Official Foreign Policy Relations - March Set -

[DevilDog]

Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........

[::LD::GrimReapr]

No one is forcing you to be balanced. If you wanted to net so badly, why don't you go heavy infantry.

You choose to be more balanced with it's pluses and minuses. The problem is when you do war attacks on other players who decide to go heavy infantry.

Doing war attacks= forcing other players to play differently. Not netting as well= consequence of choosing to upgrade early.

Im sure with the skill of some of these players in here they can still finish first with a balanced state if i can finish 5th with a balanced state and not have the skill or time as some of the players in here.

So why must I hoard infantry to net? Its not how I wanna play.Just as you dont wanna build a balanced state to net.

[Max Logan]

How is using AA before grabbing forcing players to play differently?
You use SA, you win because your military strength is large enough.

I want to grab you, but my military strength is not larger then yours. I see there`s an attack that can change that, called Amphibious Assault. i see I have more ships then you and the attack will succeed. I attack. I win, I continue until I can attack you with an SA and win. I do that.

How is that forcing you to play a different way?
You`re forcing me to go all infantry when you play it and are ahead of me and grab me!

From whatever stand point you see it - we are both playing RIGHT. Because any given time I could`ve made more infantry and you could`ve made more ships! I`m not cheating, I`m not abusing, I`m using the same game mechanics as you are. How is my play style forcing you to play any different then yours is forcing me?

It`s a matter of choice!

[blaa]

Because I can achieve the best result this way... It's mathematics not your personal preference.

[Max Logan]

When I trail behind you and have more ships then you, how is it mathematically wrong or incorrect that I succeed in all the AAs and then grab you for the land?
I have more ships. I win. It`s all correct. It`s not my personal preference, I just win a legit game mechanics calculation.

[::LD::GrimReapr]

Because I can achieve the best result this way... It's mathematics not your personal preference.

I can achieve the best result my way since when I AA not only do you lose a massive amount of those precious infantry but you also lose readiness which allows me to send less of my not so precious infantry and grab your land.

[Rassputtin]

This pretty much sums up the entire 'inf-hording' thing. Anyone who can't see the point Blaa is trying to make simply lacks game knowledge. I have no issue with those who AA infantry horders. I do take issue with misinformation being spread however. You guys have played the game long enough to know how to do some basic calculations. This is grade-school math we're talking about here.

Of course 10 million NW of lvl8 infantry will defeat 10 million NW of lvl8 ships.

10 million NW of infantry:
59 million infantry
85 million military strength
$203 per 1 military strength
17 billion dollars on the PM ($294)

10 million NW of ships:
4.6 million ships
54 million military strength
$191 per 1 military strength
10 billion dollars on the PM ($2276)

You're telling me that an army worth 10 billion dollars should be able to defeat an army worth 17 billion dollars? If you include things like consumption, maintenance, tech, etc then it pretty much evens out. Infantry and ships are pretty much equal. The only thing that separates them is how much NW they give.

I believe the only exception is that SAMs are stronger than jets (though I haven't factored in food costs). You can however produce way more SAMs than jets in 1 turn, and they cost the same on the market. Lets throw out the upgrading costs. This is the reason why you see netters mass producing SAMs once they reach top spot.

I"m not really sure why this even turned into a discussion. I was making an announcement, indicating what I was going to do. No amount of back and forth is going to move me from that position.

Xavior and Blaa. I am not defuting the math. I fully comprehend the equations and why players are hoarding infantry. I understand the effeciencies and small hit hoarding infantry does on your bottom line. I understand that ships are inflated in networth comparatively hence the we have the same networth but your stronger. I understand the values and ratios. I have probably the exact same spreadsheets everyone else has. Only all of the ones you all have are updated with the current unit values where as mine are older values where all networth values were larger numbers.... I digress.

The bottom line is this. I disagree with the practice on principle, not with the math of why people are compelled to do it. Simple as that.

My ultimate goal would be a more complex method of unit interaction that would prevent the practive via gameplay mechanics. However again I digress.

Until that above mentioned goal is met I will get my luls watching massive amounts of defensless infantry turn into stains on the sand.

[Dogma]

Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........

Reading all of this reminds of the movie Groundhog Day. Not sure why though..........

[kanman]

How is using AA before grabbing forcing players to play differently?
You use SA, you win because your military strength is large enough.

I want to grab you, but my military strength is not larger then yours. I see there`s an attack that can change that, called Amphibious Assault. i see I have more ships then you and the attack will succeed. I attack. I win, I continue until I can attack you with an SA and win. I do that.

How is that forcing you to play a different way?
You`re forcing me to go all infantry when you play it and are ahead of me and grab me!

From whatever stand point you see it - we are both playing RIGHT. Because any given time I could`ve made more infantry and you could`ve made more ships! I`m not cheating, I`m not abusing, I`m using the same game mechanics as you are. How is my play style forcing you to play any different then yours is forcing me?

It`s a matter of choice!

SA directly gains land which is what netting is about.

AAs, missile strikes, destructive spyops destroys the other player's army and then indirectly you can gain land. There is a reason those are war attacks and using them is grounds for retal/war. The problem with using all those attacks for netting is that no one can be unbreakable from spies, ships and missiles for many days. So when attacks are limited to just SAs, everyone plays on the same playing field and the best player wins.

Im arguing for a fair netting competition. You're argument is, I play inefficiently and you outnetted me so you're forcing me to declare war on you.

[Dogma]

I"m not really sure why this even turned into a discussion. I was making an announcement, indicating what I was going to do. No amount of back and forth is going to move me from that position.

Xavior and Blaa. I am not defuting the math. I fully comprehend the equations and why players are hoarding infantry. I understand the effeciencies and small hit hoarding infantry does on your bottom line. I understand that ships are inflated in networth comparatively hence the we have the same networth but your stronger. I understand the values and ratios. I have probably the exact same spreadsheets everyone else has. Only all of the ones you all have are updated with the current unit values where as mine are older values where all networth values were larger numbers.... I digress.

The bottom line is this. I disagree with the practice on principle, not with the math of why people are compelled to do it. Simple as that.

My ultimate goal would be a more complex method of unit interaction that would prevent the practive via gameplay mechanics. However again I digress.

Until that above mentioned goal is met I will get my luls watching massive amounts of defensless infantry turn into stains on the sand.

I kind of like your digressions!!!