If someone makes a massive topfeed on a country playing a different strat, and then destroys the buildings they gained, and doesn't rebuild any of the empty acres, what would you think about that?

paper lion

Thanks for the constructive feedback.

I would just be confused.

FA talks would probably lead to war unless they provided their own lube and bent over. just my $.02

FA them enough money to build.

I'd be roaring peeved... And yes, it has already happened to me this set. $2b necessary to build/rebuild after roughly 10k acres exchanged. With the large amount of land being exchanged in pure retals I could see new retal policies being developed in the future...

ETHICS WERE VIOLATED THE MOMENT THEY INVADED YOUR LANDS AND TOOK BY FORCE WHAT WAS RIGHTFULLY YOURS! YOU MUST LAUNCH A FURIOUS RESPONSE OF RIGHTEOUS DEFENSE ACTIONS. THE HEAD OF THE LEADER WHO SO FOOLISHLY MOVED AGAINST YOU SHOULD BE DISPLAYED FOR THE CROWS TO PICK CLEAN!

BILL

a policy telling me what to do with my land? lol this is silly. A person can do what ever they want with the buildings.

If i was a farmer and i grabbed a techer the first thing i would do is destroy all the research blds. If i wanted to be a fluff i would leave empty and make the ghost ar less. I am not here to accommodate your strat, i want to make my country better. too much disappointment for ya, play tiddly-winks.

it really depends how ready you are to defend land:land

obviously in zip's example the techer is hosed and the farmer is just landtrading.

if it were up to me in either situation I'd store turns

Obviously you'd want to tear down the buildings after you build up the empty acres. But sounds like you agree that tearing down the buildings you gained immediately after grabbing(and before any retals), and leaving them empty, is a fluff move?

he creates food off the unused acres, albeit very little. the labs benefit him nothing.

In the actual case it is a casher grabbing a farmer, so there definitely isn't a benefit to tearing them down until at least the empty acres are built.

It seems to me though that a casher topfeeding a farmer and destroying the buildings is of a similar ethical level as a commie grabbing a stocking techer who has a tonne of cash and food on hand. Annoying, bad for relations, and perhaps a good indicator that some serious negotiations are in order to prevent such stupid fluff, but really just a "stone, meet glass house" kind of scenario.

their land now, what's ethics got to do with it? was it ethical for somebody to run with such low defense that somebody could actually succeed in doing a massive topfeed on them? or were they just being greedy and trying to win the reset?

most try to win reset.

i doubt that. most probably just enjoy being part of the crowd. and love it when they get to beat up on someone as part of the group.

Is there a non-crippling level of defense that you can have to prevent grabs from a determined player? 13m turrets is obviously not enough, but I am unsure of the number that is, lol.

hmm

I look at countries of non-pacted alliances that are stil grabbing and try to not be a good target. If someone is grabbing and is high in nw I might want to have lower defense even so a landtrade would be unfavorable to the other country.
It depends I guess:P

Reasonably, no landgrabber who gave a schitt about "grabbing ethics" would LG a country of a strat not the same as his.

Granted, there's a lack of fat cashers this set.

I guess, to answer the question, it's definitely fluffish. Most people are though, so yeah.

AMERICA

Do the same back and apply the same retal policy used.

if warmongers like imag, sof and sol ain't counted then most.

Or to extend xin's post in the other thread....

It's landtrading if you build the land for them before they hit to increase returns!

It's landgrabbing if you try to maximize your returns and minimize theirs!

Evo has done similar things all set. I have seen indies hitting farmers and teachers and not building up multiple times

I think its also not cool if you have two countries doing retals, when the original that was hit could have gotten more than 100% in one hit.

Would the other alliance have any right to complain then if they get a taste of their own medicine?

they would.

also what is your definition of topfeed?

my version - topfeed = (tagprotection*2 + (weakdefensiveallies*.25))/ (patheticlandnwratio - falsesenceofsecurity)

*falsesenceofsecurity may be a new term for some of you. All I can say is that it is a number between 1 and 100. Ask Slag for more details on that one...

and is 13 mil turrets enough? obviously not. everyone always asks how much is enough. like there is a formula or % you can apply so you can come back here and fluff some more when you get grabbed.

If someone has a hard on for you i don't care who you are and what you have if the other player had their fluff tog. your fluffed. So now you have to look and see what makes you so special? do I have the most land on the server? did i leave my stock at home like a nub? You fluffed up somehow and are sticking out like a sore thumb to the attacking country.

In my opinion, if you don't like to lose your land....buy more defense, period.

It works both ways...

either that or dont have too much land.

wait, who cares if they don't rebuild the acres.

It is stupid things like this that ruin the game, fluffs trying to make further policy to rectumscrew this game into the ground.

What the hell....why does this matter all of a sudden?

mmmm, LaF and Evo have a few countries testing unfriendly land trading this set. Probably why this has been coming up.

land:land doesn't take into account many factors at this point of the reset. I've seen two of my stocking research allies get grabbed by farmers. Even if they had gotten their land back either hit cost that country about 10-12m NW before accounting for building costs. Just like the hit that began this thread probably cost him 12+m NW on building costs alone.

It's why it isn't a matter of land(the acres don't really matter) and getting that land back does little to assuage the target.

These countries have high defense. And still fluffed up so they would lose too much money rebuilding it.


LaF started it with outrunning the retal.
And you guys have some people who wants to push Evo to war with you. But only few members were involved in this mess I guess?

Tella is having a hard time dealing with this already. LOL.

Please show me a single instance where we grabbed a Laf country and DESTROYED the buildings gained in order to even further reduce the returns on the incoming retal. You won't be able to find a single instance of that. Many people don't build up the acres while waiting for the retal, but to destroy 6k farms 10 minutes after grabbing someone who has 300% of your land, that's purely a fluff move.

And Xin, I've already received multiple threats all set long for doing exactly what you suggested. I don't think that's a realistic response to these types of issues.

And once again, for those who aren't able to grasp the full situation, I don't have an issue with someone not building the empty acres. But destroying farms that you've gained in order to increase the empty acres(and decrease possible ghost acres) is purely to fluff with the person that's going to retal.

I said similar, not identical rager.

i hope you guys netgain next set and then someone ruins that set by FSing you.

stupid netters are there lame grabbing issues

Obviously it is better to grab someone running the same strat, but sometimes its more beneficial to go for the extra land, even if it's from a country running a different strategy.

In the latter case, I endorse dropping the useless buildings and waiting for the retal before building on empty land. The aggressor is trying to benifit himself, while denying his rival as much land. This is how a competition between individuals and alliances should be. For two years now SoF has been trying to introduce grabbing between alliances whether it's midfeeding, or topfeeding, but in a way that isn't abusive (multiple exchanges in a day) and isn't 'friendly/mutual' taking all the elements of competition from the game.

Furthermore, this tactic hurts the defender more, the more acres he has. I see this as a limiter against the abuses of landtrading in the PDM/RD style; just as SoF's policy of refusing land:land retals against countries that participate in these mass exchanges. Of course, by doing this, countries can sabatage countries that may challenge their teammates top 10 spot, but for me netgaining is a combination of individual and team competition, which should be defended.

For me a country's final networth should be decided by skill, effort, teamwork and of course luck. I believe that grabbing between alliances should fall between the established LaF/Evo method of constant analysis and bottomfeeding, and the all-explore method. That is what SoF's retal/foreign policy has hoped to achieve and will continue to strive for.

Seems to me that in a war situation that is a valid method of reducing the enemies ability to wage war by reducing their income. Just not rebuilding the land itself in a non-war situation is just stupidity.

However, I must point out that the definition of "topfeeding" is wide and varies and doesn't necessarily make any sense. Some alliances define it as hitting a country with more land than you, this is inherently bullfluff. If I outrank said country networth wise, then it is NOT a topfeed, it's good targeting. If you have more land than me and I am able to take it, and you are not able to defend it, that's YOUR problem. If you cannot take it back from me, then again, it's YOUR problem, not mine.

If you do not provide enough military to defend the massive amounts of land that you have, then you need to scale down the land, or up the level of military protection or support. Otherwise, no one wants to hear you crying about losing the land.

We have some interesting ideas here.

and some that make me shake my head...

no mention of my topfeeding formula? It took a long time to figure that one out.

^ no. just highlighting points i totally agree. ;)

i, for one, am not building those unused acres until i make another grab on the next day or until i am retalled.

The issue was not about building the unused acres. It's about destroying the unused buildings.

Especially when they're farms. Obviously the best method would be leave the farms to benefit yourself until you build the empty acres, and THEN destroy and replace the farms. By destroying them immediately, you are only harming yourself and fluffing the other guy over even more.

And PS: Nobody is unbreakable. 3 Off allies and PS bonus outweigh Def allies, as it is supposed to.

I've never thought about this scenario before, but why not destroy the buildings you don't need? This is a competitive game. Everybody wants to get an upper-hand, and if this is a way to do so, then why not? If you're grabbing a neutral alliance, then that is because you are not friends otherwise you'd have a pact, so obviously you don't owe them anything...

p.s. You should just return the "favour" to whoever is doing it to you.

if i have enough money to destroy those building that i deem not beneficial to me, i often destroy them after grabbing. (case if i want to teach that country a lesson). i don't have any off allies atm, and i don't think people would grab a country that they think would cost them much than benefit from it. (if it would require me to use my 1B cash to buy up so i can hit someone's fat ass, plus i would be loosing ~1M or more jets upon grabbing, i'd find another target. if my off ally is abusing my military, i'd drop the pact.) and if it's a topfeed, i usually accept a L:L retal.

i have seen a lot of fat ass countries with low defenses that i would purposely grab them and then destroy those buildings with the intention to let them realize that the next time i see them still having low defenses, i'd do the same (or somebody could do the same). i'm not a netter, i just grab for fun. ;) not my fault if they are too fat @ their NWs and would just rely on tag protection, not thinking of buying up enough defenses. most netters usually do that.

basically, since the land/buildings were "grabbed" from you that just means you don't have control over it anymore. the aggressor can destroy the buildings or drop the land. all part of the game.

That's what they always say =p

I agree though, the game makes it incredible easy to retal.