Sov is training leaders for every alliance in this game. Pdm is top on the list in the training leaders program - they will have a shiny new "Obama" until latest 15.05.2013.

Not at all. It's come to this with just you. Notice how I said YOU are banned from hitting PDM, not NA or the rest of EE. You think you're the only high defence country hitting low defence countries?

Please define massive. Looking at his networth, I think that massive is an inappropriate description of his defense.

llaar - this would be asking you/them to break forum rules by posting information about your country that can only be gained through a spy op. Your country's networth is information that we are allowed to post. I believe that the answer to what PDM considers "massive defense" will validate your position that you had a reasonable amount of defense when grabbing them, so I do not think that you would object to PDM answering this question, and you are free to answer it yourself. If you object, then I apologize.

The grabbing lists do not encourage low defense countries. The cost of replacing military losses for countries with moderate defense are dwarfed by the costs of building the land and purchasing techs for that land.

If you have to do a 2.5m jet PS, then you use 100k barrels of oil, and lose 200k jets. This will cost about $30m for the jets, and about $20m for the oil.

If you grab someone who is NOT the same strategy as you, and you're at 40k acres and you take 4k acres and 2k buildings, then you have to spend $48.6m to tear down the 2k buildings and $729m to build up the 6k acres. If your net gain in land was 2k acres, and you have 20 points per acre of technology, then you'll spend about $120m on techs for those 2k acres you gained.

If you're going to complain about spending $50m on jets and oil, when you're spending about $900m on buildings and tech for that land, then you clearly don't understand what you're doing.

But I know PDM doesn't do any math, and doesn't run countries with good economies, so given your incompetence, its reasonable that you would assume that low defense is needed. But you should be aware that your incompetence has led you to an incorrect assumption.

This isn't a trial. Rockman - I respect you a lot and am glad you are unbanned. But please mind your own business. This really doesn't concern you or LaF.

PDM criticizing a 7m networth country for running massive defense a month into the set was just too enticing for me to pass up commenting about :(

I understand but the problem with third parties piping in is it inflames the situation and makes it worse - I've been guilty of this in the past, I admit. But really, the only thing you'll accomplish by joining in the conversation is making the situation worse for both us and NA.

But I'll play ball with you.

"Reasonable" defense is subjective. What you may think is reasonable may not be reasonable to me. And that also depends on what your build currently is and what mine is. "Reasonable" defense to one of our all-x netters with 0 jets is not going to be the same as "reasonable" to you.

For our guys retalling the hits, yes, it is "reasonable", because our retallers have buttloads of jets. But it's not fair that the lower guys have to keep dealing with getting hit by llaar and having no "reasonable" way to retal for themselves. It's not "reasonable" to ask them to buy up to 4m jets raw (which is roughly his break). I mean...do you find it reasonable for an all-x netter to buy up from 0 jets to 4m just to take a retal or two? It's unreasonable and unfair to ask. And llaar has been hitting multiple all-x netters. Notice how we haven't banned anyone else from any other alliance - his country is hardly unique.

However, if he is going to keep doing it, then well we don't have to accept it. We aren't breaking any rules by banning his country. It's not hurting NA and it's not hurting anyone else. It's probably doing llaar a favor since he's actually lost more actual acres than he's gained from us. Hehe.

Why not have your retallers run high jets and low turrets, and your explorers buy 500k jets or 1m jets to PS your retaller after he PSs llaar? That creates even more gain for PDM than just straight up retalling llaar.

We could two-step the land but it'll be too much of a headache to calculate the returns, especially since the retallers have loads of land and the NW disparity between the two countries.

To be honest, it's just simpler if llaar stops attacking us. I mean, don't you agree that this is the simplest solution? We don't have a problem with any other country. It's just llaar's repeated attacks that are irritating to our players.

fluff it, enough of the nice guy fluff TAN, you tried to be cool about it. Lets just save turns and wipe NA off the map. Thats how everybody else solves problems, no negotiation, no middle ground, one member of a weaker alliance pisses one of our members off - drive the entire alliance off of the server. Right? Thats what you guys want, I'm all for it, PDM could use some ego boosting easy wins.

you do allow 12 hits per 48 hours from a tag on you... i've only hit you 6 total times in one month...

llaar, its pointless when someone has there mind made up. I wonder if he forgets how close NA and PDM was back in the day. Recruit get NA back up and fluff on everyone =p

I haven't forgotten. I have no problem with NA at all. Once again, I have a problem with llaar's attacks. In fact, I really would have liked it if llaar came back to PDM for our reunion set.

Rockman > TAN

Also TAN's favorite line is " third parties piping in..."

Don't post it as a public message then you mental midget!

<>
No, not even I'm this stupid. Just pissed.

And to put it nicer. Read what I said. I wasn't talking about the public retal policy for non pacted.

[i]Had llaar been grabbing PDM underneath a pact,[/i]

that's what I'm talking about.

<>
No, not even I'm this stupid. Just pissed.

Why do you define top feeds under a pact but not vice-versa? You can either not believe a top feed is real or believe it is real. In your version of the world it is both real and not real.

Which is it? Is there such a thing as a top feed or not?

llaar does make a good point, and he is using your own policy against you. It only shows me you don't really believe in your own policy.

It's not defined as top feeds. It's very simply, "do not grab anyone with this much more land than you". It's a guideline. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, you're removed from the system. TAN has tried to emulate the same thing here. I think he's been rather nice giving NA the same treatment as he'd give an allied clan.

If you want to get lost in semantics that's fine, but a duck is a duck.

You can define it however you want but at the end of the day the result is the same: you are saying top-feeding is real. Yet when it comes to your actual policy, not your grabbing pacts, you deny it's existence unless llaar does it to you. Then it becomes real again. You see the root of the problem here is you want to pick an choose when it does and when it does not apply to you.

There is a real conflict here.

On behalf of PDM, I'd like to thank Requiem for single-handedly keeping this otherwise inane thread alive and topped for so long. It is a true testament of his devotion to PDM, and a shining example for us all.

Thanks Req, ordinarily, we'd have to pay Google an ass-ton of money to keep our name at the top of the page for this long.

You rock bro!

I got your back archaic.

PDM needs to take a lesson. Your retallers should be fat with low defence, attracting landgrabbers who like to exchange blows... It diverts attention from the pure netters who would like to be carebears and puts the focus on those who like to dance.

How have you not learned this by now?

Oh ya... and as someone stated before... why is this on AT if you don't want the whole game to be part of this conversation? It's good to know what PDM thinks of the little guys.

Well they can't hold an argument about it because they want to be able to top feed others and deny a top feed exists however when llaar does it to them it suddenly is a real thing, and they hope you don't read their wiki...

But even if you do read the wiki they suddenly forget that part is in there and detour your attention to their "grabbing pacts" which are nothing but glorified land trading pacts. I should know, I helped create them.

"Paradigm does not recognize topfeeds. The reasoning is that the definition of a topfeed is irrelevant for a land:land retal policy."

PDM's policy only hurts themselves because if they are topfed and the victim cant retal they are only entitled to 1:1.

I don't know why other alliances haven't taken advantage of this loop hole in their own policy.

haha, wow.

Slip do not interfere with this private message on a public board from TAN to llaar. The biggest problem with this game is third parties piping in when a meant-to-be-private-message is posted publicly addressing an individual.

Next time I want to privately address someone I will post it on a public forum and expect everyone to respect that and quit piping in.

It's like eavesdropping on a subway or something... don't join in pls.

LOL @ this post.

We've actually been advertising for llaar, but w/e. :P

We don't recognize topfeeds and banning llaar has nothing to do with it. It has to do with avoiding two-stepping in order to repatriate land for the defenders with 0 jets.

Archaic, direstrike, stop responding to Req please.

Wasn't the entire thought process with PDM enforcing C:C 80% L:L that if you have a weak country you don't deserve to keep your land?

I mean other wise it would be alliance:alliance 80% L:L...

Which is it you believe, or is what you believe relative to your situation?

ULF HEDNAR!

HEY! What's going on in this thread?!

you gained on his exchanges in terms of land, lost some on money and are brilliantly threatening to kill the country publicly? because thats what PDM needs above all else, for others to see them as whiny little fluffes.



wow. just. wow. all aboard the FairEmpires express