Korea was effectively controlled by the Mongols in the 13th century. The Mongol invasions of Japan in that time were launched on Korean ships.

They haven't really got along since. But in 1910, Japan annexed Korea and essentially used their people as slaves and tried to erase Korean culture. That didn't end until after WWII.

India and Korea actually have strong relations officially. There's no bad blood there really. But they do see one another as competitors. The real issue between the two is a latent racism that exists among East Asians against those from the Indian sub-continent. This is furthered by the fact that Korea and Japan have both created vibrant modern economies of the type that India has tried and failed to create.

They do work together just fine in business. But their friendship doesn't extend beyond that from what I understand.

***

Yes, diesel electric boats are much cheaper than nuclear. The reason they're quieter is because, when they're using their electric systems, they have very few moving parts. The thing that really makes noise on a nuclear boat is the cooling pumps... when you're running electric, that's not a concern.

From what I've read, the new Soryu class submarine can stay submerged for at least a couple weeks at a time without running its diesel... so it's effectively an electric boat.

The main advantage that the Virginia has over it is speed. It's significantly faster.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I agree that changing the message should be enough. While you're under protection, the advisor guy should also say that you can't attack... that is, if he doesn't already.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Braden... in North America and (to a lesser extent) Europe, we have a habit of talking about "Asia" as if it's one entity. It's not.

China, Japan, India, South Korea... they're all huge economies and are all forced to trade with one another -- but none of them like each other. There's a lot of bad blood between them all.

It's essentially the same as the Germany/Russia issues. They've done awful things to one another in the past. Except, in the case of Russia/Germany, this only goes back about 100 years. In the case of Asia, they've had problems just as recently but they also have a couple thousand years of the same thing before that.

China sees itself as a competitor with the United States. They don't quite want the same thing as cold war USSR/USA, but they want to compete for global position.

South Korea and Japan both align themselves with the US. They hate each other, but play nice for the most part because the US wants them to. Neither likes China, but both look down on India.

India's pretty independent. They hate China, and have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to Japan and (to a lesser degree) South Korea. They tend to align themselves with the US globally, but regionally they oppose a lot of the US's actions because they support Pakistan.

*** *** ***


No, they have different subs which are also very capable. The Japanese navy operates exclusively diesel-electric submarines. The Virginia is nuclear. Electric submarines will always be potentially quieter than nuclear submarines... but the nuclear submarines have other advantages like not needing to surface.

The Japanese submarines are excellent, as is the Virginia class submarine. They have different advantages and weaknesses... and which would be more effective depends on how you choose to use them.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'll agree with most of that mrford.

I wouldn't call the Helicopter Carrier debate a mess. It's a serious political issue, and they dealt with it. One of those ships is already in service, and the second is due to be commissioned in March.

You're absolutely right about the aegis system. They have six aegis destroyers in service... and two of them are brand new. Those new ships have got some serious balls on them.

Where the Japanese Navy really excels, though, is in ASW. They have the best platforms in the world for that.

And the fact that they have no aspirations of building real carriers means that they've invested a good chunk of money in surface-to-surface capabilities too.

You're right about unrep though... and their fleet composition means that they lack the capabilities that are inherent to other similarly sized navies. But if they went toe-to-toe with the French, British or Chinese fleets, I'd be a lot happier sitting on a Japanese ship than on the other side.

*** *** ***

Japan is a close ally of the United States -- and considers China to be their largest threat. Frankly, Japan is more likely to end up at war with China than the US is.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Japan's Defence Force is entirely funded from national sources. After all, Japan does have the third largest economy in the world... and their entire expenditure constitutes less than 1% of GDP.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Yeah, it's actually still in their constitution. But it's been re-interpreted to allow for a "self-defence force". At present, their "self-defence force" has a budget about the same size as Germany's military.

It's true that they've stayed away from building offensive capability. They couldn't operate a major army unit independently overseas. But they've got some damned fine equipment.

Their Navy in particular is impressive. There's an argument to be made that in combat operations, it outclasses every navy in the world except the US. Though that's a tight race.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

?

Japan is "rearmed".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I haven't taken anything you've said as flaming Makinso :) You're giving honest criticism, and explaining your reasoning. That can't be a bad thing.

You're entirely right in suggesting that, under this scheme, an alliance jumping into a war after a few days is a tactic with increased effectiveness. But, I won't pretend to be able to predict the political ramifications of that.

This may force alliances to fight more arranged wars. It may force alliances going to war to have an ally "on stand-by" to scare off any would-be joiners. It may force alliances wanting to war to pact out the server. Or it may, as you suggest, make alliances hit allies as part of their FS.

Some of those changes would be loved by netters, others hated. I can think of reasonable reasons why any may come to pass, but I can't say for a certainty which is most likely.

My guess, however, is that we'll see a mix of coping mechanisms from reset to reset. It will vary over time, much like it does now. Of course, in any given reset, there will be someone who doesn't like what's going on. I have no doubts that that person will complain about how whatever it is that they don't like "always happens now". Reasonable people will point out that it hasn't happened that way in several resets (at least). But they'll still complain and curse my name for suggesting these changes. The next reset, of course, something different will happen which a different set of people won't like... so it will be their turn to complain about what "always happens" and curse me. :)

I disagree with your statement that this won't decrease FS effectiveness. I believe it will. However, if you believe the effects are too small, I could suggest another change to make the impact larger. Increasing the readiness loss rate a little is an option, but just adding 1% extra readiness loss to each attack is a little heavy handed.

What about lowering the point at which you lose minimum readiness? So instead of hitting 7% readiness loss at 35% of your military... drop that down to 25% or 20%... and adjust all the brackets accordingly. That would have a palpable impact on the FS... but still be more than countered later in the war by the effects of WW.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Detmer: There's several parts to my overall suggestion... and Makinso's addressed them separately. I understand how it could be difficult to follow and your confusion is understandable.

One of the changes I suggested was that the effects suffered from low readiness be increased. Makinso ran some numbers, and pointed out that a country with 70% readiness would have significantly less offensive power than previously.

This is the statement to which I commented "He's right". Of course, I then pointed out why it's a necessary change and not actually a significant issue.

On the other hand, Makinso's last post demonstrated a mis-understanding of my proposal. He seemed to think that a country suffering from War Weariness could not effectively break for several hours (when it recovered from WW). This is not the case. It does take several hours to recover from WW -- but as long as a country keeps their readiness up by using turns (just like they do now) their offensive power is not diminished.

I hope that makes some sense :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

HAN

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Makinso, you've misunderstood something very important.

WW has no effect on attacking power. You do not need to wait at all for your breakers to be effective again... they just need to recover readiness by playing turns like they do now.

When you're sitting at 70% WW, you can break just as well as you could sitting at 100%... so long as you bring your readiness up.

*** *** ***

LittleItaly, I made no personal attack. I expressed my scorn for the specific comment you made in this thread. Nothing beyond that.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I don't really "flame bait".

I just think that the amount of coverage and attention given by the media to 9/11, so long after the event itself, is disproportionate when compared to the coverage and attention given to events of comparable magnitude.

9/11 is part of history now, not current events. As such, it should be addressed primarily in that context.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

In the last few years, I've slowly stopped watching the 24/7 news networks out of the United States. I watch BBC, CBC and Al Jazeera but nothing American.

The basic reason for this is simple. I've become annoyed with the US media's obsession with 9/11.

Truthfully, I recognize it as a day of great significance. I don't mean to belittle its importance -- but it is not unique in its place as a major turning point in history or national identity.

This year will mark the 10th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks. In that time, I do not believe there has been a single 24 hour period in which any 24/7 news network has not mentioned 9/11 at least once. I haven't done a study, but this strikes me as a very safe bet.

To me, this seems ludicrous -- that it hasn't been allowed to fade from the public consciousness at all.

To provide some historical perspective:
Were they still talking about Pearl Harbour every day in 1951?
Were they still talking about the fall of the Berlin wall every day in 1999?
How about the moon landings every day in 1979?

I know the way the media operates has changed... but those are events of similar or (perhaps) greater historical importance than 9/11. It's hard to quantify, but it's also hard to see what makes 9/11 so singularly deserving of this obsession.

Other major events in the same media age certainly haven't got the same treatment. Katrina and the South East Asian Tsunami faded from public dialogue quickly enough. North East Africa has been completely redefined in the last month (and I don't mean Egypt) but the media barely covered that even as it was taking place.

I really don't understand the obsession. But, really, here's my question to you:

How long after the attacks of 9/11 do you expect to have the first 24 hour period in which not one of the 24/7 news networks in the United States mentions that day? Our first 9/11 free day, as it were.

If you'd told me on that day that it would take 10 years, I'd have laughed at you. But, at present, it seems impossible to me that such a day will come before the 10th anniversary.

So, anyone care to place a wager? Will it come before the 15 year anniversary?

And does anyone else find this time-line fluffing insane?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Makinso, it should not be possible for 1 player to make 20 hits in one second during a rush. Right now, it is... and that's stupid.

I really wish someone would introduce changes to make that impossible. Unfortunately, the more I think about this, the more I realize that my changes will almost certainly have zero effect on that.

In my head, I was thinking that I was forcing people to send more military for those finishing attacks (since they ignore readiness drops)... but then I realized that the extra losses from sending 7k instead of 5k are insignificant. Then I also realized that people oversend at that point anyway, and just freeze at 5k (or 10k)... and people would be unlikely to change that behavour.

So, in the end, end of kill rushing won't be impacted at all. :/

If anything, these changes probably alleviate your concerns more than they hurt them Makinso. I'm giving attackers the potential to make kills quicker -- I'm just not letting them do it for free.

With fewer hits needed for a kill, if you keep your readiness up, the overall time for the kill will be about the same as it is now.

Alternately, you could let your readiness drop... but you will need to send more military to break if you do and thus lose more military. This will result in a quicker kill than is currently possible though... so less time for irc/phone bot tech to play a role.

In both cases, you need fewer countries than before (a good change for this game)... but it gives the attacker a way to actually speed up the run. If you're truly concerned about too much stonewalling, how can that be a bad thing?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Has anyone's opinion on this subject been influenced by LittleItaly's incoherent mutterings?

If so, I can demonstrate the fallacies in what he wrote. But, I'd rather not have to -- and I suspect that the vast majority of people here (even those who disagree with my basic idea) are intelligent enough to dismiss his less-than-compelling statements without any need of help from me.

Let me know :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

He's right, Detmer. It was in my original post. I want the readiness formula changed so that there's more of a malus for letting your readiness drop.

The reason for this is simple: Turns spent gaining readiness are an important part of the balance of this game. At present, people keep their readiness up because it effects their defensive strength. I've removed that incentive and needed to introduce a new one.

To not do this would actually lead to a dramatic increase in the power of the FS if my other concepts were implemented. It's a major part of decreasing the effectiveness of the FS.

It also makes my overall changes of neutral effect to the stonewallers/rusher balance. I had some concern that with fewer hits needed to kill a country suffering from WW, it may be unfair to stonewallers. So, increasing the malus suffered from a drop in readiness makes rushers more likely to pause to regain readiness. This may hurt rushers slightly, but only in the sense that it will be much less appealing to launch the 20 attacks per second rushes which already ruin that aspect of the game.

Frankly, this change is important. And Makinso's statement that "attack power gets absoluted[sic] raped" is overstating things dramatically.

It's true that, if you let your readiness drop significantly, the difference is noticeable. However, any attacks made with 100% readiness (like most LGs) will have the exact same attack power as previously. There will be no difference from current attack power. And as long as you keep your readiness relatively high (say, in the mid-80s or higher) like almost all experienced players do now anyway... the effect is negligible.

In the end, if you attack intelligently, it shouldn't matter very much to you.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Pfft. You're worse than iMagNum.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I appreciate the thought Helmet :)

I think it's a relatively minor issue... and I think that if it becomes a matter of great concern, it's relatively easy to make adjustments to address it.

I definitely want to hear all the specific criticism (or cons) that people see in this suggestion though. I'm, frankly, surprised by how little of that there's been so far.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Helmet, I don't think that will happen... in fact, I'm not even sure it will work.

Let's remember, every attack lowers your WW... which is only recovered by time. Therefore, to keep your WW from perpetually dropping, you need your attack rate to remain slower than your recovery rate.

With a loss rate of 0.5% per attack, and a recovery rate of 0.625% per hour, your attack rate needs to be lower than 1.25 attacks per hour. If you're attending a warchat every 4 hours, that translates into 5 attacks per WC. If you exceed that number, your WW will drop continuously at a rate equal to "(your # of attacks - 5) * .05".

This has two problems. The first one is the obvious one, can any alliance get enough members online for each warchat to be able to get kills while only laying out 5 attacks per member? Personally, I don't think so.

The second is mathematical. At present, we gain 3 turns an hour... or 12 turns every 4 hours. Used at their most efficient, that works out to 5.16 attacks at each warchat. Okay, that's no big deal, you only need to drop 1 attack per day in order to stay under the 5 attacks per chat limit. The issue is that this only accounts for balancing your turns, it doesn't let you use any turns you have stored or saved... and if you miss a warchat, your WW is back to full before the next one, and you've lost those 5 attacks.

In the end Helmet, the number work out in such a way that it is not possible to keep WW up all the time unless you don't use any stored turns to attack... or stop attacking efficiently. If you want to push it a little further so that it really isn't at all advantageous to stay online all the time, all we'd have to do is increase the WW loss rate to .525% or drop the recovery rate to .6%. There would be no lasting advantage at all then -- even if you started the war with 0 turns.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

You're a month too late jaabaa.

Let's not resurrect this thread again.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

From what I remember qz... I'm pretty sure when I originally posted this scheme, it was mostly just an expansion on an idea of yours. So, I should hope you like it :)

If it were to get implemented, it would be the first major structural change that this game has had. Obviously that has some risk. I think it's a relatively safe change though, and brings in a lot of interesting elements.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Sure it is. That's over 100k a year. My parents never managed nearly that much income between them -- but their net worth is in excess of a million dollars. That's with 4 kids... and neither has worked full time in the last 5 years.

Even a modicum of financial responsibility will turn anyone working full time at $50/hour into a millionaire over their working lives.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I think upping the limit for ANW makes sense. The theory behind the limit is so that one or two people can't run countries in larger tags all reset, then detag and take the ANW crown, benefiting from someone else's protection.

If that is indeed the goal of the limit, obviously it makes sense to increase it. Personally, I'd put it at 65 -- since that requires at least 5 players. But 50 doesn't seem unreasonable either.

Of course, if the people currently taking ANW solo are doing it while playing in their own tag for the whole reset -- then it seems like we're fixing a problem that doesn't actually exist.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

lol, ok. I was probably being too protective regardless.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Zarcon and joedro, I have no problem with either of your suggestions. Both have merits which can (and, parhaps, should) be debated. But I'm hoping that this thread can remain on topic.

I didn't mean to create a thread for general discussion about war changes. There have been lots of those. I created a thread to put forward and get feedback on a specific suggestion that was developed in one of the general discussion threads.

I hope I'm not being rude, I appreciate what you both said about this suggestion, but I do want to discuss this specific ideas merits. That becomes difficult when completely unrelated suggestions are put forward in the same thread.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

[quote poster=londwell; 7088; 119349]I [...] left in the swirve days... about half way through the 1a migration to EC. [/quote]
Out of curiosity, how do you know if it was the middle if you left?

Isn't it entirely possible that no more alliances switched servers after you left... meaning that you left at the end of the migration, rather than the middle?

I just don't understand how that statement could be both true while also allowing you to have enough information to make it.

In other words, I'm confused.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Thanks for the feedback Tertius. Here's what I'm thinking about what you wrote.


I absolutely agree that the balance is delicate. I also agree that the advantage should still be with the attacking alliance in most circumstances. With the way I've laid this out, I think that will come through. However, I also see that the FS advantage almost disappears if the defending alliance stores turns. I think that this is interesting, as it may make it possible for an alliance to scare off an FS by storing turns.

As for small alliances not liking this. To an extent you're right, this will make it harder for smaller alliances to FS bigger ones successfully. But, by that same token, it also makes it easier for small alliances to fight back if they get FSed.

This may just be me, but I think that if you make the FS, you take your chances. After all, you've chosen to get into that war. If these changes hurt those people, but make it easier for alliances who get blind-sided to fight back, I don't think too many people will be upset about it.



That's a valid point -- I like it. It gives a reason for players to avoid mass bottom feeding and play around with big pay-off grabs.


I meant the extra civs who I proposed should be lost by countries suffering from war weariness. I'd love for them to be captured instead of killed.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'd take you a lot more seriously if you actually crunched the numbers and told me how much of an increase in attack strength is possible with all the available bonuses, then compared it to how much of an increase in defence strength is possible with all the available bonuses.

Making something up like "its up to 2 billion % of what you originally had to send" just makes me want to ignore you.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I don't see what that would solve Mortcus... except that it completely eliminates one aspect of subtlety from the game, and makes it very much worth while to try and plant spies in alliances you want to FS.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

This is a suggestion I made a few months ago, but it was buried in a thread and didn't get seen by many people. So, I'm bringing it back from the dead to see what everyone thinks.

The objectives of this suggestion are to balance out the FS advantage a little bit, while also making war somewhat more interesting. To do this, I have a single change, which then allows for some ripple changes throughout the game. Please bear with me as I go through the details.

First, I want to change "readiness" and introduce something new called "war weariness". The change to readiness is really simple; we make it only effects attacking strength. War weariness would be a counterpart to this, it only effects defending strength.

The difference, is in the recovery. Readiness is recovered by using turns, war weariness can only be recovered by time. Obviously these can be tweaked if people like the general concept but not my numbers, but these are the numbers that I have in mind:

War Weariness loss rate: 0.5% per attack
War Weariness recovery rate: 0.625% per hour
Maximum war weariness drop: 30%

The basic idea behind these numbers is that it allows players to make strategic decisions.

I think that 30% drop in defensive effectiveness is more than enough. It gives an obvious advantage, but doesn't go so far as to negate all the defences of the player.

With a 0.5% weariness rate, the most any government except tyr can do during an FS is just barely reach the maximum. This will encourage players to balance how far they want to go and there won't be any "well, I'm at the maximum and have only used a quarter of my turns, so I may as well keep hitting". In general, I like things that force players to make choices.

With a recovery rate set so that you gain 1/2 the maximum war weariness per day, there's a new strategic element to the game. Some alliances may choose to only have countries attack every second day and keep their average war weariness effects lower... while others may choose to attack every day but stagger their members half each day... and still others will just go balls to the wall and attack every day no matter what. I think this is interesting as each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Again, I like choices.

Now, the more astute among you will realize that this change makes it easier to break for the CS, but doesn't actually alter the FS at all. My second major change addresses that.

I want to alter the readiness/war weariness effects formula. The current formula is:
AttackingStrength * ((readiness + gov't bonus + weapons)/3)
I want this changed to:
AttackingStrength * ((gov't bonus + weapons)/2) * readiness

War weariness would use the same formula, substituting for readiness.

Basically, in my opinion, the solution to the over-powered FS is to increase the effects of readiness loss. You can still send just as many attacks if you want to, but your losses will be higher unless you're more careful about keeping your readiness up. I haven't advocated for this change too loudly because it absolutely destroys your defences if you let readiness get too low... but if we separate readiness from defence by introducing war weariness, this problem is no longer an issue.

That's the basic concept that I have in mind. Though I have a few other smaller ideas attached to it that would make the whole scheme more interesting and close a couple potential exploits.

The third major change that I'd like to see is that countries suffering from war weariness lose additional population. So, they're not only easier to break, but easier to kill as well. This is an extra step towards balancing out the FS advantage. I'm not exactly sure what number to attach to this, but I was thinking that WW%/4*normal population loss would be a good number for it. This may need some tweaking, because it could entirely eliminate the FS advantage or even move the advantage to the CS if it's too high.

The reason I think that this final change is important is to make late war more interesting and important. The most unfortunate thing about wars (in my mind) is that they're so often decided during the FS. A lot of kills happen then, but fewer later in the reset. Most proposals to limit the FS make kills later in the war almost impossible. By having WW increase population loss, we can actually make late war kills easier. By having fewer kills early, and more later, we post-pone the point at which the war is essentially "decided"... making it more of a competition... and, to my mind, more interesting.

That's the essence of my idea.
1. Separate Readiness from defence and introduce War Weariness instead.
2. Alter the readiness/war weariness formula so that they have a much larger effect on attacking/defending strength.
3. Increase the civ loss rate for countries suffering from War Weariness.

Now, that's the basics of my idea, but I have a couple others thoughts to close some exploits I see in this set-up and to make it slightly more interesting.

I'd love to see the bonus civs captured instead of killed. In most circumstances, these civs would promptly be bled off, though for a couple turns the attacker would have to feed them. However, the really neat effect from this is that it adds an interesting element to stone walling. If you find someone suffering enough from WW, it may actually be worth your time to make some BRs or GSes.

Also, we're currently trying to make LGs a larger part of this game. Obviously, if your defences get lowered when you LG, this is another reason to run an all-x strat. To combat this, I don't think war weariness should effect your defences against LGs... or missiles for that matter.

Finally, I could see how this system could be exploited by non-attacking FA countries who never have to worry about WW. I don't think this is entirely fair, so I'd like to see a 15% WW drop touched on anyone who sends FA. After all, if you're in a war, your people won't be happy about you sending your resources to someone else. I think that makes sense.

To summarize this, here are my proposed changes:
1. Separate Readiness from defence and introduce War Weariness instead.
2. Alter the readiness/war weariness formula so that they have a much larger effect on attacking/defending strength.
3. Increase the civ loss rate for countries suffering from War Weariness.
4. Have bonus civs captured instead of killed.
5. Do not have War Weariness effect LGs or Missiles,
6. Put a 15% War Weariness loss on FA.

Thoughts?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I love it when the real oldies drop by.

Nice to see you Fingolfin :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Pillars are solid blocks of a single material designed to be an architectural highlight in addition to (or in some cases, instead of) supporting weight.

Columns are put together for the purpose and may be made out of multiple materials. Poured concrete and steel are common. They are always part of the load bearing structure and frequently hidden or disguised so as not to attract attention.

*Edit*
Come to think of it... that's probably just how I use them. I can think of plenty of examples where their use is switched from what I wrote above. There's probably some regionalistic basis for which is used, or used for what most, frequently but the truth is that they're more or less interchangeable.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Bobby, it's quite simple:

-Economic growth is good.
-By talking about "5 pillars of Economic Growth", 5 pillars also become associated with "good".
-The Five Pillars of Islam are fundamental to the muslim faith.
-Therefore, fundamental Islam is being associated with what is "good".

Why would Obama make this obvious connection unless he were trying to convert us?

And why would he try to convert us unless he's a muslim himself?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Chevs, I am perfectly willing to credit Cypress, Murf or Jacques Chirac with having done an outstanding job, if that's who you tell me did the work.

But having an untapped well is useful.

Hell, you may even be right in saying that whoever is doing the work over there is working harder than anyone else at the moment. But results are a great motivator, we'll see if that work ethic continues as it becomes harder and harder to convince people to return.

All I'm saying is that the advantage is temporary and has (probably) already peaked. Barring further mergers, the numbers will move back towards their previous level over the coming resets as the nostalgia returnees get their fix and drift off again.

This is a temporary advantage, brought on more by fortuitous circumstance than anything else. That's why the snobbery that goes along with it rankles so much.

Also, Chevs, if my previous comments are the most ignorant thing you've seen posted all reset -- you clearly don't proof read your own writing.

***

Prima, I think it would be entirely suitable for a younger audience. I literally grew up playing this game, during a time when it had a much more... colourful... atmosphere than it has
now. I think that as we get older, we forget far too quickly how much we knew and were exposed to when we were younger.

Besides, I don't think the game's atmosphere is as entrenched as you seem to allude. If we get enough new players from a different demographic, shear force of numbers will redefine the atmosphere. They won't behave the way we tell them just because we've been here longer.

Let them come, it'll be fine.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'm sick to death of this asinine suggestion.

SoF and SoL may have been big enough that they never needed to recruit from their contact lists before -- but most alliances have been actively doing it for years.

Believe me, it's a limited resource. The members that came back from these recruiting drives will fade, and fewer will come back the next time you try to get into contact with them.

If you don't understand this, it's easy to sit back and say "we did it, now why can't you?" but the reality is that it's only worked so well for SoF and SoL because they've been so lazy up until now. They haven't had to exhaust these resources to stay alive... so they're reaping the benefits compared to the rest of the server now.

In a couple resets, those members will be gone and they'll realize the situation everyone else is in.

Or, more likely, they'll blame the rest of the server saying that those members only left because everyone else was too lazy to bulk up and get enough members to give competition. It's bullfluff, but I expect they'll say it anyway.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

You're not in NA warlorde... you also don't seem to know very much about this game.

To say that iMagNum "figured there was no point in netting" because its "butt hurt from the war with SoL" is a statement that reveals your ignorance and not a lot else.

How can you possibly have been playing this game for long enough to know that NA has dropped that much membership, but still think that iMagNum might choose to net?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Vic, you don't need logs. No one in iMagNum will deny that policy, it's on the public page after all.

But, the truth is that it's rarely enforced. For the most part, iMagNum deals in standard retals. Just about the only time it doesn't is when someone has decided to try and push them around in recent history.

The fact is that in this instance, iMagNum was dealing with you fairly. They were enforcing standard retals. You could have accepted that and moved on. Instead, you decided to try and play hard-ball with them. That qualifies as trying to "push them around"... for the next little while, I suspect you will not get standard retals.

Seriously dude, I know you felt like you were getting the worse side of the deal -- but when iMagNum is dealing with you fairly, why rock the boat? Accept that they're in a better LGing position and finish off your netting reset. Otherwise, you'll never get to net.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Yeah, that's a neater way of doing it if you split proportionally over the last 24 hours... probably only between successful attacks, mind you, but I really do like the idea.

Can we try this?

So don't send 10 ops at once? Especially not when you don't have enough money to play the turns.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

We do alliance:country because IX fought to bring it in when the whole server was country:country.

No one has succeeded in their fights to bring back country:country since.

No one has tried to bring in country:alliance or alliance:alliance.

To bring in something new, a major alliance has to want to fight for it and then gain an advantage from it if they win. This makes have allianced adopt it in order to remain competitive.

If an alliance isn't willing to fight, it doesn't happen. If it doesn't provide a real advantage, it doesn't spread.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Here's how this looks to me (and outsider who likes iMagNum):

1. iMagNum was in a position to get the better of standard land exchanges with NA... they took advantage of this position and made their LGs.

2. NA got tired of this and tried to intimidate iMagNum by being more aggressive in their retal policies (fair enough, it's part of the game dynamic. Though, you have to be pretty thick to try this with iMagNum when you want to net).

3. A couple iMagNum members decided that they didn't want to be pushed around and dealt directly with NA.

4. NA tried to kill those members.

5. iMagNum defended its members.

6. NA declared war.

Personally, I see standard server politics escalating to a war. This wasn't a random FS by iMagNum, it was NA thinking that it could push around the alliance that has proven most often that it will not be pushed around. Dumb as dirt does not gain any sympathy from me.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I don't drink coffee... and I frequently post drunk. I doubt that too many people here notice the difference in what I write though.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Isn't DR for LGs completely separate from special attacks still? Unless there've been some major changes, GSes and BRs do not impact SS or PS diminishing returns.

Therefore, dead countries would not be in DR.

(Personally, I think it would be interesting if all the dead country's land went to whoever got the final hit... make killing part of a viable netting strategy. Though that would be abused... maybe split the land by percentage based on the last 200 hits or something?)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.