Official Foreign Policy Relations - March Set -

[totte]

indeed master totte but in reality the game at this member size is whatever the communtity chooses to make it. Currently the community accepts defenseless infantry hoarders as the norm, if a thousand players joined tomorrow it would be much harder for individuals such as myself to do what is being done to change what is acceptable. Quite frankly I don't want to allow infantry hoarding to be one of the founding principles the game is built on.. Do you?

i didnt say that i like inf hoarding but as i pointed out in 2003 compared to now the game was diffrent in a few ways 1 more members therefor more larger nations 2 more competition both on individual and on nation basis. 3 people actually used diplomacy in a more proper way there where diffrent retal policys and such.

now the only way to change the way it works now is to make it unsafe to run unbalanced

[::LD::GrimReapr]

Since you're more balanced, shouldn't you be able to intel and not have defeats.

But anyway, you say it's a way of getting to the top but it's not. Any nation worth anything will retal or kill you for your aa's.

I haven't seen anyone try to define infantry hoarding and it's hard to define since it changes through the round. And with varying competition, sometimes it's going to take longer for the top state to be able to safely upgrade. What is going to happen is that there will always be states who break your infantry hoarding rules and if they're your friends you'll let it slide and if they're not your going to aa them.

As others have noted, states are less balanced now because there are less suicides, etc. I don't see the point of artificially forcing more balance. If you want to net, you can have a purely netting competition heavy on infantry and as you said, most likely no one will suicide you for that. If you want to war then war but netting with aa's doesn't work.

Its not just the defeats if you read the post fully its not being able to grab people the same size and smaller because of the military strength provided by hoarding infantry. The lack of total grabs because of infantry hoarding while you are trying to run a balanced state.

You are right any nation worth anything will retal or kill you for AA's hence the reason war starts right away instead of just the AA's to grab someone. I'm not artificially forcing anything. I'm playing my balanced war ready state the way I want just as those playing the infantry hoarding states play the way they want. Now I will let you in on a little secret the infantry hoarding wouldn't bother me so much if when I grab someone or attempt to grab someone without naval or air defense I should win. We all know Infantry aren't shooting bombers down with rifles and sinking ships with rifles either. That is where the problem lies you might be able to grab anyone you want while infantry hoarding but if you don't have other defenses in place when someone comes knocking on your door with a balanced state you lose cause the bombers and ships are blowing your little infantry men into smithereens before their infantry comes in and take that precious land.

[blaa]

Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.

The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?

Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.

There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.

[::LD::GrimReapr]

Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.

The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?

Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.

There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.

No your right infantry are not stronger than other units but 10 mil in net worth of infantry vs 10 mil of networth in anything else infantry wins the fight in military str hence the reason someone the same size as me with just infantry cannot be grabbed by me running a balanced state. I'm not excactly sure wtf your talking about in my lack of calculation skills?

Im not demanding changes I'm asking for the game to be a bit more realistic in the fact an infantry hoarding states will lose to a balanced state because what infantry I do have wont come into take your land till my bombers and ships have off shore bombarded or simply just bombed the **** out of your infantry till I can grab you. Again not sure wtf your talking about with my lack of comprehension on the game in its current state? I understand that if you hoard infantry you leave yourself open for other attacks. I comprehend that rather well thank you very much. Your right there is nothing wrong with infantry hoarding if thats how you choose to play. There is also nothing wrong with me blowing your infantry up with my ships with AA's to grab you with my balanced state because I choose to play that way.

Its not about wanting to war I would love to net peacefully when I can. But to do it my way causes friction because in my opinion its not realistic that infantry can stop ships and bombers so I have to resort to AA's to get grabs which results in war. I have a top 5 finish with a balanced war ready state. I know the goal is to be number one how many of the 50 or so members out there can claim that titles I know not many. So in conclusion my Ships AA's trump your infantry hoarding and if you choose to war my nation because of this guess what I win cause your not infantry hoarding I don't care if i die see so its a win win for me have a nice day.

[blaa]

But the game isn't realistic. Is it? No. So stop looking for excuses. Just war.

[::LD::GrimReapr]

But the game isn't realistic. Is it? No. So stop looking for excuses. Just war.

Its not about wanting to war I would love to net peacefully when I can. But to do it my way causes friction because in my opinion its not realistic that infantry can stop ships and bombers so I have to resort to AA's to get grabs which results in war. I have a top 5 finish with a balanced war ready state. I know the goal is to be number one how many of the 50 or so members out there can claim that titles I know not many. So in conclusion my Ships AA's trump your infantry hoarding and if you choose to war my nation because of this guess what I win cause your not infantry hoarding I don't care if i die see so its a win win for me have a nice day.

BTW you ever stop to think that maybe the lack of realism has something to do with people not coming back?
Maybe, That's something you don't comprehend?

[Max Logan]

Infantry is not stronger than other units. Inf gives less significantly less networth than your ships. At equal networth, yes, infantry 'seems' stronger. But that's just because of your lack of calculation skills.

The reason I don't take any of your/maggios/rass's 'suggestions' seriously is because you can't comprehend the game at it's current state, so what makes you are the best guy to demand changes?

Don't bother responding with some witty comment about me being sad about last set, or me being complacent with inf hoarding.

There is nothing wrong with inf hoarding. It's just how the numbers are. You don't like it? Good, I don't mind that. I mind that you fill the forums about how unfair inf hoarding is. Just say that you want to war and that's that.

So stop complaining you when you get warred! Cuz the way it looks, I might go rogue and hit you just for the luls of it.

And infantry not stronger then other units? Your calculation skills are awesome! Take that comment back before I hurt you! It doesn`t 'seem' stronger - it is! 10m net worth infantry will beat 10-15m net worth ships

[blaa]

Set all units to 10% production.

nw ratio = x unit networth produced by 1 turn divided with infantry networth produced by turn.
str ratio = x unit strength produced by turn divided with infantry strength produced by 1 turn.
mnt ratio = x unit consumption of food and money divided with infantry consumption of food and money produced by turn.
PM $$$ = how much money you get from PM for producing each unit with 10% for 1 turn.

As you can see, jets give the least networth, then comes infantry. Infantry is the weakest. Infantry consumes the least amount of food/money.
You need to use more turns to get the same amount of strength when producing infantry, than with any other unit.
So yes! Infantry is the weakest... If you attack by looking at the networth and you don't spy... well, then this just proves my point: You're stupid and wasting turns.

Grim, the amount of people who have quit because of lack of realism... Lmao, you really think a significant amount of people even give a ****? Have you seen how many millions play games like world of warcraft where they are wizards and goblins and elfs and whatever.

[MAGGIO]

btw i dont give a crap about how realistic the game should be concerning inf being able to sink ships. etc...

as far as I am concerned this game could be fantasy, military or space. in which case you could call the units whatever you want.

the fact is that each unit has a special ability and a weakness.

when a player has too many of one and not enough of the other he exploits a weakness. that weakness should be taken advantage of if possible, BUT if a player has a weakness, but his NATION is what he relies on for protection then thats understandable.




My only smart *** comment was that, not having spies was reason enough to perform harmful spy ops which is acceptable by most. when it comes to other extreme weaknesses like not having any air defense, its a different story.

[Max Logan]

Grim, the amount of people who have quit because of lack of realism... Lmao, you really think a significant amount of people even give a ****? Have you seen how many millions play games like world of warcraft where they are wizards and goblins and elfs and whatever.

I think you`re confusing what he meant with 'realism'. He didn`t mean elves, goblins, space ships and crap, he meant the fact that you can do a full scale attack and succeed by just using 1 type of unit, having no air or naval support. You can`t win a war/battle with just using a crap load of ground units.

And you`re also, clearly, misunderstanding the term 'strongest' when it comes to infantry. Try going 100% ships and beating someone who goes 100% infantry. Good luck! We`ll debate infantry weakness then. It`s not about raw 'power', fool, it`s about what it takes to get 'there'. And infantry is hoarded for a reason, and by yourself too, so saying it`s not the strongest unit is redundant and pathetic.