| whiteboy (White Giant) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:19 am 
Many of you have read and commented on the post regarding c3 warfare and the solution to it began by Abe (Zeba). It's become a bit long and tedious so I thought maybe people weren't interested in spending the time to read all of it to see what the arguments were.
I have a new idea that I think almost everyone can agree with and I'd like to see what you all think.
Many have made the argument that c3 warfare shouldn't be limited as it is a type of guerilla/terrorist/kamikaze warfare. I don't entirely agree with this point as it is ultimately state-sponsored (we know who is calling the shots and it isn't the c3). However, in order to compromise I have suggested the following:
Terrorists/guerillas do not have nuclear weapons, neither should the terrorist/guerilla organizations of Simcountry. Nuclear weapons require a large degree of sophistication and technology, for both upkeep and launch. A terrorist or guerilla organization would not posses nor be able to launch nuclear weapons (especially 30k kilometers, that would require far more resources and understanding than what would be contained in a terrorist cell).
So, only established and educated countries should be allowed to launch nuclear weapons. The exact details of that definition have yet to be discussed, my initial thought is at least 20-25 mil pop and at least 120 ed index.
If you combine this new rule with limiting war protection on FB (as it is the *war* world) then I think you could please maybe 90% of the regular players of this game.
I believe this makes sense in relation to both real life and the game, what are your thoughts? |
| Barrenregions (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:43 am
Well, Makes sense to me :D
It would stink for me tho because i only have like 17M pop in my main country. But, I would say more like, The main country, would not really require it, because its the leader of the empire, and would be the most likey more taken care of country then the others. but the slave countrys of the empire,would need to have around 20M+ish population, and have ed index over 150, And have other indexs over 90.So its not like every thing else is low and just high Edu index.
So thats my opinion on it.
And, Hi Whiteboy, Never really have said hi to you before |
| Psycho_Honey | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 05:23 pm
I think I am NOT a terrorist organization, I am the dignified Empress of the Inanni Peoples.
I think you spam too much.
So for your efforts, I'll offer you a great Big bowl of Shut the Hizzelle Izzup and top it off with a large portion of pepperjack |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:06 pm
I'd go for that idea Whiteboy 
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Zeba (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:08 pm
I agree that nukes should be limited in C3's, due to their undeveloped nature, but I would rather see the GM focus on making changes that will have a larger impact on curbing C3 warriors.
I continue to think that C3s need to be limited in strength and not be able to get a 100WI by ordering 100 forts with 1 click. To this end I proposed that we limit the maximum allowable forts in countries under 15 mil.
- People can still use them for Gorilla Warfare.
Assets need to be increased in these C3s...what country would declare war without a descent stockpile of weapons and ammo? Even in the case of the Kamikaze argument...you can't have a suicide bomber without bombs...now can you?!? |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 08:42 pm
Interesting...this idea seems to be not so controversial. |
| Jojo T. Hun (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:45 pm
I don't think singling out nukes addresses the "stay in wp, fight with c3" tactic at all. Maybe one player's style of implementing it, but she'll certainly adapt. I'm not against it, but I don't think it will affect the game much. |
| Homerdome | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 12:55 am
I realy like that idea WB, it makes a ton of sence. Taking a c3 then tossing a bunch of nukes from it is unrealistic, it would take years of development and a good infrastructure to be able to launch nuclear missiles. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 01:11 am
I know Jojo...that's why I said it should be combined with limits to WP for FB specifically as it's the war world. Nukes are of particular issue as they are simple, cheap and with a single hole in someone's defense due to either oversight or deactivation it becomes a black hole of issues. If c3 warfare is going to be described as guerilla/terrorist warfare and thus should be allowed, then it should be made realistic.
I don't think the key in this is to have a huge effect on the game, just to create some sort of balance in which a single player can't hold other players or feds hostage for weeks on end. FB is where I think huge changes are necessary to bring the world alive again, but most people can at least concede that it is indeed the war world and security should not come so easily there...it should be earned, not purchased. *edit* Also, c3 warfare on other worlds is much more difficult than on FB due to the worker requirements for weapons...which creates an entirely different dynamic. Plus honestly I'm just trying to find a place where we can get large agreement.
Oh...and hello Barren |
| Serpent (White Giant) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 04:17 am
Along with the 'No Nukes for C3's' idea, how about making it so that a c3 cant have the military capability it can have. After all, when all the corps are destroyed and workers are transferred, you can have a mighty tough country. A 10M pop country should not be able to support that kind of military. At most it should only be a minor nuisance with no real capability to take a 50-60M pop country.
Just an idea! |
| Psycho_Honey (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 05:11 am
Yeah funk it, lets just change everything while we are at it. I don't even like the game anyway. How about redesigning everything from scratch.
Why don't you just find another game too.
Just a thought. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 06:34 am
i agree i like it |
| Serpent | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 07:02 am
sticky side down Windy! |
| BIGG E (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 09:52 am
SOME OF US HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT BUILDING AN EMPIRE ON FB WITH THE RULES JUST AS THEY ARE AND NOW YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY WP ON THE PLANET.WILL I BE ABLE TO MOVE MY ASSETS TO ANOTHER WORLD,OR JUST LEAVE THEM THERE FOR SOME FED TO TAKE.
BIGG E |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:25 am
That's a great question Biggie and I'm sure one that a lot of people would ask...I have no idea. If I had it my way, which doesn't mean much, then I'd say if WP was removed completely then of course...if it was limited so that you couldn't use it if you declared war on others then no...but in that case you could just stay in WP just as you have been with no issue. |
| Doublestar (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 07:18 pm
"Yeah funk it, lets just change everything while we are at it. I don't even like the game anyway. How about redesigning everything from scratch.
Why don't you just find another game too.
Just a thought." - Wendy
Why stay if you dont like the game?
Were'nt you leaving? |
| Psycho_Honey (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 08:03 pm
I was leaving last month becuase I thought I would have to place more of my free time elsewhere. Funny things didn't turn out that way.
The comment was a joke, in response to Serpent's post. Keep up with the rest of us. Or, try to.
I like the game as is. If I didn't, I wouldn't have renewed membership several times. And I certainly am not spamming for changes over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...
I hope that cleared up any confusion dubletar. |
| Zeba (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 12:39 am
Wendy you are your own worst enemy...spam somewhere else. |
| Homerdome (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 01:29 am
If you don't like this "spamming debate" then why dont you just get your nose out of it then? If you havn't noticed, there are alot of intelligent suggestions and its a good debate, and perhaps the most involved topic i have ever seen here. You have done nothing but sound stupid, cheeze this, fartz that, i mean, are you like 2 years old? Have you said anything remotely resembling anything with a hint of intelligence ? And i laughed when I saw your response "Try to keep up with the rest of us.." Do you always have a smart ass remark for everyone? I'm sure you haven't even tried to keep up with the rest of us. Act your age and get some manners.
Regards Homerdome |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 02:32 am
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the principle of only allowing the use of nukes for countries over a certain population and certain indexes.
Maybe a level limitation would work? No nukes unless the empire is at level ... 10? 12?
That would ensure that only players with something to protect could use them.
Hugs and respect
Jo
PS: It would also provide a simple answer to all those n00bs asking "Can u sel me nuks?" |
| Keto (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 02:54 am
I agree with the no nukes for c3s until they have a minimum pop. I would suggest at least 30 mil pop, and an economy that can afford a military, or maybe the c3 has to be a country for say 1 real month or 21 real days like the rules are now (a new pres. can't declare on another pres. within 21 days).
I suggest in order to declare war that all ones countries are out of wp except for their main, on any world. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 03:30 am
"Wendy you are your own worst enemy...spam somewhere else." ~zeb00b
Agreed, with an enemy like myself who needs friends.
"Do you always have a smart ass remark for everyone?" ~FakeGuy Feeling Accepted Now
Great question.
Short Answer: Yes, In fact I do.
Long Answer: I don't love the air you breathe, know your role, and shut yer mouth.
Practical, Typical, Wendy Style Smart Ass Remark: Don't you have some "gardening" to do you Pansie. Wear that Sun Dress I like so I can see those hairy legs. |
| Homerdome (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 03:52 am
TA DA ! saw that comming... you should learn to shut your legs |
| Psycho_Honey (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 03:56 am
Actually, the smell you smell is your mouth, learn when to keep it closed |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:18 am
Guys...lets keep this thread on point. Wendy will continue trying to derail as it is in her best interest that nothing changes on this front. Whatever comments are made just don't respond and we'll go on having a conversation about the idea. I think this is a good one...very broad support. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:31 am
Keep Hostile Bidding n00b(z)
Make me LOL summoar
I haven't seen this level n00bishness since the game first started.
WGurl, EO, CrossPhail, and even EC hostile bidding my ceo lol?
I like the economic warfare more than the rigged war engine.
LMAO sumoar! Thx for donating
p0pTarts, too suhweet! |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:32 am
Blocking nukes in a player newly acquired country (c3 as every seems to refer to them) is not realistic. It not realistic for the followinf reasons:
The Nukes are stationed and launched from the C3. The money and personel to operate and launch them come from another country, possibly the players main. This nulls the knowledge and skill debate concerning a players new country having nukes.
In the real world. Terrorists have not obtained and detonated a nuclesr weapon YET. Now Simcountry is nowhere the same as the real world. Jeeps in real world do not carry 16 soldiers, Aircraft carriers cannot carry thousands of aircrafts.
I vote thumbs down on blocking nukes in C3's ( a players newly acquired country). |
| Barrenregions (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:33 am
Ok. |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 04:36 am
What does the real world do with it's terrorists? What if the GM and the player community could bring the terrorists to trial and sentence (execute) them. |
| Jojo T. Hun (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 05:10 am
Wow, Jo...great idea! Tying war effectiveness to empire level. Particularly the ability to acquire and/or launch nukes. But other offensive capabilities could be tied to it too, as they have tied setting up more profitable corps to level. Perhaps quality of offensive units tied to your empire level, or ability to use offensive missiles, and navy, tied to empire level.
This would make it more difficult to sustain a high level offense...you couldn't ignore your economy indefinitely when at war. If done right it could be a natural counterweight to the length of heavy fighting in a war, AND act as a natural counterweight to the wanton use of c3s --both by those who hide in WP and those who don't, AND restore some of the natural balance between econ & running a quality country and playing the wargame effectively.
Maybe prevent bad breath and improve gas mileage, too. Nice idea. |
| EO (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 05:26 am
Perhaps only countries who HAVE BEEN at a certain level can use nukes?
This would allow a player to prepare some c3s and attain a level with them - and use them to nuke in a war.
This would prevent players from carpet bombing for months on end with new c3s. |
| TuCulo EsMio (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 05:43 am
tying nukes to level use may be an issue. In a protracted war I think your empire will devolve in regard to levels. "HAVE BENN" would resolve this.
Tying offensive options to levels would be a mistake in my opinion.
That could lead to bullying.
All weapons should be available to all players regardless of levels. This would lend support to the concept of equality and fairness.
Why is nuke use such an issue amongst established players I ask myself....hmmmm?
Alot of lucky shots? |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 07:05 am
Mismanagement of personnel.
Poor Planning.
Poor Logistical Skills
Refusal to Setup AND Maintain an adequate defense
And other assorted random n00b tendencies you wouldn't normally expect from players of the 'established' level.
Just a shot in the dark, Rubble |
| Barrenregions (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 07:08 am
What level would you have to be to launch nukes EO? |
| Lolosaurus | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 10:47 am
I vote for 15. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 05:38 pm
Keep Hostile Bidding n00b(z)
Make me LOL summoar
I haven't seen this level n00bishness since the game first started.
WGurl, EO, CrossPhail, and even EC hostile bidding my ceo lol?
I like the economic warfare more than the rigged war engine.
LMAO sumoar! Thx for donating
p0pTarts, too suhweet!
Oh, lets add Ze(n00b)a to the list. Hostile bids, pay me suckas.
"Why is nuke use such an issue amongst established players I ask myself....hmmmm?
Alot of lucky shots?" `Rubble
With this level of n00bish activity led by DarthDizzy should we be surprised that they can't keep a nuke defense up? They focus on such trivial activities normally attributed to newbs. I've gotten close to 50 hostile bids on my ceo lol. I guess the boycotts didn't work out? Huh? |
| Jojo T. Hun (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:20 pm
Quote:In a protracted war I think your empire will devolve in regard to levels.
Yes, it usually does. So you'd have a choice--shoot your load all at once, win it or don't, or else fight a longer, sustained, lower level war. From the perspective of a person playing a game, either is preferable to week-long full-out war.
Quote:All weapons should be available to all players regardless of levels.
All laws against people living in parks and on the streets should be applied equally to rich and poor.
Stronger player will always have many more weapons at their disposal. They/we would find a greater challenge if they/we had to maintain the countries in the empire in order to use them most effectively. Weaker players usually don't have enough knowledge and enough stuff to put up a credible offense, but sometimes they can put together a decent defense. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:40 pm
but say you take away OA2AM based on level, what chance does a newb have of winning a war? sure they could put together a mass of ints, but you are effectively tying a player up!!!
and if you think about it, any restriction you place on usage of weapons based on level, will have the same effect.
i'm not talking about restricting nukes, although i disagree with it, i will say no more than that, (basically i'm not going to stand in the way of it, even though i don't like it,) |
| Psycho_Honey (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:48 pm
Even if we agreed or disagreed... it doesn't matter.
What priority should any proposed changes take in comparison to the priority of things that are already promised?
All these changes with or without a consensus amount to.... Manny and his trains.
Trains are on the order, but not high on the priority list. While these and many other good ideas are discussed here, they only stand to benefit the organized group of established players, and further the gap and ability of newer players relative to those who already know how to play the game. This is a big problem with this whole group of discussions.
Why not spam and push for Adjusting of corporation by products or other sorting methods, for Country and CEO? |
| Border C | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:56 pm
Make nuke weapons vulnerable to other defenses. Why can a strat bomber ignore ints and tactical avoid DMB and MIB??? Having to clear defenses would be a large deterrent and would require a heavier investment (and loss) in C3s before being effective.
Of course, this would nerf nukes further. But they're mostly only used to annoy or screw with somebody. IMO, they're not worth the investment in real war. They just burn swag and that is an awful, awful thing. Waste not.  |
| whiteboy (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 07:18 pm
A lot of very interesting stuff here, I'm not sure how far I'd push the level tying as it could get quite complicated but in essence it would be quite similar to what Orbiter proposed before, empires welfare being affected by long and drawn out wars. I'm sure we all disagree with at least some of the lvl requirements, however I think in general they are a good indication of empire welfare, economically, socially and militarily. I say I wouldn't want to push it too far because I don't think weapons should be excluded in general, I wouldn't mind nukes but as Orbiter suggested, OA2A would not be something that should ever be excluded, don't want to handcuff newer players. I guess it would be finding the right lines to draw.
Wendy - Thanks for the productive response, I disagree with you but I think everyone appreciates you contributing in this way instead of the other. I disagree with you because Manny and his trains would have zero effect on the game, just like changing car engines to car parts, really makes no difference. What is being done currently has a major effect on the game and in my opinion and many others it is a very negative effect although I'm sure you disagree.
As far as benefiting only organized groups of established players, that isn't true at all. The reason that the gap is so big between new players (most of which don't stay for long) and more experienced players is that there is no longer a federation structure which encourages players to join federations and learn how to play the game. It's how almost everyone in this conversation learned, we benefited from that time and haven't paid it back as well as we should have. Part of the reason the fed structure has fallen apart to an extent is c3 warfare which causes people to isolate themselves in wp and also causes federations to not bring on new members because they know they put those members at risk of c3 warfare in doing so.
I don't think of this as spamming, it's a conversation and one that many are obviously quite interested in based on the lengths of the posts and one that I think could dramatically improve the game, thanks again for the productive comments and thanks to everyone else for coming up with all of these ideas...great job
BC - Just saw your post after I posted...I agree 100%. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 07:28 pm
So now feds are flawed? But EO says they are working just fine in another thread?
The problem again isn't with anything in the game. The problem is people.
Nice bids geek. Bid some more please. You and your geek squad.
I don't care what you see anything as, what you agree or disagree on. You make me sick p0ptart. Like a gnat. You're trash like everyone else in your fed. Anymore suggestions that would benefit you my Queen. Hostile bids? Boycotts? Please let us know.
I'll get you some kleenex to dry your eyes. Right after that I'll buy you a tutu and ballerina shoes, and pom poms and hair ribbons for your cheerleaders. I'm a day away from HOF, and since your boycotts didn't work you all want to hostile bid my ceo to sabotage my levels?
Yet you are crying about what I am doing to you? Or what I can't? Karma is calling my furry little friend. |
| EO (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 07:59 pm
Lol wendy, it appears your the one that crying. I'm not having any problems.
Remember how ameche was handled? Lol. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 08:53 pm
Ummm same flawed tactics, you guys boycotted him, but he actually improved his profitability through contracts.
Then you bid on his ceos like dipsticks? With the new penalties for bidding on corps, I'm sure it'll get old real quick. Thx for donating. Yeah, I'm mad, right, pay me suckas. Chalk up another empty victory for the n00b guys.
BTW for those wondering, Ameche quit the game of his own accord with several other players, not as a result of anything these n00bs have done.
Nice try Crusher, swing back to reality lol. |
| EO (White Giant) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 08:56 pm
Sigh.
One day you'll get it. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 09:00 pm
Yeah we get it already, I should have purchased a tutu and ballerina shoes for you a long time ago. I never thought you would be so natural.
Smile You're a winner! |
| Barrenregions (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 11:56 pm
So. Any one got any thing to talk aboutt??? |
| TuCulo EsMio (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 01:47 am
"Stronger player will always have many more weapons at their disposal."
Quantity, yes, but the lunch menu should still be the same...
If you have access to a CMB, so should I, if you can mount a navy with backbone, so should I, regardless of size or level.
What if level 5 player only could deploy MRMB, level 10 a LBCMB and level 12 a CMB.
Wow.
The built in advantage for an established player to just bone a noob would be too fun, and I fear unavoidable for many of us..
Lets do it!
We could get a suicide player to just bone a big empire with the only intent to degrade his level down to 5 and consequently limiting his weapons menu.
Then, 2 other players waiting in the wings, with high levels, can just come in and smash a player, with the advantage of range.
This could actually be fun indeed.
But, you likely already calculated all this JoJo-hehe. You were smiling and salivating when you wrote that right?
BTW, any more changes to weapons and attack calculations based on quality or level(dear god no) and Im gonna have a break down. What the hell am I supposed to do anyway with millions of weps stored over years that have a low quality.
Somebody hug me
Barney |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 04:43 am
Good points Barney |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 06:08 am
Border C,
You said "Of course, this would nerf nukes further. But they're mostly only used to annoy or screw with somebody. IMO, they're not worth the investment in real war. They just burn swag and that is an awful, awful thing. Waste not."
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Ask EO what happened to his 60 million pop country The Old Guard on GR. After taking over 35 nukes it leveled out with a population of 13 million after I set up all the needed relief supplies and equipment EO had failed to do before it fell. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 08:10 am
John - I don't think you are understanding the meaning of the word 'swag', swag means assets. You took a 60 mil pop country to 13 mil, that means you burned 47 mil pop...equivalent of 235 GC...that's alot of assets burnt which is what BC was talking about.
Also, your argument earlier about the nukes being transferred in by a developed country along with the workers from a developed country, isn't that then state-sponsored terrorism? If Pakistan transferred nuclear weapons which Al Qaeada then used on the United States do you think that Pakistan wouldn't receive the retaliation? You can't argue that c3 warfare is just and similar to guerilla/terrorist warfare in real life and then also argue at the same time it is sponsored by a developed state...in that case the developed state should not have war protection as it is an active participant in warfare. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 09:31 am
Maybe you purposely are ignoring the fact that there were more assets in that country than all of the countries EO took from John combined regardless of pop.
Maybe you need to rethink the equation and the meaning of swag.
Then again you know everything. This is why you were appointed minister of propaganda of The Mob. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 10:44 am
First...not true.
Second, all of those assets...PLUS...235 GC more of pop...is that more or less then what the total profit was...rhetorical questions obviously.
BC is 100% correct, nukes are a killer of 'swag'. |
| BIGG E (Fearless Blue) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 03:26 pm
SOME WARS ARE NOT FOUGHT FOR SWAG.THEY ARE FOUGHT FOR PRINCIPLE AND MANY THINGS ABOUT THIS GAME ARE NOT LIKE REAL LIFE.BC DOES HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT MAKING NUKES VULNERABLE TO OTHER TYPES OF DEFENSIVE WEAPONS AS THIS WOULD SEEM TO HELP DEFENSIVE PLAYERS WHO ARE NOW AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE CURRENT WAR ENGINE.
BIGG E |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 06:41 pm
I agree. Nukes are killer of assets (swags as some like to refer). In my war of retaliation against EO I believed I killed more than his assets but also killed his desire to destroy my empire. Prior to the massive nuking he suffered he thought he was untouchable with his multi trillion defense system.
I've played this game prior to the implimentation of WP and as far as I am concerned it was as good a game as it is now.
I've played and lost empires after empire and am still here to fight for my right to maintain one. |
| whiteboy | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 06:43 pm
Totally agree Biggie, John's comment led me to believe he didn't know what BC meant by swag, but of course there are other reasons to go into a war...and absolutely many things about this game are not in any way shape or form similar to real life, but you can't argue on one side that c3 warfare should be allowed because it is like guerilla/terrorist warfare in real life and then argue that it is actually a state sponsored attack in the other.
I do like BC's idea as well...Strat bombers, etc should have to deal with country defenses, like ints, helis, etc, etc. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 08:31 pm
Well one is free to make any argument they choose, regardless of your approval or not, WB. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Friday, July 30, 2010 - 10:32 pm
That is obviously true Wendy, I didn't tell John or Biggie or anyone other than you to shut up...it's called an argument, one person makes a point, if someone disagrees they respond as such...no one is limiting their speech or asking for their speech to be limited. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 12:45 am
"and absolutely many things about this game are not in any way shape or form similar to real life, but you can't argue on one side that c3 warfare should be allowed" `~MinnieMouse
One can argue anything. Not be limited by statements such as this.^^
You would need some kind of authority to make anyone to shut up. You could tell yourself you matter too, but it would only be relevant in a minnie mind. |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 02:13 am
whiteboy,
You were right, I was unsure what BC meant and thought it was destroying something.
Of course here is the dictionary definition of swag:
swag1    /swæg/ Show Spelled [swag] Show IPA ,noun, verb, swagged, swag·ging.
–noun
1. a suspended wreath, garland, drapery, or the like, fastened up at or near each end and hanging down in the middle; festoon.
2. a wreath, spray, or cluster of foliage, flowers, or fruit.
3. a festoon, esp. one very heavy toward the center.
4. a swale.
5. a swaying or lurching movement
Nothing close to defining assets in general. |
| John L (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 02:22 am
I did more research and found s.w.a.g listed in the Urban Dictionary of slang words. In that it seems to refer to almoat any collection of articles. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 02:46 am
Lol...you're right John...I thought swag was actually a slang/made up term...didn't even know there was a dictionary definition of it and it is way off of what we're using it for in this context.
Good research though |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 03:35 am
Hmmm, here is a better question.
Which is better Swag or Respek? |
| Border C (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 04:48 am
Boobs. I can see them (Well.... maybe not as often as I'd like.. ) and some of them are even real. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 06:05 am
I think being a level in order to launch is important maybe level 4 by then a country is well established.
I have an Idea why not use the welfare index? stay that for a country to even dec war on another player the country must have X # of pop plus an welfare index of 100? |
