praetor:

i'm not questioning whether stewy was a "good leader" or anyting... I'm just saying that it displays the kind of character SoL leaders have to basically lie to their membership about who is actually leading their alliance

no thomas, land:land (not including ghost acres) increases land, because everyone gains from the hit. I hit you for 500a + 250 ghost, you hit me back to 490a + 280 ghost acres, we're both up 250+ acres, the server is up 530a.

If I hit you 1 time and you're doing a 2:1 retal policy (or greater), and I get 500a + 250 ghost, you hit me back for 490a + 280 ghost on the first hit, then 450a + 240ghost, you're up a lot of land and I'm down a lot of land. The server gains 770a, which I agree is MORE acres.. but since I would know this going in, I wouldn't make the the hit in the first place, so the increased land on the server is 0.

2:1 escalating encourages all-x's because you know if you hit alliance X, you will lose more than you gained, causing you to decide to explore instead. This is basic economic theory.... come on now :p

I'm not a huge fan of land:land either, but it's the best system out of those which have been presented in terms of creating land and making everyone happy. Land:land is the only system which, with ghost acres, leaves the attacker and defender with more acres than they started with which is a win for everyone.

There was a time when land:land was absolutely necessary based on former game mechanics, though, which should not be confused with this discussion.

L:L is not inherently bad for the game - it could work given ghost acres with a different social psychology. That being said empirically L:L does stifle grabbing and it needs to be something that is clipped. 1:1 cross alliance and L:L country to country makes sense from an artificial fairness stand point AND that it encourages a country to carry it's own offense and be a grabber. Pure 1:1 encourages all-ex again as the magnitude of the land gains becomes negated and the only logical way to retal is have a tiered by NW retal structure with max mil strat tyrannies jetters who feed the land back to the people who lost land. This creates unnecessary complexity and re-encourages all-ex but in a different way.

Who said anything about 2:1? We enforce 1:1.

Now even with 1:1, both sides win due to ghost acres. But one side will bring home the shark's share nearly every time. It requires the retallers and grabbers to plan, maintain defense, have techs and do the calculations.

With L:L I could do none of that and just hit until I get all the land back. And the country being retalled would lose more military etc. on the exchange.

I see no benefit of L:L. But we can agree to disagree. We're clearly both on the opposite sides of the spectrum on this.

i dont se your point, Stewy was a SOLer, he joined as a member and worked his way up like anyone else, that he asked for his forner identity not to be revealed until he himself choose it, thats another mather and imo not releated.
He did a good job and was commited to SOL, thats why he was promoted time after time, his experience ofcourse helping.


If we would have brought someone from the outside in to lead the alliance like your trying to spin it, you would have a point, but since this is not the case, you dont.

Or encourages people to actually have military and the military techs. That would be a shock, I know.

No, it encourages the person with offense and tech who is nearest the NW to make the attack and then take the returns from them. When you are retalling for yourself you can not control the NW of the person who attacked you. If there is no incentive to retal for yourself then it makes sense to go to a system where retals hurt the attacker most and then the defender can get full returns from the retaller while playing lazily. If retalling for yourself has benefits then people will carry offense. If retalling for yourself gets worse returns people will stick with the Tyr/mil strat/tiered NW retal team system that is in place and nothing will change.

I completely disagree with everything being said here by everyone who hates land:land :p

and praetor -> that's fine if you liked him...

but I always thought it was kind of weird that SoL, after being beaten fluffless by IX for so long would allow one of their heads to come and join up and lead the alliance, while the members are kept in the dark.

I guess SoL isn't known for transparency anyways... even to their own members it seems :p

There's no reason why someone can't buy up Jets & Military Strat and retal themselves.

How many of your members knows how many Colors are in LaF ?

Anyone in LaF who asks will get the accurate answer of the number of "colours" in LaF...

the days of a closed LaF have been over for about 2 or 3 years.... since around the time that i got into leadership and made a push to keep everything squeaky clean :)

but that is how this conversation got started... Hobo dropping an RD comment for no good reason :p

LaF has never really been "closed" when it comes to providing info to our members. If anything we were always too open with them regarding what is going on (not that being open is bad in of itself, but it has negative consequences such as increasing the effectiveness of spying).

How many RD members are in LaF? Well... in order for LaF to distribute an accurate answer on that we would have to know the answer, wouldn't we?

LOL absolutely love your Bo Burnham reference 30 posts ago Pang=)

LAF IS RD! IT IS RULED BY THE IRON FIST OF MR fluffY
umm yeah

thomas: the problem with dumping money into mil strat or jets when netting is that you have to

1. pay the upkeep costs
2. invest that money into commodeties at a higher price later (bushels or oil) or not purchase the tech which increases your gross production
3. liquidate this excess military losing 6% to taxes each way, or in the case of a democracy, you are blessed with losing only one extra turn.

what is much better is that one simply allows a low nw all jetter to take the hit. a 1:1 policy has merit, i am not denying that it makes certain political statements and helps feed the aggressive nature of war-seeking alliances. however, it also promotes intag farming to get back one's land.

say what you want, but don't ask a stupid question like "why doesn't that country just buy 4 million jets and 50k mil-strat tech". You sound like you don't know the basic concepts of the game.

If the land isn't worth the country buying up for it, then he doesn't deserve it.

I don't think it would be bad for the game if people stopped running landfat countries. Protect your investment. If you want to keep the land, then get more defense.

Surely if someone wants to hit you bad enough, they will. But if they're smart they will look for better targets. And if they still decide to hit you, at least make them pay to do it.

i agree with your attitude. that is why i play primary instead.

Play in Collab instead :)

Why argue with someone who has no principles?

The less said about Angy the better for SoL's sake. Alot of alliances in EE would appreciate it if SoL moved as far away as possible from any association with him.

Pangaearr, you are a massive troll.. On top of that the sour grapes you currently harbour seep through your posts like a foul stench.

The only difference between you and me is that you are supposed to maintain a level of partisanship. You clearly cannot do that and you bombard anyone who questions your 'motives' with a guilt trip over how you saved the game, saved the server, and possibly saved the trees and the whales while you were at it.

G F Y.

Feel the Love!!!
I got to say after all these years the love fest still continues.
I dig it for all the old time players but I got to ask if a new player will be attracted to this??

the only people who "question my motives" are trolls like yourself, dagga :p

Jeebus, why would you even respond to dagga? This has been a fairly enjoyable intelligent discourse, if you just ignore him it can continue to be.

Oh yeah, almost forgot...

swagger of a cripple.

Defense?

The only defense i'm forced to carry is enough to stop the untagged players from pot-shotting me. Cause they always sit in heavy DR's and its so hard to recover from them when they smack you around.

My defense is always there, sitting in technology and stock, it is simply a matter of transforming it into some jets and taking back what is mine.

That whole argument is ludicrous. I should get more defense? why? How about this, if you want my bloody land so bad and try to take it.... why dont YOU GET MOAAR DEFENSE .. you know, so you can keep it.

You obviously don't understand business then



Amen brutha, a billion in cash is all the defense I have ever needed;) Nothing quite like when that 2M NW guy you just grabbed becomes a 5M NW Jetter who turns around and pwns your ass to encourage better target selection.

Having more defense dosnt stop someone who wants your land bad enough ;) it only discourages the randoms. And somehow being proud of having someone who was more then likely cheating in your tag praetor is pathetic. Angy was pretty bad for the game overall.

The funniest things I've noticed since coming back to the game, is that there are still massive arguments on AT about grabbing/retal policies, that LaF now has the Country advantage, whereas(for this set it appears) SOL has the NW advantage, and that Dagga is STILL a troll that annoys the living crap out of me and I honestly wonder why my old buddies over at SOL still tolerate his nonsensical ranting that does nothing more then drag SOLs honorable reputation through the mud(I swear, even when I was a SOLer, I didn't understand it, even asked the leadership why, don't even recall the answer I got).

Other then that, I have nothing to add to the debate. I see the logical, positve points of each side, and I also see the negative points as well. Maybe someday someone will come up with the perfect solution, though there is a good possibility that the day that happens, the game will likely die, since most of the wars I've ever seen fought were over "Policy". The rest were over "I just don't like such and such, lets kill them" :)

It was great warring against ya SOLers, I wish I had been home to wall when you killed me the other night, but at least I got to break 500+ hits with my less then 3 1/2 weeks old country. It was hilarious a few hours before I died, btw, I was hitting and the person I was hitting was saying "No, stop starwulf". I swear I nearly pissed myself I was laughing so hard :).

Im waiting for Swamp Battelguard and Lava battelguard to battel it out in a few days :P

lol im waiting for that too.

Lol, I can't, in good conscious hit Swampie, as I know exactly when is he or isn't home at almost any given time. On the other hand, he knows i'm home almost all the time. Kind of unfair ^^

wait so was this war really about policy, or did SOL just want a fight?

what are the "official" LaF and SOL views, I've lost track?

SOL said it's over policy, LAF claims SOL just wants to war. Depends on you, which version you want to believe :P

Starwulf, you're a blowhard that now plays for LaF. You have no idea what being a SOL member truly means.

I truly hope that one day, the game admins will code in a new superweapon to the game. You aim it at a country of your choice and fire.

Then, this superweapon records any news of any killruns made on that country and saves them in a file or something. Then, when that country dies, the superweapon will activate its time machine, send that country back in time to just before the killrun was started on it, then run the country through the killrun again and again until the end of the set.

LaF is NOT claiming that SOL hit us just because they wanted to war...

Are you trying to say that I have no principals Slagpit?

I wasn't talking about you.

There's no need to start that back up again, aponic. I thought it was obvious that Slag was talking about someone else.

I hope the whole idea of "if we can't get along, let's just avoid each other" can still work for you guys :p

You're probably the only SOL member that thinks that Dagga. You were an idiot when I was in SOL, and you're an Idiot now. SOL should have booted you a decade ago.

then what LAF thinks? i made this assumption reading LAFers posts saying SOL's reason to go into this war is not reasonable

No because a difference in LG policies gives LaF an advantage netting.

Everything else equal, in an unmolested netting set, this alone gives LaF the win.

Clay not to insult you since you are pretty great at clicking in tlk but our average member doing an all explore would keep up with almost your entire clan id say :P Netting fight? ;)

Being a great netting alliance means jack-fluff if you can't defend your land through policy or war.

1 win in a war and you get fluffy ;) where was this during your last war? Pretty sure you got beat down.

Oh and I am quite certain laf protects their land nicely ;) Sol just dosnt have land to protect in ur average set :P

1 win? lol

yes... you got spanked your last war.. this is 1 win... beating laf could count for 2 if you want? Since we are that awesome but yah...

or just that much bigger than SOL when the war started?

yes we clearly had 80 members