| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 01:48 pm |
Many will say "why should established countries be offered a peace option". Well the answer is simple. The world many of them came to play, in which war was small scale..has been turned completely on its head.
No, it hasn't. The only thing that's changed is who's being attacked. And it's only 3 land neighbor empires of the 12 Monkeys. Anyone else who is involved did so of their own free choosing. For a long long time the Allied Forces & co. could destroy whoever they wanted, and chose to do so on more than one occasion. Now old Allied Forces members are being harmed and you say the world has changed? Well maybe from your viewpoint it has but in reality only the political structure has changed.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 01:57 pm |
I am too frustrated right now. All this time we haven't been playing against each other, we've playing against an administrator who refuses to test or understand aspects of his own game. The timing wasn't "unlucky" Elle, it was intentional. I don't know why, but Jozi chose to have pity on the people who were going to lose their precious countries (countries they conquered from other people) this time. He even said as much in the game news updates. Where was he when these same people were conquering others with war bugs? Two members of my federation and many others long gone have had their empires wiped out by bugs, and where was Jozi then? Then we come around playing in a fair way and we get the shaft? I can't take this. I'm leaving. Maybe I'll come back in a week if Avalon emails me and tells me things are better, but if his email isn't convincing enough I won't.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 02:00 pm |
Grey the scale of warfare has changed. In the past, a 2 million army was huge, build yourself say 100k DH / INT for a local fed and you could ignore everyone (including AF) and just play your own game , wether its a common market fetish, whatever.
We have just seen what, 200k inter / DH killed in a few hours?. So, i stand by my comment that it has changed...and yes i do appreciate that it took an awful lot of preperation.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 02:00 pm |
Elle this war is big. No doubt about that. But if you think that wars like that will be common - or in fact ever happen again! then youre downright crazy. Maybe something simialr will come along again...after 6 months or a year. 95%+ of the time would still be peaceful, even for 'non-peace' countries.
I agreed that established countries shoudl be given the option to convert.
Established countries should be offered the option to convert to a peaceful country for the simple reason that it wasnt available when they started, and it might be how they want to play the game.
Note I said that after a period of 2 weeks or so, to give players time to think, people would lose the ablity to make the choice to convert an existing country to peaceful status (rather than do so with a new one).
In any case, the abliity to have both an empire -built through war!-and peaceful countries -implying a complete rejection of war in the game-seems schizophrenic. People who want their cake should take the risk of other people eating it.
Jozi posted the same thing in his initial suggestion, but is not following hiw own plan...yet. I suspect it may be that he intends to, but if so, I think the feature was introduced too fast - possibly with the goal of stopping the war on GR.
Bad "Luck?" I highly doubt it.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 02:01 pm |
matty id be sad to see you go, hope you change your mind
WHO used these damn bugs people?? to kill others?
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 02:28 pm |
elle, remember our war vs. kenneth?
you missed my first appaerance here. That '2M army' wasnt huge then either. And defenses greater than those you suggested were bypassed by the AF to destroy grail in the past, and middle kingdom, and nearly equal numbers in other cases as well. Ditto for me with nuke subs, twice, but that was just a game stupidity and not a bug.
In the past, a 2 million army was huge, build yourself say 100k DH / INT for a local fed and you could ignore everyone (including AF) and just play your own game , wether its a common market fetish, whatever.
The abliity to completely ignore any potential attacker is new, introduced with the wattack limits.
your last post betrays your desires. That is what you want, the ability to never need to worry about war: invulnerability. This desire underlies all of your other suggestions, as others have pointed out in subtle and not so subtle ways.
We have come to the crux of it, imho. you should play a peaceful only country, or choose the option I outlined for you ("the third way").
Peaceful only countries are perfect for those who just want to "ignore everyone." Those of us who want to play with other people should also be allowed to do so.
Did you read my sugesstions? I know they were long, but I think it should be clear that im not against the idea! I coudlnt b farther than the position, and some kind of action like this was what I spent, oh, a real year trying to get.
I just think that it should be implemented AS JOZI SUGGESTED IT in the first place.
Trying to play the empire-building game while wanting invulnerabillity at the same time is an untenable position.
If you want Extreme durability/almost unkillability, go with the option I gave you. Or, join my federation and move to talyor desert . Either suffices.
Of course, if everyone quits, then it wont, but well jut have to wait and see. *continues writing final major post of the day*
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 02:53 pm |
Yes i remember the FB wars matt, i was referring to the scale of war On GR.
actually matt, im torn.
Firstly if i go for peacefull i would dereg all but one of my countries anyway... i dont believe having a peaceful country + empire is fair really
But whereas peaceful countries suit a desire of my own to play much less, i suspect id get bored quickly. A part of me wants to play the war game, although with the extra time online id prolly be divorced in a month ;p
As to a desire for invulnerability..not really matt, but you do want to feel the result isnt inevitable ;p. Im just explaining how things have changed. A big issue of course is the prospect of pre-prepared countries transferring in as new neighbours..
Regarding bugs, well all i can say is ive never intentionally used a bug and wouldnt unless in retaliation for them being used on me. Ive seen what i suspected as a bug being usd on both sides of the wars however. So i dont think AF can be singled out here.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:08 pm |
agreed and agreed.
All I was saying the I think its unfair for players to tag as peaceful if theyre about to lose a war. Almost no one will ever lose a war again, whether they 'came to fight wars' or not, with the exception of an extremely rare breed of sportsman(or sportwoman ).
The simple possiblity of its occurence will prevent, oh, probably all real wars. I cant see any being declared. with the option the way it is...ever.
I think the fact that you are torn confuses what you are trying to say. You seem to go one way, then the next.
I was going to post it later..but...
W3c has an idle server now. Part of the problem is that the game is advertised to appeal to differnt types of people. Many of the currnet players started on fearelss blue, advertised as a world inwchih conflict is possible and morel likely. Many of them enjoyed it there.
Perhaps there coudl be 2 gold worlds. One could be created using the currnely idle ex-GR server. It could be much smaller, and have (say) many islands and choke points built into it. this woudl emphaszie the war mechanics.
Countrires on GR could be given the option to move there, with no war limits or peaceful country option -perhaps larger awards, im not sure. I dont relaly like awards to begin with
War against other players could be made impossible on the current server.
It should be bloody obvious that teh result on erewon was not and IS not inevitable. The fact of the matter is, though, that I just dont lose very often, and when ive had time to think things through and plan, I usually succeed - unless my understanding of the rules is incomplete. (note: ive got a very high rating on all manner of chess-playing. I feel its related )
Im almost at the point of begging you to declare war on a weak country of mine. If i were anywhere in range, id do it to you -without actually intending to conquer you. I think youd rapidly find that you have many more options than youve spoken about.
If he bug youre talking about is the 'air force' issue, then I know already. if it isnt, then im clueless, and would love to be filled in.
Matty was talking about cyriac and hymyland, in particular.
The destruction of the defending air units yesterday was not a bug or a flaw or even a stupidity. It was very clever however on our part (if I do say so myself), and a calculted progression towards destruction in which every target we chose was carefully analyzed noth during the attack, and in (sometimes real!) months before hand. Put simply, when units of a certain type arent available to defend a location, other units at that location are vulnerable when attacked where they are stationed.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:12 pm |
and as for war on GR is concerned, You seem to have a selective memory, probalky caused by your lack of particiaption in (almost) all of those wars