Highest UP

Nomad wrote:You still base all your ramblings on assumptions that your enemy doesnt have the same orientation as you?

according to you, not matter what, no matter their military set up, or economic set up, you will win. A bit egotistical don't you think?

I mean I think your set up is great, true stratagy, good implementation for sure. Guess I'm just saying, your not the only person following the same ideals as yourself, and sorry, but someone with the same commitment, and online time as yourself, is not going to lose more then you. The first strike will always take on less losses if they are committed to the long haul. Its game mechanics, and those are undeniable.

Thats undeniably true lol. I guess my assumptions are assumptions - but assumptions based on that a good majority of major players DO have far larger defences, spy, assassins, strikes than me... thus a good chunk more to loose than myself potentially. There is also the fact that MOST players do have huge amounts of killable income units as well.... by and large i ve limited my potential losses to my account by as much as i can, coupled with having an economy (Unit Production and turn income) on the game which is eithier in, or not far off, being in the top 10 on the game - which means war won't set me back very far.

Finally - there is the simple consideration that The Commonwealth backs myself, as they back anyone else in The Commonwealth. It means if myself - or anyone else in TC ends up in a personal war not of their own making, or one not caused by themselves which can't be justified by the aggressor- they can count on TC to intervene eithier directly in the war - or to divide their personal losses between the alliance to recompensate them (meaning they d personally suffer virtually no losses)... and since i ve made damn sure The Commonwealth generally follows my approach to the game - its fair to say there is not a single organisation so large (army size, economically or military potential wise) or with as many active members as The Commonwealth - who have comparitively so little to loose to hostile action.

Perhaps i am arrogant - but i d say anyone who has relatively large defences, spies, assassins and killable income units - is no less arrogant than myself in that, just by having such resource amounts invested in killable resources - they are making an assumption that they can't be hurt or brought down - or otherwise can recover it back easily. Is that itself not simply another form of arrogance?

It all comes down to confidence in players individual game styles and game strategies. I m 100% confident in my approach, and my ability to withstand whatever any enemy throws at me. Soul dog commented about my "weak stats" - all i was doing was defending/ explaining just why some would percieve them as "weak" based on how i see things.

Whether my strategy is any better than any others remains to be seen.

Edit: What i m basically saying - is if i was faced with a war with myself (i.e. someone who's in exactly the same situation, or similar, and following the same or similar approach) - then i wouldn't find it hard at all to annihilate my defences in terms of the economic resources needed to do so... but at the same time - i d also kill very little in terms of the resources the target would loose. In such a scenario - it could go eithier way potentially - and would be decided based on decisions made during combat, activity and sheer determination. In such a situation - victory would in no way be assurred.

But.... as a some philospher once said - preparing for war is half the battle won. I personally feel my approach best prepares me for war... thus puts me in the strongest position i can be during war.... hence why i follow it

Double Edit: infact... i d say my strategy isn't overly arrogant at all. Its ENTIRE assumption is based on that the enemy (whoever they be) is capable, skilled and credible enough to destroy anything i build (hence whats the point in just giving them more cannon fodder....) there's not many people who are prepared to give a unknown enemy such credit - in other words... i m assuming anyone who's active enough, and has a half-baked knowledge of what they are doing - can cause me SERIOUS harm and mass devastation to my account if i m not careful.

My entire strategy - as in, the very design and nature of my account- is based on one of giving respect to an unknown, unpredicted enemy i ve never met yet - in other words respecting the capabilities almost every player on this server poses, and respecting the fact they can and will destroy anything i build. How is that egotistical? lol

Hai-Shulud wrote:Thats the beauty of The Commonwealth. We all cover for each other :

ROFL - the last couple of week's worth of msn's conversations, and what they ve mainly concerned bring a new meaning to that

ian wrote:

Nomad wrote:You still base all your ramblings on assumptions that your enemy doesnt have the same orientation as you?

according to you, not matter what, no matter their military set up, or economic set up, you will win. A bit egotistical don't you think?

I mean I think your set up is great, true stratagy, good implementation for sure. Guess I'm just saying, your not the only person following the same ideals as yourself, and sorry, but someone with the same commitment, and online time as yourself, is not going to lose more then you. The first strike will always take on less losses if they are committed to the long haul. Its game mechanics, and those are undeniable.

Finally - there is the simple consideration that The Commonwealth backs myself, as they back anyone else in The Commonwealth. It means if myself - or anyone else in TC ends up in a personal war not of their own making, or one not caused by themselves which can't be justified by the aggressor- they can count on TC to intervene eithier directly in the war - or to divide their personal losses between the alliance to recompensate them (meaning they d personally suffer virtually no losses)... and since i ve made damn sure The Commonwealth generally follows my approach to the game - its fair to say there is not a single organisation so large (army size, economically or military potential wise) or with as many active members as The Commonwealth - who have comparitively so little to loose to hostile action.

Another thing that many people will most likely over look and is not expected is that a good portion of The Commonwealth have crossed over from another game. Only the most loyal and friends would continue to play multiple games together. In war you would never expect that when 1 or 2 people get massed and take heavy loses that the alliance as a whole will compensate for that. The friendships and bonds created in The Commonwealth are unlike what I have experienced in other alliances. That is what makes The Commonwealth so damn hard to kill

souldog wrote:i'm catching up ian on raw up but still not over it and it will take some time before i actually will

lol, - its a pain in the backside once you start to get our levels isn't it? .... just throwing 1.2billion kuwal into it, and only getting 100 U.P increase lol

@ Nomad... it is slightly off topic - but since everything we ve discussed does involve unit production as a cornerstone of the strategy, i don't think it is too-off topic lol. Plus new players joining the game are most likely to check out this topic than most... so discussing game strategies and account development might be of some benefit to them

Anyway - everyone has different approaches to the game. I prefer to keep my stats as low as possible (hence why them seem "weak") to avoid excessive losses, and to better my chances of in war-time killing more enemy resources than i loose.... thats pretty much everything i said before summed up lol.

souldog wrote:indeed and it's not like 1.2 bil is nothing with the new admin eff i'm only making 1.3 bil a day :s

lol, benefits of having lots of miners and workers i guess? - my daily income is only 937million lol... though you do still have a 223,290 army size advantage over me

While your getting your unit production up, hopefully i ll be able to close that gap a little