| Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 08:10 pm |
BK: "I have tried to be polite and civil up until this point. But ignorance sometimes has to be met with ignorance."
Yes, declaring war on other nations without provocation was real "polite and civil" to begin with. And as we shall soon see, your response was quite ignorant indeed, as you pointed out.
BK: "1) You dont seem to get it threw [sic] your thick head that the population was ALL that people wanted."
Yup, I got that. That's what made the comments by JG about taking our scores so stupid, or his notion that FTC was worth attacking because of our "high assets." Population was all the conqueror would get, and they'd be having to use most of it just to pay off your fee anyway. So, that leaves us with...what, exactly? Spite. A petty cabal of warlords pissed off that other players won't play their style of game. And your silly attitude (deconstruction to follow) confirms that.
BK: "2) Computer controlled countries are much better defended and have only 1/5 the pop than the piece of crap you called a country."
I somehow doubt that our federation's combined defenses were worse than the defenses of an isolated computer-controlled country, or an inactive country. Oh, wait, I KNOW that's the case. Besides, my country only had about 20M in population. It's not like I was brimming with population compared to all other non-federation nations.
BK: "Once again, no cares about god damned scores! For your piece of crap country, the award penalty is nothing due to low assets. When you have a real country, and a real empire that is when you get real penalties."
Okay, you're ALMOST starting to get it now. The problem is that you're stuck with this line of thinking that the only way to have a "real country" is by amassing huge amounts of assets. Me, I think a "real country" is one that is successful at the game, and that means a country that consistently wins awards and gets to play for free as often as is available. I crafted my country and my federation precisely to aid in accomplishing that goal, and it worked. Of COURSE I didn't focus on maximizing my assets -- that would only make the penalties worse. The key was to maximize SCORE, and as I've already pointed out and proved in practice, that is wholly different from maximizing ASSETS. Your view of the game eschews the game's definition of success, and in fact pointedly avoids it. My view embraces the game's definition and exemplifies it. For my country, the cash award penalty wasn't a big deal, and if it wasn't for the policy preventing back-to-back awards my country would probably be able to play for free forever, if not make money in the long run. You don't think that's "real," while I think that achieves the goal that the game intends. Perhaps you're jealous of this; I couldn't give a crap. But it does show that you have a pretty narrow view of how to play the game, and an inability to appreciate alternative strategies.
BK: "4) Consider your people conquered and sold into slavery. Happened many times in the past. I am evil enough to enslave your people and sell them, or buy your enslaved people for real cheap. Right now they are working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in my factories making bombs to kill you wherever you pop up next and are happier than when in your country."
Uh, they aren't REAL PEOPLE, you know? And you don't even have the ability to institute "slavery" of any kind, much less dictate working hours. One thing that can be verified is their happiness, based on the Welfare Index. Of course, my Welfare Index was quite a bit higher than yours (see below for more), so "happiness," as much as one could measure the happiness of imaginary people, was clearly superior in my country. All this little outburst proves is the spitefulness of this whole enterprise against those who don't play the warlord game. Maybe if it makes you feel better to think that real people are being hurt and sold into slavery or whatever, then you ought to seek counseling. Me, I don't really care. No use fighting babies over bottles, after all.
BK: "You are either blind or dumb. Either way you may not have noticed the numerous posts from numerous people that *warlords* have real economies. You CAN NOT support an army without one. I for instance have the 3rd highest GDP on White Giant and at the same time have the highest percentage of pop in my military. My welfare index was higher than yours at the start of the war, and my people were alot safer too. Guess all the new arrivals *immigrated* for safetely and comfort."
Again, "real economies" according to you guys is based solely on the raw accumulation of assets. It completely eschews trade, welfare, and infrastructure. This, as I've demonstrated, is a short-sighted view of the game. Further, the notion that your Welfare Index was higher than mine before the war is a complete crock. My Welfare Index was around 130 all February; you've barely cracked 100. Oh, but aren't my people "enslaved" and "working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week"? Blah, blah, blah.
BK: "I mainly kicked your ass only because of your ignorance. You can say I was spurred on by your posts. Whenever I was tired, I just read your posts. Any one of them could have killed you, but I took it upon myself to go headlong into your country and completely level it."
See the spitefulness from #4, infra.
BK: "7) Like you said, an economist knows its all about the cost/benefit ratio. Being how a good warlord is a good economist you were a prime target. Your country provided the best cost/benefit ratio on WG."
Whatever. There are 10M population countries all over the place that aren't in federations. Maybe you're not looking hard enough. Or maybe you just like going after actual players to satisfy this need to bully and demonstrate your big-ness.
If I do bother with another country on WG, it'll be a Peaceful one. Just for you.
Sheik: "why are you crying so much thomas? you knew that players can attack others. you knew that defence is the only deterant to aggression. so why didn't you build a defence? on WG, the defencive cost for invincibility is low. probley would have only cost you a few trillion over the span of a month. so why didn't you?"
1. Because I was in a federation with two other players with big militaries. 2. Nobody can really stand up to Karmantium anyway. As I've noticed (and has not been refuted), none of the other countries involved really had a chance to conquer any member of the federation. It was solely Karmantium's involvement that did it, and Karmantium's army is so huge that there's really not much of a chance for an "invincible" defense, especially for a country that doesn't jack up its population by conquering other nations.