Acceptable to go Defenseless?

[Blacken]

I see somethings never change no matter if it is a decade later.



Some of you will know exactly what I am talking about. I am not going to try and explain or change anyone. But I will say anytime I do decide to stop through and check on what has been going on and I see people not even attempting to protect their states because of "rules of engagement" I will definitely take what I feel I should.


Never cared for a strategy game to be about bean counting.






I thank you for your time and diplomatic wisdom.

[L P]

Well if someone is stocking then the amount of defense doesn't matter. You will be grabbed regardless of how much defense you have. If your net worth is being put in the bank then why lose it by letting someone grab you. Every time you get grabbed you lose net worth.

[Blacken]

so you are in agreement that states should protect themselves?

[BladeEWG]

Its very difficult to be able to defend against everything, last round we had a slew of spy kills, before that bombers..but those are war acts not grabs.
Thats a big difference.
To AA or spy down a country to then grab them, well no, thats not acceptable.
I've not been here as long as many, but I don't recall ever seeing that as ok.

[Blacken]

zero D isn't even an attempt to protect vs an attack form.

I understand that it is impossible to completely protect vs every form of attack, but it's repugnant to protect the concept that it is "ok" to run with only one type of forces and expect nothing to happen, because the masses have wanted it to be a bean counting game.

And yes you are right, a decade ago it was the same as now. carry INF. Carry INF, and then carry more INF.

Man do I love the flavor of Vanilla.


-- And BladeEWG, do not worry about me carrying any thoughts about needing to be booted because I can not support attack rules. I understand them fully - they haven't changed... and that is also why I contacted you to tell you you'd probably have to boot me, since I don't want my actions to reflect upon your nation. Best wishes, may you have a good set.

[L P]

so you are in agreement that states should protect themselves?

That's not exactly what I said. My point was that you lose NW when you defend in a grab. So if you have a lot of defense or unbalanced defense it hurts the state if you get grabbed allot. I understand you are talking about "Zero" defense states. That I don't endorse as you would lose a lots of land. The proven way to go is a mixed defense proportionate to the amount of land you have.

Really, if a state wants to go zero defense that's just asking to be killed. (But, who is gonna wast their time killing that state when they can just farm it?)

[::LD::GrimReapr]

I think he is asking about the GRIM rule of if you don't have anything but infantry and we see it you will get hit with what you don't have defense wise. There is no reason whatsoever to not have defense in place after a week unless stocking but even then you can have a little bit you don't need to go ape **** while stocking. I am stocking and by the weeks end ill have everything upgraded and have at least a little of each defense. You know what I mean LP you've played with us. No it isn't unacceptable in my book to AA someone to grab them if they don't have that defense after a week we all understand that it takes time to upgrade but even then you could still have some. As I said before my goal is to have unit interaction changed so infantry can shoot down bombers or jets or atleast not at the rate it happens now and until that happens you can bank on me causing trouble. Yea I allready know blaa its a text base fantasy game units dont blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa thats what i see when you start typing about this **** and i know blade doesnt like it or me either so whatever but thats how I play and the few that play with me. Blacken you need a nation PM me.

[Bright]

Welcome back, Grendel.

[Margus]

Yes it's unfair if the state you want to grab has 90%+ infantry and you can't break him because you've wasted money and turns on upgrading (you actually haven't, you only have inf upgraded), but if you waste turns on AA-ing then noone gains anything as you could have gotten more land by expanding with the turns you spent on AA-ing.

If you see a state you can break with SA you shouldn't just grab him ASAP... you grab him if you can gain some good land because grabbing and getting like 50 land is pretty pointless and noone gains anything.
If you see a state whose army you don't like you shouldn't attack him ASAP.. you at least try to talk with your nations leader, send the infantry hoarder a warning to get some defense or even find other players who feel the same way to start a war because AA-ing impulsively like you did is pretty pointless.
Without warning a peaceful state first there is a big chance you'll be seen as a suicider. If like 6h after he has read ur message nothing in his army has changed, you haven't done much wrong if the state has still near 0 in AA/AR defense. Then he can blame himself and not you, but atm you're probably the problem in his eyes as most of the game is infantry hoarding at this point of the game.

[Blacken]

I like counting beans too.

Why is it always the same attitude, ?

Seriously, Margus it was old and hackneyed a decade ago, it doesn't change when yet another person tries to "explain" from above.

As I said, I am not going to take the time and explain, because to some the choice not to understand will always be there.

But I will say this NEVER EVER TRY TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THE GAME TO ME.



I been there done that in spades kid.