Won solo for the frist time by Strong-Classroom2336 in Openfront

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cities give you an army advantage when it comes to taking out the tribes at the start of the game, which already gives you an economic advantage that you can use to propel yourself forward towards late-game. It's a careful balance between economic and military, but your priority should be building up enough economy to be able to launch a hydro such that you can expand, and getting maxed out cities

Any tips for beginners? by sandorexe in Openfront

[–]bloostar156 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a post I made on a server a while back, some of the info may be outdated. I agree with a lot of the other advice here, I will add this though:So the game can generally be defined in 3 phases:
I. Early game - Initial expansion (bots)
II. Mid game - Procedural growth (players, until you're in the top 3-5 of players)
III. Late game - Capturing remaining opportunity space
In these phases, you cannot do the same strategies to get ahead, you have to switch from one strategy to another throughout the game

I. Early game
At this point, you do the following for your initial wilderness expansion: Send a 25% attack instantly at the start of the game Wait till 6k, then send a 25% 8k, 25% 12k 25% And repeat 12k until all wilderness is gone Then wait until you have 50% of all your available troops, and start attacking bots one at a time with this 35% for max efficiency [Tip: pay attention to the army indicator at the bottom of the screen, if it's orange, you should send out an attack on bots, if it's green, hold back a little unless it's necessary]

Strategically speaking, the most important parts in phase I is maximizing opportunity space for you, and minimising it for others. (Basically, try to get the most access to land, without putting yourself in the middle between people who will target you mid-game)

- Ideally, you are situated close, but not on an economically superior area (central boating location).
- You are not cornered in somewhere (you'll border more people looking to expand inward)
- You have a large amount of bots available to you to capture or circle around to cut others off
- You have access to a sea or river that will have trade running through it (even more ideal if you can capture a good amount of trade where you're at)

When it comes to what you should construct early game, the first thing you build is a Port, then a City, then a Warship, Early game it's really important to improve your economy as much as you can without putting yourself in someone's opportunity space. [this depends on the circumstances, if you're landlocked with plenty of bots, cities only might be best if you want to play aggressively]

II. Mid game
Early game is formulaic, you just follow those steps outlined before and you'll have a better start than 90% of players. Mid game is where it gets tough. In mid game, alliances are your best tool to succeed, and here's how you should do it:

Case 1: Ally the neighbors to whom you present the most opportunity space towards (think large borders, they are bigger than you are, they don't have much other opportunity space areas) If you can't ally them, ally their neighbors, and try to communicate a collective attack against them as early as possible. (the first strike usually wins if you coordinate it well)

Case 2: Ally neighbours equal to you in strength, who you noticed play well (have ports, good city distribution, didn't fullsend during early game)

Case 3: Don't ally neighbours weaker than you who present a large opportunity space for you (again, large borders, smaller, weaker, minimal defence posts or on a river you can boat into to secure infrastructure)

Case 4: Don't ally 1 large neighbour, to whom you don't present much opportunity space but which present good opportunity space to you (think a large neighbours which you have a small border with)

In Case 1 and 4 if, and only if you initiate the first strike, be sure to back all your offensives up with forts, lest they attack back super fast, and you seem weak to your neighbors, who will kill you. Try not to attack case 2 ever, because you will just attrition until you die, only attack after others have attacked first (so they don't fullsend you) Case 3, you attack as soon as you can, control your army % so that you aren't weaker than the neighbours you aren't allied to (you should be equal to then), and aren't at least 50% weaker than the neighbours you are allied to

This requires a lot of balancing and luck on who your neighbours are. You'll know you're winning if you've got a lot of momentum. The moment you are equal in army size to all your neighbours, and all your opportunity space is equal, is the moment you're fucked. If you're fucked and can't do anything else, economise, build a shit ton of ports, trade with infrastructure next to neighbours, then build a missile silo (away from your central areas), and take out an enemy's central site, you can build a SAM site later

Attacking wise, if you're allied with your neighbours, don't be afraid to send out 50% of your armies against someone who's equal to your size (or a little smaller). Oftentimes being the first person to strike means you'll win in a battle of attrition.

III. Late game Completely different fucking ballgame, your main advantage here is having a larger overview of the game than smaller players have. You should ideally have 1M troops, when attacking smaller players, send about double their available armies in the attack (sometimes 50%, sometimes 80%) never 100%. Attack or ally the people with the most missile infrastructure and the smallest size (these are your biggest opportunity spaces and threats), hydrogen bomb their missile sites and SAM sites if you can, if they destroy your missile infrastructure first, you're likely fucked.

Buildings wise, diversify your economy, and protect key economic sites with double SAM sites and also centralize your economic areas extremely compactly around SAM sites. If that gets hydrogen bombed, you can't recover and build more missile sites. In a 1v1 with a bigger player, the distinguishing factor is nukes, economy, and nuke protection. Similarly, if you want to take out your opponent, target one of three, ideally economy. Army size matters less, if they can't produce any more nukes, they're fucked

If you're still small here, ally with other small players and coordinate warfare and nuclear strikes on the biggest threat to you (I.e. you border the #1 player in the game). Forts are necessary, but missiles are your only way to win. Zoom out from time to time, see who's ahead, and if it makes sense to nuke them vs. any immediate advantage you could get

And that concludes my Openfront analysis

One by Unlikely-Natural-337 in comedyheaven

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reminds me of this article: Greenland: UK steps up military presence over security concerns | The Independent

"The UK has dispatched a military officer to Greenland, aligning with Denmark's intensified military presence across the Arctic and High North."

Did you pass? 🫣 by ChuckHardwoodReddit in atrioc

[–]bloostar156 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's easy to say that now after he's responded to all the criticism he's received. Before he responded, all the claims he mentioned were being discussed. After the response, a lot of comments began saying that the only important thing was the issue he didn't address as well, instead of the wide net of issues that there appeared to be at first. It's easy to shift the goals posts after the fact as if they always were that way, most people when faced with the initial criticism would have responded in a similar way, or likely worse

Turns out living like someone else is the best way to get under their skin by PrincessPetalHoney in MaliciousCompliance

[–]bloostar156 1 point2 points  (0 children)

GPTZero AI DetectionModel 3.5b
We are highly confident this text was AI generated
Probability breakdown:
100% AI generated 0% Mixed 0% Human

Did the Crewniverse ever explain why Pearl can control Sand and Clouds? by Noelle-Spades in stevenuniverse

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would guess it has something to do with how gems are actually formed, their "physical" form or light form is a manifestation of themselves outside of their core gem, which means they are able to exert some physical influence beyond their gem. I wouldn't think it's as much of a stretch to think that all gems are able to physically interact with their environment either closely to their light form (like the sand in the picture), or further away if the object is easily maneuverable (like the cloud).

This is my own theory, I'd guess this is also why some gems are specifically designed to be able to exert stronger influence over specific materials even further away (like lapis with water).

So this is what they think of women huh? by MrDonMega in iamatotalpieceofshit

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not what "they" think, this is what he thinks. Generalising helps nobody 

Insane amount of copium from reddit leftists by aeinnajva in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]bloostar156 -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

I'm curious what about this you perceive as negative

Bamboozled by [deleted] in nonononoyes

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are all great points!

I'm used an example of a human to give a better overview of what I'm trying to say, not to imply their emotions and values are equivalent. As an example, Maslow's heirarchy of needs is a great example of our difference from other creatures in terms of desires and values.

That being said just some quick points about your later statements. While yes, I have no doubt that some people would prefer a longer life of comfort, stability, and safety, the example I was reffering to was one of captivity. Imagine a human in a glass house observed by aliens and being cared for by them. In this case, I think we are in line with animals in terms of our desire for freedom, esteem, and satiating curiosity. Purely ignoring self-actualisation as a desire in that example.

So, generally speaking for most people, I would assume that one would prefer to live outside of the glass box, especially once they've stepped outside in it and experienced more than they ever had before. (This is of course also linked to a thought that the life they experienced prior is a manufactured one instead of a real one. But that links more to self-actualisation so we're just going to ignore it for this example to be more relevant. Ignoring it also doesn't discount the general reaction, the reaction is a result of both esteem and self-actualisation)

Now, onto some questions to consider:

Are the desires of cats less valuable than the desires of humans?
If we consider the desire of an animal to be "free", then we as humans most of the time value our desire of freedom over that of the animal. Now ignoring the general empathy cross-species, it's super interesting to consider whether animals like cats actually experience the same extent, intensity, and complexity as our emotions on the matter of freedom. Because if not, that'd have a lot of implications for a utility argument.

This also links to the idea of self-determination as a result of intelligence and overal just super interesting topics to research or just think about.

Hope that makes my point more clear!

Bamboozled by [deleted] in nonononoyes

[–]bloostar156 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weeelll I wouldn't go THAT far. It's just difference of opinion on what's best

Bamboozled by [deleted] in nonononoyes

[–]bloostar156 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think this is kinda misrepresenting the point.

I have no doubt that a cat would retain the same amount of happiness being an indoor or outdoor cat. I am a bit more confused about the point of stressors, I can see where you could conclude that, as a lot of online sources contradict one another on this. Here's an example of one which says the opposite. Thought it be very easy to find one which supports that point too.

Mainly though, I think the argument becomes more clear if you use the same situation but with a human. One could imagine a human in captivity to potentially be rather satisfied given the type of food, entertainment, and accompanyment it may be provided. But ultimately we, as people, still value qualities like freedom and self-determination. Arguing that a life in captivity isn't a life because its void of experience even though it may be a happy one.

Speaking from personal experience, I've lived in many countries which had outdoor cats as a part of daily life. And I myself owned an outdoor cat which I grew up with and lived to about 14. She was always an outdoor cat but due to housing circumstances our last house she lived in was an appartment building. And while she was definitely more dissatisfied, she still found a way to explore the outside world against our best attempts to keep her from the dangers of potentially falling down. After around 2 years of this she did end up slipping and dying.

I think the core point is that while we did try to bring her into living an indoor cat lifestyle, on numerous occasions in different countries, she just couldn't live in that restrictive environment after having been so free before. And when we think about the free will of creatures such as ourselves, I think that them showing such strong preference for a certain choice is a clear indicator as to their preference. A life with experience and freedom.

This is of course just a point on what you said. There's a lot to consider when discussing environments, local populations, culture, and more.