Acceptable to go Defenseless?

[Tha Juggla]

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.

Well, im obviously new here......whats AA? and what do you mean by "spy down" a country? espionage/sabotage?

[Will]

Well, im obviously new here......whats AA? and what do you mean by "spy down" a country? espionage/sabotage?

AA = Amphibious Assault. Using your ships to weaken another state's defenses before other attacks.

[Tha Juggla]

AA = Amphibious Assault. Using your ships to weaken another state's defenses before other attacks.

ah. now it makes sense, . thanks.

[-Z-]

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

Thats incorrect. The attacking state gains a sense of accomplishment, and the defenseless state gains a valuable lesson on why he needs defenses... Isnt this obvious?

Of course if all you are concerned with is counting beans, then i suppose you would overlook this.

Z

[Benjidatramp]

Thats incorrect. The attacking state gains a sense of accomplishment, and the defenseless state gains a valuable lesson on why he needs defenses... Isnt this obvious?

Of course if all you are concerned with is counting beans, then i suppose you would overlook this.

Z

It is against the rules to suicide in this game yet one could make the same argument. Suiciders get a sense of satisfaction at taking down the big guy, yet that is frowned upon. I miss the political intrigue where the whole point of warring was to finish #1 nation. Then allies would jump in and see who came out on top!. I guess it doesnt work with a smaller player base. for example.

ICN winning -> Grim/WLF decide to take them out to finish higher on the ladder. This is a much more acceptable reason than "because you are all infantry" ICN then realise that while being all infantry is going to result in a higher overall nw, chances are another nation will be gunning for the #1 spot.
I remember the days where nations would have netters and war ready states (mainly jets ). The netters job was to net and stonewall in case of an attack and the war ready states was to respond to attacks. Then you would have a war and see who comes out on top. Ahhh the good old days

There is nothing stopping this now. ICN could have 15 members and have 7 netters and 7 war ready states. If Grim/WLF/USA whoever declare war then the war ready states step in and try and disable while they are taking out the netters. Of course this prob would cut into the states feeding the nation, but those are the sacrifices you make to win and not get smashed in a war.

Bottom line is the goal is to be the top nation. Kill off other nations or defend yourself from attacks. Unfortunatley it seems nations have forgotten the goal of the game (both netters and warring nations alike)

[MAGGIO]

Its a team sport

[ukurasmus]

@Benji: Totally agree about the nations forgetting the whole purpose of their existence - it's not just about tech and NA

[DBozMen]

About defensless states:

"Si vis pacem para bellum."
Those who seek peace should prepare for war.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in Epitoma rei militaris