World War On White Giant (White Giant)

Yankee doodle

apple streudel

And Iain has volunteered to become the first nuclear holocaust victim. Great thinking Iain.

For the record, you attacked an Econ player. I sent messages to the countries that attacked that I was an econ player, but you attacked, took a couple of countries and declared on a couple more.


Have a nice life.

IM please message me. You weren't a target - but you might have countries in feds of people being attacked?

I was not aware you were being attacked. This is a mistake.

Please message me and I will arrange for the return of your countries or compensation.

Right... I wasn't aware either.

Seriously?

Okay, here is my unsolicited observations and opinions.

Some people don't like the war game and some people do. Some people don't enjoy the game when they have to spend hours clicking buttons to defend their assets, other don't enjoy it unless they are.

All you're doing is forcing some people to play the part of the game that they don't like so that you can play the part of the game that you do like.

Why do you have to do this? Because you recruited 90% of the players that do enjoy the war game. If you want to fight so much, you shouldn't have brought all of the fighters onto your team. You've recruited the strongest war fed and now feel you need to challenge other non-warlike feds in order to have your funsies.

True, war is part of the game. But most people don't war for fun.

This post will probably come back to bite me in the ass later, but I'm planning something much different.

BC

Thank the Fn Lord.

Well said BC. I stated in another thread earlier, the problem is consolidation. Of course strong war players can band together and play a tough war game. But the cause stated is for a 'good war'. I think a 'good war' would and should consist of players that can win against the other on any given day. That said, it is time warlords began fighting warlords, not targeting weak links as a 'GROUP'.

You're not exactly innocent yourself, Wendy. For that fact, neither am I, but I plan on using what assets I have left to make the game fun.

Well said BC

If wgc kicked our butt... would it then have been 'fun'?

Ok,heres my 2 cents. First off, well said BC. Secondly, I think the "mob" is nothing more than a bunch of common thieves. You say this is about warring to have fun, you don't attack econ players, but so far I know for a fact you've attacked and stole assets from 2 econ players in this war. You've stated to a number of WGC members "don't take it personally" How are they to not take it any other way? Work for years building an empire just to have it stolen from them by a bunch of thugs. You state that your taking on the biggest Fed in the game when in reality, there are only 3 or 4 members that actually work on their war game. So since you have 6 members taking on 3 or 4, then its nothing but bullying and ripping off assets.
Serpent...you stated "If wgc kicked our butt... would it then have been 'fun'? I don't think WGC would have thought it was fun but more that you got what you deserved, since you started it.

Brutus

We have all the war players BC? Really? There are 5 of us in the fed...is that all that's left? We're allowed to shoot at eachother and that's it?

WGC is an econ fed? Multiple top ranked war slaves, the biggest military on WG by multiple times...and it's not econ players we are attacking...who is an econ player? These are all players with HUGE army's and military assets. PLUS, we had already committed to giving the countries back to them...I swear, this is such a joke. War is now a dirty word and we've now gotten to the point where not only can you have war protection, not only can you fight with just c3's and hide your assets, but you can now have the largest fed in the game, staff the largest standing army and call yourself an 'econ' fed and call it asset raiding when you get attacked by a small group of players WHO WERE GOING TO GIVE YOU MOST OF IT BACK ANYWAY. You are not an econ fed when you have a 500 mil standing army, your countries are not 'econ' countries when they are sitting on 150T in mil assets and top 50 war ranks (with the exception of those stacked with mi's/mib's).

This BS about some players enjoy war and some don't...that is true, Maestro DOES NOT enjoy war for example, but Windy, Jo, Iain, Biggie, they all enjoy war...WHEN THEY WIN. When they lose, it's ohhhh pity me...I was beat up by someone bigger...or it was a bad time. WGC didn't come to power on WG by snuggling with kittens and kissing babies...they had their wars and have used their complete dominance of WG to intimidate and suppress others, as evidenced by Nicholasian's worry that he'd be kicked out of the fed for speaking up, that was their right...they had the power, they earned it. The only thing that is being taken away from them is that power...we now have it and we're going to make some changes...stay tuned.

Seriously people, this is a game, all of this 'what we've worked so many year's to build'...that WASN'T work...that was PLAYING...playing a GAME. If you put money into the GAME it was for ENTERTAINMENT purposes, you weren't paying for anything REAL, you were paying for ENTERTAINMENT. Stop acting like we just walked into Jo's house, kicked her out on the street and then stole her retirement account.

Simply put... if you dont want to play the game, which war is a HUGE part of then, buy WP and stay peaceful. No using c3 to attack other players. We have put our ASSets on the line against a much greater opponent in numbers and assets. It is impossible to have huge armies in countries and expect somebody to believe you are peaceful, or econ only.

The MOB is a small group of players. How could 5 players make so much noise? If we were asset raiders only then we would have hit the weak playes, and not spent the time and assets to hit the big players. We took on the best of the biggest. How is that unfair?

War is a part of the game. Granted losing isnt as fun as winning, but it never is. Just play the game!!!

150T in military assets for an econ player??

Maybe 'e was an arms dealer.

Well said White Boy

A message from the Econ Players:

Bump

Yes, war IS a part of the game, but


1.) Some of these players are the same ones complaining on other forums that otherplayers are ruining the game for other
players (Wendy) but it turns out you're all just whining because her actions and the way she plays arenwhat've way YOU want her to play. You don't care about SC

2.) Assets and fed size don't matter when players are inexperienced, don't have the will, or don't have the time to fight BECAUSE they are here to play peacefully.

3.) War is part of the game. So is hostile bidding, WP, SM, and C3 warfare but you've all complained against these things.

4.) Yes, there are very few who want to play the war part of this game. That's why there are very few wars.And you have more than the 5 you brought to WG. You have your friends and allies on the other planets that your either too friendly to fight with or are already feded with. I think others have pointed this out.

5.) Some of you complain that this game is getting worse and that we need more feds, involvement, etc. Why? So they'll build up to give you a challenge whether they want too or not?

Sounds to me like all's fair and cool as long as you control the situation. I could go on, but it won't make a difference. I just wanted to get it off my chest.

And, the same people that threatened and attacked people who didn't have military assets to defend their shit before, now say that if you have mil assets, it makes you open game.

So WP is the only option now. Either stay in WP or we attack you. Why not? I'm sure the GMs will love it. I'm SURE that will make the game better. Everybody WPs up and you guys complain that everybody is in WP and nobody wants to fight.

Laguna was right.

Your right BC. It should be interesting...at least to the GMs. Either they lose a lot of long term players over this thievery or they make alot of money from all the GCs spent to stay in WP and protect your empires.


Brutus

I wish some people would define what is the "right" way or the "wrong" way to use a C3 in war?

Is it wrong to nuke from a c3, but right to use one in an infinitely more devastating way, such as launching conventional assaults(of varying types)from many players, using a coordinated team style approach?

When does a C3 become something more then a C3? When one dumps a few pop in to get it around 16mil?

C3's should stay available for war period. you guys just proved this very point with this war.

And, to threaten players should they resort to C3 tactics of their choosing with...I forget the exact words...with something like nuclear..blah, blah blah.

i almost spit my coffee on myself when I read that one.


I've stayed quite because I have no horse in this race. But, I believe my history gives me the deserved right to spout off every now and again. plus, i have nothing to lose.....

So, I will spout...

5 war players can kill any fed no matter what size or how many military assets a country has. referring to statistics is meaningless.

For those who may not get this I'll briefly explain. Imagine your in a chess match, only you didn't realize you were "playing" until your opponent moved four times then leans over and taps you on the shoulder with a war dec saying, "your move."

This style setup is typical of a capable player. Add 4 more to the mix and its really just an exercise in futility for the other side.

There are likely less then 10 players who really know war. 5 happen to be on WG right now.

Since the advent of the new war engine the game is and has been tilted toward giving players with aggression a HUGH advantage.

you can interpret that to mean the game is broke, or the game is great, depending on which side you happen to be on.

I see far less players now then i did two years ago.

Also, people love their shit in this game. even more since its become very hard to lackadaisically build an empire.

I think history will say you picked the wrong target, not because they are war like and gonna woop ass but because they are liked by just about everyone.

that is infinitely more impressive Ive learned over the years.

Intresting opinions. I do have a question or so and some observations.

First, there is a provision for econ only players, called WP. If you are econ, then get WP. But have no ability to carry on war with another pres. Because remember econ is not military. Simple solution really.

The issue with c3 style fighting is not because some choose to fight with a c3. The issue lies in the fact that they put nothing at stake while trying to gain alot. Fight with 10 c3's, its ok, but have something to back up your actions other than a worthless c3.

Another question though. How should the war part of the game be exercised? By popular vote on the forums?

I understand there are diffrent views on this subject, and no doubt there is no perfect solution to the issue. But there are plenty discussions over why there shouldnt have war, is there any as to why there can be war? One discussion say no picking on noobs, no problem with that. Another is not to attack econ countries, well, then let them buy WP. But why cant a fed with much much smaller numbers attack a much much larger one, and then not even dec the noobs of that fed?

So basically Im wondering if there is EVER any reason that some players can play the war part of this game? If not, then why not do away with all the military in this game. No need for it then.

Anyone is a target, even me.

WP is expensive.

Some people can be virtuosos with C3's. I prefer they stay for my own selfish reasons. And the stakes? Well there is more then just assets in this game now isn't there? Some things are worth MUCH more then coin;)

Some people dont like war, not me I love it.

Who have we attacked that DIDN'T have military assets and defense, get your facts straight BC. We always have and continue to hold the opinion that players who want to play the econ game and not be bothered with war should be allowed to do so, as such we've attacked no one who couldn't defend themselves.

This is a game and like any other game there are things about it you like and things about it not so much. It's like I just said to Jo, when playing basketball, you may really only enjoy shooting...but you still have to pass and play defense...it's part of the game, you don't get to selectively choose which parts you enjoy and forget the rest. There is a part of SC that players can enjoy selectively as it's own game, the econ side, they can choose to have secured and war protected countries. However when you are running a 1300 def index and a 500+ off index with 400T in mil assets, you have CHOSEN to play the war game...or is that not enough of an indication? Do we have to have people post signs on their countries that say decs are OK here? Is it not correct to deem countries with those kind of indexes as WAR slaves? As such, aren't they designed for...well...WAR?

Another question...is there ANY fed out there who we can dec on WITHOUT you guys all throwing a fit about it? I'm guessing just 3M...but we have had personal knowledge that although they are always up to defend themselves, many are not particularly active at the moment and both sides have reasonable fear of it turning into a 6 month long affair as has happened before, something that would not happen without c3 warfare, but that war will come. After that...then what? We stare at our slaves like everyone else?

We have complained about c3 warfare because it is a waste of time and other people should not be able to hold others assets hostage without posting some of their own...skin in the game...don't get why that is such a crazy idea. Also, the reason that there are so few war players now are directly because of people like Wendy using c3 warfare, we really would like to recruit others into the fed and train them, many of which would then spin off and start their own feds...that's natural. However, we can not do so without putting those people at significant risk because people like Wendy will decide they're great targets for a raid, purposely start some beef with us (so that she has a 'justification' for war, which apparently makes no difference if it is manufactured) and then lob a couple of meaningless nukes at me or EO and then c3 dec our trainees.

Barney - I'm not sure what you're referring to with the c3 tactics stuff...I said if they resort to c3 warfare then all bets are off and we're going to dec whoever we can instead of just focusing on their few top players because they'll all be in wp. No one is arguing that c3's shouldn't be used in warfare, you have to use them if the country is any distance from you, the argument is that if you are going to war with someone else, they have assets at risk, so should you...this war exemplifies that point, we have I don't know 100 countries...90 are out of wp...we have several hundred T war slaves all out of wp.

Ultimately I think your last point is correct Barney. We expected something totally different than we got, we expected a big fight...they had everything they needed to fight us...from the outside looking in we really thought this would be a huge challenge and we'd get beat up pretty bad and hopefully edge out a win. We were wrong and it was clearly the wrong target. It was Iraq when we should have gone to Afghanistan and now we're going to be stuck fixing it since we blew it all up.

The war game is dead, any ideas on how to revive it will be welcomed.

EDIT: The throwing a fit part did not apply to Barney, I accept his comments as constructive and not whining.

If somebody gives you a reason to war. It happens (or used to happen) all of the time. These people generally deserve it or provoke it and sometimes enjoy it.


If you don't want to hear people bitching about war, don't bring it to the forums, and don't try to act like your just the guys trying to have fun and it should be fun for everybody or they shouldn't playthe game.

Just do your business. If you want to be the aggressive, war fighting "bad guys", suck it up and do it. Quit trying to convince people that you're in the 'right'.