The game would be played competitively enough. Landgrabs would be just that, a landgrab, not an excuse to war unless they become excessive. You can do a retal for a landgrab, but that's all that it should be. This happy horsehit way the game is played doesn't lead to the better players (technically) achieving success, but tather leads to the better technical players getting shafted because a method of play that they use can't be competitive by not landgrabbing prey.

Everyone looks at a wolf as a predator, or a big cat, what prey do they prefer? The fastest freaking antelope, or the straggler, the skinniest jack rabbit, or the fatest? They tend fo prey on the weakest, right? Why does thin game seek to overturn an instinct that is natural and right for nature, but here is frowned upon and labeled as "top feeding and punishable by a war?

If you're forced to grab, then doesn't it stand to reason that you want to get the most bang for your buck?

The problem is when you grab the lion you see it’s claws and teeth.

If you think a big country is going to allow you to take 20k acres off them, get 7k back and be ok with the exchange it’s never going to happen.

Some alliances don’t like land:land retals savage (sof)

Did sof start land:land?

Big difference between land:land on a topfeed and the stupid ass 200% y’all be pushing these days

Yeahhhh i was never a fan of 200% but then again i was never a fan of L:L either. I usually just like to get my land back on the main hit and call the ghost acres my benefit, but can understand the purpose of 200%. When someone hits you, and you only take your land back, you still have to make up the production, cs and stock you lost. So you still lose out on some turns even if your retal is large and successful.

Conceptually i understand the idea of a person not wanting to lose a bunch of stuff over some inferior player's topfeed, and if you're in a position to enforce those policies, I'm sure it will act as a deterrent. Makes sense to me moreso as a way to prevent interaction than a fair policy.

An actual fair trade would be something like 100% l:l plus $ for lost production, military, cs, and tech. 200% implies the cash.

I don't like it. I just understand it.

I think our retal policy you don't like only and exclusively applies to SoF, Derrick :-)

This is how the stupidity keeps on going on. If the guy is able to take the land from somebody in his scores list, it's NOT an inferior player doing the hitting, it's the inferior player getting hit.

Players should not be punished for successful targeting.

Thats the reason for 200%. it accounts for lost military, having to buy tons of military, tech, cs and production.

Someone tried hitting me in Express and I'm gonna kill him

Derrick gave me some incredibly low reps for a hit on FFA a few sets ago. I ended up calculating the actual production lost and paid a lot more than asked because the person I hit is genuinely likeable (it was a misclick). L:L would have left us both behind considering the days left in the set, and even 200% would have. Certain landgrabs are cause for a war because the real reps would be in the billions to compensate. Not everyone can FA 5 billion to fully compensate a grab. What do you do then?

Cerb while I realize that having half a mind is something you aspire to - even you should understand by now that there is no such thing as being able to "protect land" by having less of it.

^^Thats why there is a 200% L:L policy. Because it means both sides lose out, which is fair. Otherwise people would just keep hitting because they think they come out even and we lose. But when its so clear they lose out, those that actually care about their countries still understand that they shouldnt hit, and so what you are left with are the pure griefers, and thus every hit is a declaration of war.
The main flaw in the critique against the 200% Land:Land policy is that it is made to somehow gain us land. Thats just not the case and we often skip taking 200% Land:Land and just go for one hit when we dont believe that it will happen again from that tag regardless, repeat offenders tho is what the policy is for, and 90% of the grabs on LaF has been the same 10 repeat offenders who hover in the same types of tags and never grabs LaF for the sake of land, but for the sake of ruining sets.

The flaw that forces us to enforce such a policy is in the game code, its that a 3k acre country can grab 40k acres+ ghosts from a 300k acre country with one hit and to get it back would require 1k hits and in order to defend against this you have to always have more defence than the highest stock country can buy up to break, and remember that jets are 50% stronger than turrets, and a smaller country need to spend less money on weapons tech for the same benefit.

Maybe inferior was the wrong word cerb. Just someone with absolutely no intentions of winning.

If you decide youre going to topfeed someone, you'll figure out a way to swing the jets. 2m turrets. 10m turrets. 30m? It largely doesnt matter with the exception that truly terrible players will topfeed defenseless netters. So it doesnt much matter how much defense a country carries as long as it has some.

It also isn't bad that a clan can respond by killing something has has cost them nw. Elders farms and kills every untagged that LGs them unless at war. Straight farm/kill. Dont even play around with it. Kill their restarts oop too. Untaggeds learn pretty quickly not to hit you and it works out long term unlike even 200% l:l retals which can be costly. You can't do that with clans and i still think the policy is a loser but it's probably better than anything else. Certainly better than killing on sight like us.

This is twisted for sure. I'm talking about protecting the land you have, not protecting less of it. If you cannot support having that much land with that little or weak military then that isn't a player like me that runs an extremely efficient countrys problem, the other player wasn't strong enough to protect what he has, yet a lot of you want to punish a guy like me because I can and do protect the land I hold. It's unfortunate that there are 72 hours prep time to perform a retal, and the best you can do is half what I took. That's not superior play in any way, shape, or form.

Thus, I completely reject the idea that you are entitled to land simply because you say so. The frequent colloquialism that goes around is "You and what army". And I don't want to hear you whining about how much it cost one of your larger countries to do the retal since he's already hugely fat, he's not gonna get anything from me and what he does is gonna cost a fortune. I get that, so, just why can't the guy I hit do the retal in the first place. Being close to me in the scores list increases the percentages of the land recovered, or taken, correct?

Cerb anyone can potentially break anyone at anytime. It depends on how much stock you want to dump. I enjoy war just as much as you but the game for past set saves where you are on the score board not how many times you killed someone that set.

And when, pray tell - was the last time an 'extremely efficient' country like yours finished in the top five?

The only thing you are efficient at is bad FA and using a fluffty game mechanic to fluff over netters.

There is no amount of turrets that can be bought that will prevent me from using an 'efficient' little dictator to rape you for land that you have no chance of ever recovering. Even with the huge grab, my fluffty little dict has no chance of a high NW finish. That's not efficiency, thats a flaw in game mechanics.

The purpose of land is to achieve high NW. Unless you plan on using land to gain NW, why keep trying to fluff over people who are? You've been making this stupid argument for years that everybody should run straight war prep, not do FA, and just free for all swap land. We have a name for that, it's called primary.