Highest UP

kira, you give way too much information away lol

thanks btw

Raw up:6.100

cabalax wrote:Raw up:6.100

OMG thats more than me

It might be..but i stoped for a while

Currently at Unit Production Raw 5,174

5123 for me

2k =P

7000

I m now at 9,800 Raw Unit Production ... whats everyone else on?

the highest is allready over 10 k that's all i can say

Mine is more than 2K because i've officers. Anyone wanna to become my officers? I pay GOOD money! 200,000 per unit raw!

11,200 raw for me now

ian wrote:11,200 raw for me now

congratulations!

how can you grow so fast?

Kenzu wrote:

ian wrote:11,200 raw for me now

congratulations!

how can you grow so fast?

lol, thanks I can grow so fast by making a point of getting to know man's greatest ally - maths! Still... i ve got a little bit more to go with my unit production before i m happy with it

still 11.2 k ian :p people are cathing up be aware

souldog wrote:still 11.2 k ian :p people are cathing up be aware

lol, i m not too fussed to be honest - currently focusing on beefing up my army size a little, but will resume boosting U.P further in a week or 2's time... don't forget i ve only been playing Aderan Wars since the 21st of April, and have spent just $20 total (2 $10 SS packages - one for me, one for a friend) - thus i ve got to use my resources carefully in order to catch up and overtake those who ve been around since the start of the game.... as such i can't just invest fully into unit production

i noticed you have every weak stats you must be banking alot

souldog wrote:i noticed you have very weak stats you must be banking alot

lol, my spy and assassin amounts reflect the necessary amount to prevent my defence being profitably sabbed/ assassinated by someone with the 3,340 covert/ assassin power. My defence is what it is due to being able to bank pretty actively.

My stats are so small because If and when I loose my defence to hostile action... it will represent a grand total loss of 3.75 days worth of economic generation for myself (factoring in the value of the UU, value to train the UU into defence supers, and value of the weapons). My spies and assassins amount to 24,000 troops together - a grand total of 1.6 days worth of economic generation (factoring in the value of the UU, and value to train them into spies/ assassins). My miner and worker amounts, are of a amount that should an enemy waste their attack turns killing them, they d have just hurt themselves more than me - since they could use the attack and supply turns they d just have wasted on me killing a handful of income units, to raid more UU to add to themselves, than they would have just depleted from myself.

All told... i d be looking at loosing a maximum total of 5.35 days worth of economic generation if every single one of my spies, assassins, defence supers and weapons was wiped out. The enemy on the other hand, when i retaliate in such an war (which i would), would stand to loose weeks worth of resources in defence alone

You can keep your "strong" stats... i ll more than happy with my "very" weak stats

[quote="ian"]

souldog wrote: The enemy on the other hand, when i retaliate in such an war (which i would), would stand to loose weeks worth of resources in defence alone

You can keep your "strong" stats... i ll more than happy with my "very" weak stats

You seem to make alot of assumptions Ian, what makes you so sure its going to be someone with "massive stats" that hits you? or even someone larger/more powerful then yourself? What happens if the person with whom you scrap is smaller, and has even less to lose then yourself?

Just making an opservation is all.

[quote="Nomad"]

ian wrote:

souldog wrote: The enemy on the other hand, when i retaliate in such an war (which i would), would stand to loose weeks worth of resources in defence alone

You can keep your "strong" stats... i ll more than happy with my "very" weak stats

You seem to make alot of assumptions Ian, what makes you so sure its going to be someone with "massive stats" that hits you? or even someone larger/more powerful then yourself? What happens if the person with whom you scrap is smaller, and has even less to lose then yourself?

Just making an opservation is all.

If its someone with less stuff to loose than me.... then frankly they have a serious problem They ll need at least a strike of 1/5 my defence (so 6k attack supers) to even dent my defence... and they ll suffer relatively heavy UU losses in the process as well as repair costs.... If their defence is small enough that they ll loose less than my defence, it means i won't need a large strike (comparitive to my economic generation) to drop their defence (opening up their spies and assassins to be killed)... which in turn means, since i m pretty active - i ll promptly be happily sitting on them for a very long time - all the while rebuilding my defence back (since its 5days worth of resources TOTAL in defence, spies, strike and assassin... not something hard for me to recover).

I d be prepared to bet anyone who has less to loose than me, will even then still loose comparitively more than me when you factor in how long it ll take them to rebuild vs. myself - and to me, thats all that matters. The ability to loose comparitively less than your enemy - and being able to recover it far quicker. Its all subjective - to 1 person 100,000 kuwal is a lot - to another 1billion kuwal is nothing. All that matters is how easy and how long it takes for each respective party to come by and regain the resources they loose in any conflict

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.

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

Hehehehehe, and this is where i come in

Thats the beauty of The Commonwealth. We all cover for each other so that we can deal with any kind of play approach. So not only are we almost always ready for war but we are also ready to deal with almost any situation we face.

We are always ready....Always on the look out....Always waiting.... And thats why i think everyone should be happy that its "arrogant" Ian who chooses diplomacy over striking fast and early anyday in charge and not some psychopath like me

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