/compounds/ - The Compounds of Harmony

>>4034

On a side note, conglaturations to Aryan and Prr Wio. Have fun with my nations.

In the next few weeks, I will test-play each region for a week or two, to include a short "first-week tutorial" for newbies on what to do and what to build when they start out. For this, I ask all players and alliances to treat me like they would newbies and not as the oldfag they all hate. ;) I intend for these nations to never make it out of newb protection, probably including all resources, so any concern about "funding an enemy" can be laid to rest. Not that the war would still be going anyway.

Thanks in advance for any help with the new guide, and may it be helpful to others.

>>4035

The rules are clear, you mustn't sacrifice your last nation. If you're going to play, you need to do everything in your power to keep them, including fight off aggressors. However, playing whilst knowing that you will be attacked and hopelessly outmatched is also against the rules... Thus, the only legal move is not to play.

Why help the newbies now, anyway? You've fought so hard to ensure they have no chance, so what made you reconsider that position?

Either way, I'm leaving entirely now. Good luck on trying to undo what you've accomplished.

>>4036

The spirit of the rules is also clear: No creating new nations, or benefitting people by it in other ways. Admin allowed rerolling previously, and as I said, I couldn't come into a position where I can be attacked until I play again seriously.

(@Admin, should you have something against my plan after all, feel free to speak up. In that case I just keep my Saddle.)

I also don't get where I'm not only suddenly responsible for every unit sent to someone younger than a year, but especially fought to enable it. As far as I could gather, Kersumsos is attacked by another "newbie", not our beloved Prime Evils of the Nine Hells (caps and all ;P ). Which means he could conceivably fight him off, too.

Besides, helping newbies means they stay around until they are attackable, and since I'm apparently the most evil thing around now, so wouldn't that play into my plan of newb domination nicely? [/sarcasm]

>>4036

>You've fought so hard to ensure they have no chance, so what made you reconsider that position?

Oh, and one last thing: If you ask Heinz, Zerg, DictatorDuck, Kersumsos and maybe others, I have helped (or asked if they need my help, at least) all of them when they joined. So no, your argument is invalid.

>>4038

When snakes speak, they don't consider truth or falsity important. Their only precondition for saying something is that it makes a pleasing susurration. Outrage, snark, and self-righteousness are the tones the snake loves; in keeping with the devil's scriptural role as the accuser, his serpentine servants have learned to do nothing but accuse and accuse and accuse.

Sssir Ssscarf, ladies and gentlemen.

>>4040

Scarf thought that FC was supporting the Guild. Nothing to do with the present conflict, I think.

>>4040

Partly to do. It is true that the FFA/FC war opened the gates to Aryan.

>>4040

Nice.^^

>>4042

That's true, of course. We used a not insignificant part of our stuff for these attacks, and that made us vulnerable enough. But I think you believe me when I say that I didn't fight for Aryan and THK to snag nations. :P

>>4041

>Nothing to do with the present conflict, I think.

Yes, and that's the sad thing. For maybe the first time in >CLOP history, the FC/FFA war had nothing to do with past grudges (at least as Umbra and I are concerned, and I'm fairly certain Minty didn't act on grudges, either).

>>4038

It is true. You are an evil evil man. You needed to be stopped. Thanks for the nation ^^

>>4035

>On a side note, conglaturations to Aryan and Prr Wio

t-thanks

Bump with update. I'd like to say most of the basic stuff is there now, but knowing me, I probably haven't thought of a bunch of things.

And yes, I know there's no war yet. But otherwise, keep suggesting. And thanks to whoever proofread the last version (I suspect alysdexia); maybe you can keep on doing that, too. ^^

Why do you call gov types solar/lunar? I though they were called freedom/repression.

>>4110

I collated several governments into two "lines". For instance, Democracy, Decentralization and Independence are often collectively called the "Lunar" governments, since those give positive rep with the NLR. I actually never heard "Freedom"/"Repression" before in that context.

>>4111

Maybe I mixed something. But for sure War Guide mentionts "free countries" which I assume is what you call Lunar govs.

>>4112

Apparently. Thing is, I couldn't even figure out what the passage in the war guide was referring to; it seemed not right that Lunar govs would be punished by the war system while Solar wouldn't. I only found out lately (and I'm not entirely convinced. Admin, can you clarify please?).

I can include the "Freedom"/"Repression" thing into the guide. No problem. Since usually "Lunar" and "Solar" are used, I'll keep those in too though.

>>4113

That's correct. People with Democracy, Independence, or Decentralization take a hit of 200 sat for attacking each other. Free Markets lose 100 sat for attacking other Free Markets, and State Controlled governments also lose 100 sat for attacking others of their kind.

(Lunar Clients, however, are not considered free countries by this system, nor are the ascension governments.)

>>4113

>punished

How do you figure? If Democracy A attacks Decentralized B, then A takes a sat hit whereas if Oppression C attacks B, C takes no sat hit. The difference between B and C, then, is that B has a better defensive government type (because any would-be Democratic attacker has to deal with the additional debuff of the sat loss) whereas C has a better offensive government type. So as far I can see it's just another tradeoff.

>>4118

That's what I thought, so I was like "Nah, that can't be it." But >>4115 has a point. And, thinking about it, it makes sense: the Solar gov (and eco) types are the ones for larger empires, whereas Lunar is designed for smaller ones or solo nations. Empires wage war, solo nations work on their own economy.

>>4118

It's not one-sided, because the fact that free countries take sat loss from attacking other free countries amounts to a defensive bonus which free countries enjoy but non-free countries do not.

>>4133

>it didn't work anyway

Good

>>4135

typo in the trip

>>4135

This is annoying as hell...

Assuming you log in before the next war tick, you should be fine.

So, here's a little tool me and a friend made for calculating the cost of actions and it's effect on your stockpiles and per/tick incomes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z1JkHR70qmlpJRIHHNtXKyLV5V6PxG_dQdNQBEGmJMI/edit#gid=1377226801

Feel free to use it, and if you find any errors or have suggestions to improve it, just post em here.

>>4191

>HR70qmlpJRIHH

>mlp