|Previous Thread:||Show # of Workers on Exchange Workers Screen|
|Next Thread:||Why are Corporations closed automatically ?|
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 08:28 pm |
Just thought a blast from the past would be interesting.
Monday, December 23, 2002 - 01:42 pm Click here to edit this post Guys war is impossible against decent defence.
Its what makes it all so tedious.
There were no attack limits at the time. transfer limits alone were enough to make you bored and listless, concluding (effectively correctly) that you were invulnerable.
almost a one year anniversary. think back on whats changed in the game since.
| Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 09:18 pm |
My view of the game has changed matt and what i want from it. Or dont want
Is that something wrong?
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:08 am |
not at all! so has mine! That is what im trying to show you and make clear, and what I was hoping you would say
on the other hand, what you want/dont want should have nothing to do with your assesment of the weapons' effectiveness or lack thereof. But it seems like it might...
I think at one time you would have scoffed at playing a 'peace only' country, but now the option would or should appeal to you and probably many of your friends. If this is beyond my bounds-me saying what you want, lol-please tell me and put me back in line *hands elle a whip*(please dont abuse it too much ). ive got a bunch more quotes from you as well that say basically the same thing in half a dozen ways. The point is that your logic at the time regarding the defense was sound, and yet you try to deny it now, even though the rules changed in many ways to make your conclusions MORE sound rather than less. I think youre denying your old conclusions precisely because what you want from the game has changed.
I might be wrong and I realize thta is walking on thin ice...so I just posted the comment and waited for you to respond.
Just thought it might make it easier for you to realize what you do want, and for me to do the same as well.
If you think I AM wrong, dont be upset but just tell me so...and tell me why.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:05 am |
This is mainly for matt and will bore anyone else to death ///
Ok matt ill let you know what i think..i dont think old quotes etc are relavant btw, things change over time. For example a player whom i flirted with the idea of fighting, ive found i like a lot and is an ally (an alliance that started on WG ).
When the FB transfers went, my private fed was moderate but it didnt seem so, i think it was maybee 100k Inters, 200K DH and an assortment of batteries, i really cant remember. But i had what i then thought to be lots of ammo (around 3 million missiles of each type per country). I knew of no bugs, i felt DH always fired before missiles with no range issues etc. And i couldnt see a concievable way anyone could raise an army to conquer it. And yep the game seemed tedious, i dregged my countries eventually...although time was an issue as well, running similar sized empires on 3 worlds was too much.
But i didnt want to leave simcountry completely so i moved to GR, lost my country to invincible subs, then restarted, built a decent defence and got myself immersed in trying to create the nicest countries possible, balancing a detterant defence with a strong economy, making friends and it became a nice social outlet. To you, i know the economy, common market, ppp etc seems tedious (i appreciate you know them well btw), but i found it fun and hoped more involved and complex economical things would be added. A while back i suggested government tyes resources etc and expansion of the stockmarket for real wheeler dealing.
Again untill recently my defence seemed a decent sized force . One of the things i liked about GR was that i could logon irregularly. Without coming back from a weekend away to find a warlord had popped in and killed me ;p
Since the 12M have come to GR, its shown that the size and scale of warfare has moved to a completely different level. Ceos are used extensively to create "stockpiled armies". Dozens of agressive players (nothing wrong with that) have appeared within a short period of time. And to be honest, in order to survive long term in this level of warfare id have to dedicate far more time to the game than im willing to do so. I have never claimed to be at all skilled at the warfare side of the game, but i understand the war mechanics, but also see the 12M as a fed that, should they choose to conquer my countries will eventually do so no matter what i were to do if the limits were removed. And probably even with the current limits
So, i find myself with a choice, either play for an unhealthy number of hours sorting out multiple ceo contracts, expanding my countries further, building as quickly as possibly and most likely still being conquered.
Or giving up the countries ive built and starting for scratch with a single country..and at the moment with the limitations on what you can do with a country about 5 minutes required each day to tune it.
As to what i want, i dont know. Warfare can be fun i guess. But you like to feel you have a chance of winning or at least surviving. And against a large force of war dedicated players with strong CEOS, and seemingly plenty of time to play. That isnt the case to me atm.
Most of all though quite simply my main "partner in crime" recently all but left and thats left me unsure if i can be bothered
Anyway to anyone else reading this sorry for all the waffle i was just trying to give as full a response as i could
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 01:17 am |
hmmmn. I think I see. thank you for the answer.
I may think about it for a bit and post after eating.
Small caveat would be that I expect existing countries will be converte dto 'peace only countries', just with limited population.
I have another alternative for you as well. You can try building a federation similar to the 12M, but defensive. If we win the war, i will come help you to do this.
Other players might then be vulnerable to conquest, but your empire woudlbe very very stable indeed. I see building such locations more as a function of sacrifice put in -givin away ocountries and teaching allies to play - rather than spending ungoldy amounts of time biudling up. most of the 12M started in countries I gave them.
Even given your curent 'small' defensive army size, I think youd be a lot more stable than you realize (CEo stockpiles with no limits might be more problematic...but weve manged to counter them pretty effectively. unlimited war range and firendly CEOs help, + you can do it in your own empire as well).
I estiamte that conquering the MDL witha huge reduction in limits would take at least 2-3 months of planning and buildup. Stopping such an effort in its treacks woudl be pretty easy at first, unless it was perfectly executed.
And I dont think the 12M will be taking on centers of power quite as strong as you (maybe trgin once every 6 real months), but smaller empires or feds.
if youd like to talk more about building the 'peaceful superpower', ive got ideas and am willing to share them. I think such a group of players might provide a ;third answer' in the war play/peaceful player dichotomy and would let peoplelike you play "casually"...with still at least the possibilty that some huge war might break out someday, making it interesting, even if it were very unlikely.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 02:24 am |
most of the 12M started in countries I gave them.
Correction, some of them did (salamt, avondale). Others helped build their existing empires using them or joined a new world using them (nikko). Most built up their own massive empires without such freebies from anyone.
I was just trying to make the point that you can attract people to a local area and build it up fast if youre willing to give up a little to speed the process along.
Apologies to my fedmates.
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 06:01 am |
I cant even leave 2months or Matt will turn in a woman
| Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 07:01 am |
You know you want me.