Users browsing this thread:

TAC Saxton · 10-16-2014, 09:34 PM

Exactly, and the so called tug of war isn't as bad as you think. The more nations that research a cure, the greater the overall effect is. The whole point is to keep the death toll and the infection rate as low as possible while keeping the survival rate as high as possible. Plus, the Cure missiles are a great help in keeping the infected in check, which eliminates the need to kill.

I am a Super Villain

**CrimsonTideFan** · 10-16-2014, 09:37 PM

Well the less zombies there are the less likely survivors will get infected. I still fail to see the point of playing tug of war with any and every pro-zombie nation in TSP, when you can kill off their troops, leave them with 100% dead populaton, you guys can't cure them and therefore their friends can turn any survivors into more zombies. Please tell me you at least understand where I'm coming from on this.

DMoRA of the CIA
MoA
Officer in the SPSF

TAC Saxton · 10-16-2014, 09:59 PM

Again, the point is to keep the death toll low. Killing pro-zombie nations affects the region as well as the individual nations in question. Try thinking outside the border.

I am a Super Villain

**CrimsonTideFan** · 10-16-2014, 10:35 PM

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

DMoRA of the CIA
MoA
Officer in the SPSF

Torchwood · 10-16-2014, 10:56 PM

There is a paradox to the whole "Tug of War" concept. If I do recall the horde nations had a slightly stronger attack relative to cure nations. You can't save people when they are being actively infected. Take it this way. There are hundreds of massive nations that would classify as inactive. A couple of horde nations could infest them all, and thus increase the work for the cure-ers tenfold. Not forgetting that a fraction of these infected will expire over time.

The best option possible it to kill the horde nations. They are actively trying to harm our efforts. Your efforts. They don't want anyone to survive. They are the opposite of your goal. Taking a zero-kill approach is giving them a free ticket to infest rampantly. And seeing as they can't be banjected this is the next best choice.

I prefer curing. I'm planning to put most of my resources on cure. However I understand that there will be a handfull of zombie nations. A small fraction that will try to ruin the fun for the rest of us. If no military action is taken they will infect and indirectly kill more than you can cure.

"We don't have to dream that we're important. We are" - Robert House

***Kris Kringle*** · 10-16-2014, 10:58 PM

We have reached an impasse then. Killing just isn't a legitimate option to me. Keeping a low (or no) death toll is as important to me as keeping a high survival rate. Having dead people is already a defeat.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

TAC Saxton · 10-16-2014, 11:53 PM

Lemme break it down this way:

The ability for pro-zombie nations to infect others is the opposite of researching a cure. Both progress passively at a rate that is dependent on other nations that choose the same nation. Of course, the infection spreads passively on its own as well. That's one point for the zombies.

Cure Missiles instantly cure zombies by the millions (or far more depending on the target population) and you earn more effective missiles as you use them. That's one point for humanity.

The deciding factor is how many nations choose the same option.

If we divide between kill and cure, that's one point for the zombies.
If we choose to cure, that's one point for humanity.
If we choose to kill, neither side wins.

I am a Super Villain

Torchwood · 10-16-2014, 11:59 PM

(10-16-2014, 11:53 PM)TAC Wrote: Lemme break it down this way:

The ability for pro-zombie nations to infect others is the opposite of researching a cure. Both progress passively at a rate that is dependent on other nations that choose the same nation. Of course, the infection spreads passively on its own as well. That's one point for the zombies.

Cure Missiles instantly cure zombies by the millions (or far more depending on the target population) and you earn more effective missiles as you use them. That's one point for humanity.

The deciding factor is how many nations choose the same option.

If we divide between kill and cure, that's one point for the zombies.
If we choose to cure, that's one point for humanity.
If we choose to kill, neither side wins.

Do consider, that it won't take many of them to infect several inactive nations. My plan doesn't call for our forces to be divided. It just calls for the few pro-kill players to restrict their fire towards horde nations.

"We don't have to dream that we're important. We are" - Robert House

TAC Saxton · 10-17-2014, 01:17 AM

That is in fact the very definition of divided...

I am a Super Villain

**CrimsonTideFan** · 10-17-2014, 06:24 AM

What's your problem with working with pro-kill groups, you know a few are going to choose the kill option, so why not just use all possible resources.

DMoRA of the CIA
MoA
Officer in the SPSF

(This post was last modified: 10-17-2014, 06:25 AM by Farengeto.)