leaders and plenty of good leaders who spend their efforts on building their alliance rather than their nation, so it's a correlation with fairly limited utility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 When will people learn, NS or nation building are in no way a reflection of member quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 As Archon pointed out, Alliance leaders usually get special attention in wars, as part of a misguided belief that wrecking their nation will have an effect on the duration/outcome of a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wouldn't point out a correlation with direct NS, as leaders get special focus in wars, and also tend to fight a lot. But there are other indicators, buying (or selling) tech with all their slots, keeping stable trades, growing their nation and building up their warchest at the fastest pace that wars will allow. I would however, hold it against an alliance leader when they at least don't put in a good effort to build their nation up and use it effectively, and who doesn't have a solid understanding of the dynamics of nation building and in-game growth. For one, a solid understanding of in-game dynamics can be important, especially when planning for wars. An alliance leader ignorant of his alliance's real standing in-game can make mistakes, overestimating or underestimating his alliance in comparison to others and not have his alliance assigned well in a war. They also won't be as good at effectively monitoring and appointing their economics and war ministers. They may initiate and/or approve unwise and inefficient nation-building, war preparation, or deployment strategies. They may do a poor job at the negotiating table at wars end getting the best terms for their alliance (or writing good terms for an opponent). Another thing is that an alliance leader who just "doesn't care" about his nation isn't being a good leader, in my opinion. Why should his members care about their nations if their leader doesn't? An alliance leader should lead by example, in that respect. If they don't that could contribute to a culture of laziness that will hurt the alliance. Alliance leaders tend to be some of the oldest nations and (if not rogued on a lot) have greater potential to have a large nation. Leaders can make a small difference with their nations alone. For example when I was in MK high gov (around noCB through Karma) all the gov were in the upper ranks, especially in tech, and made up a reasonable portion of those ranks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 To OP I would say it is nearly completely the other way around. A good leader is one that stands up for his own, and will use his nation as cannonfodder to help his own alliance out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1295076384' post='2575879'] I'm a two time member of the 25+ days inactive club. [/quote] All bow down to the 26 day sleds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Nation Name: Libertarian Empire Infrastructure: 4,999.99 Technology: 505.19 National Wonders: Agriculture Development Program, Anti-Air Defense Network, Central Intelligence Agency, Disaster Relief Agency, Fallout Shelter System, Federal Aid Commission, Foreign Air Force Base, Great Monument, Great Temple, Great University, Hidden Nuclear Missile Silo, Internet, Interstate System, Manhattan Project, Mining Industry Consortium, Movie Industry, National Research Lab, National War Memorial, Pentagon, Social Security System, Space Program, Stock Market, Strategic Defense Initiative, Weapons Research Complex Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 1,064,182 Attacking + 2,362,005 Defending = 3,426,187 Casualties Casualty Rank: Ranked #187 of 20,050 Nations (0.93%) Considering I was ZI and ZT two months ago after managing to fight GOONS off for 2 months while launching off 49 nukes before they got me there, I think I'm doing alright after about two months time of rebuilding as I finished off all my tech deals with GOONS. So who wants to join Kerberos Nexus now? I have open slots available now to aid new members as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Guys. 2 things. Correlation does NOT equal causation. And he's not talking about absolute NS (it's not hard to be in TOBR with a 220k nation and never be in a real war), he's talking about the quality of the nation and relative to things like age, casualties, trades, aid slots (bank or tech). I myself only have a 23k nation that's 600 days old with 6 wonders... but considering I have almost 600k casualties despite never going beyond 23k (thanks to building my first wonder, getting nearly ZIed and taking 3 months to rebuild, build 2 more wonders, get nearly ZIed again from war), I think it's pretty decent. Same goes for someone like Moo, Tyga or Archon. (of course I'm not a leader, but anyway) [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295078107' post='2575896'] I wouldn't point out a correlation with direct NS, as leaders get special focus in wars, and also tend to fight a lot. But there are other indicators, buying (or selling) tech with all their slots, keeping stable trades, growing their nation and building up their warchest at the fastest pace that wars will allow. I would however, hold it against an alliance leader when they at least don't put in a good effort to build their nation up and use it effectively, and who doesn't have a solid understanding of the dynamics of nation building and in-game growth. For one, a solid understanding of in-game dynamics can be important, especially when planning for wars. An alliance leader ignorant of his alliance's real standing in-game can make mistakes, overestimating or underestimating his alliance in comparison to others and not have his alliance assigned well in a war. They also won't be as good at effectively monitoring and appointing their economics and war ministers. They may initiate and/or approve unwise and inefficient nation-building, war preparation, or deployment strategies. They may do a poor job at the negotiating table at wars end getting the best terms for their alliance (or writing good terms for an opponent). Another thing is that an alliance leader who just "doesn't care" about his nation isn't being a good leader, in my opinion. Why should his members care about their nations if their leader doesn't? An alliance leader should lead by example, in that respect. If they don't that could contribute to a culture of laziness that will hurt the alliance. Alliance leaders tend to be some of the oldest nations and (if not rogued on a lot) have greater potential to have a large nation. Leaders can make a small difference with their nations alone. For example when I was in MK high gov (around noCB through Karma) all the gov were in the upper ranks, especially in tech, and made up a reasonable portion of those ranks. [/quote] This. Ultimately if the leadership, including the leader itself, is not promoting good nation-quality standards among themselves, how the heck do you expect the rest of the alliance to be a well-managed and competent alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 your theory is broken skippy - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=136116 66k NS roughly 1.5 million casualties according to you he should be an alright leaders... but he's a terrible leader. 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.