does anybody know where Qazyland is, its not much fun destroying him unless he is here to see the destruction.
i couldnt wait forever so i had to crush Qazyland without him logging on. Damn!
ahh qazy's been gone for a long time went to gr but had trouble there and quit all together
He logged on December 14 destroyed nimz and hasnt logged in since
Actually, he destroyed my on Dec 1. Fwiw, his last login was just after I accepted his peace treaty with my former country. Imo, my old country is barely worth recapturing now. Aside from the few T $E in cash and offered loans (if the money is still there) and the halfway decent education system, it's practically a barren wasteland now.
It's just a mere shell of it's former glory. -Nimz
i finally have taken qazy's second country he should be getting his email very soon hehe. Operation Spank Qazyland is over.
There must've been quite a bit of spare money in there! Practically everything is gone, but the asset rank is still #38. Just wondering, but would you mind returning the country New QAZYSTAN to the name it had before qazy took it? It was Nimzovich, with a capital named Aron. It would make me feel much better about things.
-Nimz
btw, did you destroy all of the fortifications there?!?
yes i did destroy all the forts thats why it took so long to win the war, i could only shoot a few a night. If you want spassky you can have the country back.
Omg! I think it was 190 forts there when QAZY took over. As I recall, he destroyed 50 of the 240 that were there. Thank you for offering my country back (and for renaming it).
-Nimz
P.S. I would've replied sooner, but I was in Phoenix at a huge math conference
Drat! I can't declare war on Nimzovich, since I still have a peace treaty
. I can see three possible ways of getting around that. 1) I conquer, say, A, then take Nimzovich back,
2) I wait until the peace treaty runs out, or
3) You dereg Nimzovich, I dereg, and rereg under Nimzovich.
I think option 3 is highly distasteful. Besides, I want to take Nimzovich back fair and square, even if it's a gift. Option 2 might be most feasible, since the treaty runs out in about 8 rl days. With the computer time I'm likely to have in the next couple of months, I doubt I'd be able to launch an offensive through A before the treaty runs out. Worth a shot, though.
i will prepare it to be taken in a few shots, so you should wait for the treaty to run out
190 forts? LOL
Remember when I had well over 9,000 defense fortifications? Try taking those out...
Forts Thread
Where do you think I got the idea in the first place, Sal?
9000 forts would stretch your defence a little, well alot. I think i would just blast the country to a wasteland then let you keep it.
it doesnt matter whether or not there was other defenses or not. At the time with that population, conquering the country without destroying the forts would be impossible.
With 9000 forts, I wouldn't even put any defense on any of them. No need, really. Even fairly defended forts are destroyed in a single blast of 10,000 jeeps, and that's overkill. As I recall, it would take a single country almost a week of attacking forts nonstop just to destroy all of them (assuming none were built to replace destroyed ones, and, implicitly, that all attacked forts are destroyed). With strong defenses on the important targets, that week of near invulnerability would be plenty of time to destroy the attacking country.
If attacks could target more than one location at a time, say 100 locations, those 10,000 jeeps spread evenly among the targets could have rendered those 9000 forts almost useless, taking a mere hour of nonstop attacks to blast through. It might take a couple of other weapons maxed at 10,000--I'm not a war mechanics expert like Avalon. I think a multi-targetting feature like that could revolutionize (parts of) sim war.
-Nimz
true, a multitargeting feature would totally change the game dynamic. The number of forts was supposed to take advantage of the single targeting feature, the attack round limits, and the war index.
WAR! The peace treaty finally ran out, and I finally declared war on Nimzovich. Hmmm--that sounds kinda ... um ... wrong. But I won't dwell on that. I can finally take back the country of my fearless youth! War starts Jan 30, 2181.
Thanks again, Pinnacles.
-Nimz
Hmm. I just posted a message to this thread a few minutes ago. I think the computer ate it.
Anyway, the gist of the message was that I'm now able to declare war against Nimzovich (somehow that still sounds wrong 
), which I did a few moments ago. War starts on Jan. 30, 2181. Again, thank you, Pinnacles.
-Nimz
D'oh!
that is funny.
140 forts destroyed today. About as many remain in Nimzovich. This gave me the opportunity to find the approximate lower limits to how many weapons are needed to destroy an unguarded fort. About 1150 Jeeps or HAVs are needed to destroy stubborn forts, while some are destroyed by about 950. 1200 of either weapon is plenty to destroy practically any fort. In tandem, only about 550 of each is needed.
If the multitargetting idea was embraced, 18 undefended forts could be destroyed in a single attack of 10k Jeeps + 10k HAVs. Obviously, if you are willing to use some ammo-powered weapons as well, you could destroy at a faster rate. But this rate of 18 per attack is the same as 108 per attack round (here in FB where there are 6 attacks per 4 minute round). 9000 forts undefended would take about 6 hrs (rough mental calculation) of nonstop attack to destroy.
The rate at which forts could be added would not be able to match the rate at which they are destroyed, unless a contract of >17,000 forts per game month was made.
Given that the price of forts is about 16M (I'm just rounding down the current market price), and that military POs are capped at 12B (which is higher than they were at the time of Salamat's superforts), only 750 forts could be purchased in a given game month. Since game months last 12 rl hours, ~18,000 forts could be destroyed by a determined individual with one country (with multitargetting capability) in 1 game month. If less than 17,000 additional forts per month were contracted, the attacker would eventually get through to more vital targets.
-Nimz
Another problem is i needed to build 73000 defensive helicopters to be able to destroy the forts. W3c should lower the defence index required to destroy defence. The easiest way to stop people building an obscene amount of forts is to make forts use more man power.
I believe Josi said on GR that he liked the idea of easy defense that was invincible on one of the threads. Some how I doubt offensive upgrades of any kind are in the future. :/
if that's true then this game is done. nobody wants to play a game were ppl can become invincible and no one can fight against them...like the old days...
lol @ self. I had to read that twice before I realized it wasn't me.
-Nimz
A game with no danger does seem a little boring, my empire is available for anybody who wants it and is god enough to take it from me but with the war rules as they are it just seems to easy to defend.
For another few seconds, I own the former QAZY states, plus this main and another slave.
Just for the record book, here's how my largest (yet) empire stands:
32nd, with no war damage, and over 1.2T $E in cash and loans
127th, with 174.9B $E war damage.
233rd, with 194.52B $E war damage.
432nd, with 1141.9B $E war damage, over 200B $E in cash and loans.
All countries with positive assets.
Well, that was interesting--while I was writing this I lost my slaves.
hi.
Hello Qazy, how are you?
Operation Spank Qazyland is over again