Dear dagga,

You weren't playing. How would you know? You have no credibility (and apparently no argument).

Dear Eric171,

You aren't playing, yet you're trying to take credit for it? Isn't splitting your former alliance's pathetically small accomplishment this set into 70 pieces enough?

It's been 24 hours, yet all of the warrers can offer in counter-argument are curse words and noises from their mouths.

We're posting on it weekly now. Players can contribute blog stories as well.

Similar to what maz said, I'd do the following:

government
land (rounded to thousands)
cash (rounded to millions)
cs (exact)
all other buildings (rounded to percents)
tech (percentages)
tax rate
food (rounded to thousands)
oil (rounded to thousands)
military (rounded to thousands)

it wasn't me

I'm not sure how constructive it is to try to look at mistakes made in the past, except if we're worried about repeating them.

The bottom line is this: if you want this server to succeed, try to imagine the game experience if you were a new, untagged player. Would you keep playing and stick with it? I know that I probably wouldn't. Now what can we do as players to correct that?

EVO netted in the first set of alliance. In the second set, we warred SOF and SOL and finished higher in average nw than some alliances who netted. We also had a country in the top ten. I was generalizing so I wouldn't have to point out the exact way your alliances are failures, but I guess you won't let me be nice. That's too bad aponic. I wanted to be nice :(

Dagga, what would you know about it? You weren't even playing. If you want my qualifications, I've been the one systematically dismantling your current alliance set after set. I've led a bunch of FSes. I've seen spy ops of all of your countries. If you played in SOF or SOL in one of the sets you got tagkilled, there's a strong chance that you died at least once because I selected your country to die.

So why don't we discuss a few of the things that makes an alliance good at war?

-Country makeups? SOL has always been embarrassingly bad at running countries.
-Target selection/tactics/wcling? You might have been good at this a long time ago, but again, now it's embarrassingly bad. I can run a war by myself better than your whole war dept combined.
-Stonewalling? Last set SOL members were crying all over AT about collab's (a netting alliance) stonewalling, even going so far as to accuse them of cheating.
-Hitting speed? Last set a few netting alliances routinely were doing 2 minute kills. I don't see very many two minute kills by SOL. 12 years of experience and you still can't figure it out? Hell, even EVO was putting out 450 hits in 4-6 minutes in the last set of earth 2025, and that was with half participation of 30 countries.

What does SOL do well? Well you guys restart a lot. Some of your members are good at stonewalling, but last set the netters killed you so quickly that the majority of you couldn't stonewall. You also have pathetically small ambitions, which explains this reset's events.

Your alliance does everything it can to avoid even or challenging wars. If you're so good at warring, why would you do that?

It was a bad FS based on target selection and tactics used.

What grudge? If I wanted your alliance in team dead they would be dead.

What was the "bad thing"?

Someone who does FR on two servers lecturing someone else about not caring about politics or taking it too seriously? Just stop.

Here's another way to look at it: since people like eric171 have no ambitions or standards, they'll consider FSing a netting alliance half their size and doing nothing for the rest of the set as some kind of magnificent victory.

So what are SOL's options here? They can pact every single netting alliance except one or they can try to fight the netting alliances. Let's face it, collectively the netters are currently better than the warrers at fighting, as sad as that is...

locket, since you have no idea what's going on and can't seem to look past tags, I'll give an example which hopefully you can understand.

Suppose NA balloons to 200 members and decides to kill SoF and SOL every set. Should they be praised for bringing more players to the game?

When SOL recruits from other games to get bigger and offers pacts to every alliance their size it certainly is their fault.

Well, they had activity. Maybe we should give them the participation award?

It is not correct to say that FSing EVO impacts site development.

The real comedy is when Klown posts about how his alliance has nothing to do and how they don't let them post on AT. Yet he stays with them!

You should join an alliance with actual ambition that values freedom of speech. I'll give you some referrals if you like?

You guys are fighting netting alliances half your size and have pacted (nearly) every other alliance in the game, yet you still feel you need police? To protect you from who? Untaggeds?

What a gutless alliance.

Easy, it'll be the one RoRing Collab.

That's fine danzigrules. We'll just run a kill run on your country.

Confirmed by EVO.

1k

You want options Klown? Tell your tag's leaders not to pact ~15 other alliances right at the beginning of the set.

I'm not sure how posting three comments on a message board takes more effort than planning and carrying out a FS. Why are you even trying to use that metric to try to insult me? If it weren't for people who cared about the game you wouldn't have a game to play right now.

Declaration? I don't see a war dec. Maybe it's late because praetor lost his Norwegian-English dictionary.

I didn't even post any analysis in this thread aponic. And I'm glad that you're finally learning (I think?). The last time you suicided on EVO you weren't intelligent enough to buy any mstrat.

P.S. It's impossible to get 150% mstrat.

And seriously, I can't believe how ridiculous some of the replies in this thread are. The only thing SOL ever did right was enforce blanket AT bans. I suggest reimplementing that rule before more of your members make asses out of themselves.

Yeah stop posting thomas, you might hurt praetor's feeling. Then he'll go cry to axa about it. You wouldn't want axa to have to put up with that, would you?

Depends on how much land A had after the grab.

Players already gain NW through smart attacking. That's the whole point of attacking!

There is no significant difference between having 0 turrets and having 1 turret. You are lobbying for us to add a significant difference between having 0 spies and having 1 spy so you can get easy kills on the countries with no spies. That is not sufficient justification.

0.1% of what you have on hand after factoring in production and consumption.

How can we adjust the rules to make a better playing experience for ~250 players split between two or three games? Feel free to suggest anything. Some examples: removal of certain attack types, removing the 2 billion limit, changing GDI/humanitarians, and so on.

Right, why waste stockpile to get 10k acres or so when you can waste stockpile and turns doing a kill run?

Thanks for the lecture, but solidsnake was actually whining about a different issue.

As for the rest of your post, just because you believe it is part of the nature of the server does not make it not harmful. Here's a nice story for you to read:

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

No one cares what you think solidsnake. You no longer have what it takes to win a server or to lead an alliance successfully. You are relevant only in your own mind.

One double tap and one single tap for a total loss of 1k acres doesn't qualify as unreasonable.

Only if we add a bunny military unit.

RUN IT IS A KILLER BUNNY!!!

I think attitudes like this do far more damage to the game than policies like "land:land".

No.

Stop trolling.

I guess it'll have to be a AB CS instead of a AB FS!

Send an email to

You've identified the problem, but your proposed solution would do more harm than good.

I don't see any retals by RAGE in the news, just hits on random PDM countries.

You're "rounding" 13% to 12.5% :P

Qz is correct.

It's misleading to say that the number of civs killed depends "heavily" on the attacker's population. Maximum returns will be achieved as long as the attacker has 65% of more of the defender's population. There isn't much variance between populations and the target's population is going to fall quickly.

Kill4Free's analysis is pretty good but a few of his constants are off. It's also a little bit silly to say that a theo casher is "almost immune" to chems.

You are misinterpreting what exponential means in this context. Spying out has always been related to ops done on the country, not the defender's raw spy count.

Why should countries with a single spy be awarded so much more defense than countries with zero spies?

The "spying out" effect applies equally to all countries.

The offending posts were deleted (PM a moderator if we missed one) and the user responsible is unable to post for a while. Time to move on.