Neo Uruk Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 VE member not recognizing strategy, where have I seen that?I mean, outside of the EQ war planning board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Knights of the Round table 469,513.62 102,003.93 Alpha Wolves 174,643.64 62,256.43 OcUK 150,583.37 54,635.56 39 KoRT- 1.7 times damage ratio offensively against NPO; NPO is doing 14.5 times damage ratio offensively. So a very real contender but still both numbers are better than the ones PPO are putting out. Alpha Wolves- .6 times damage ratio offensively against DS and 1.3 times damage ratio offensively against FTW for a total of 1.23 times damage ratio offensively; DS is doing 13.3 times damage ratio offensively and FTW is doing 3.39 times damage ratio offensively for a total of 7 times damage ratio. Horrible yes but nowhere close to as bad as PPO. OcUK- 2 times damage ratio offensively against IRON; IRON is doing 5.16 times damage ratio offensively. Not even remotely close to PPO's numbers. Now, I did find one alliance who may be doing worse than PPO and that is Congolese Soukous Society. CSS- .16 times damage ratio offensively against Badlands and .47 times damage ratio offensively against DBDC for a total of .39 times damage ratio; DBDC did 2.4 times damage ratio offensively and Badlands did 4.6 times damage ratio offensively for a total of 3.42 times damage ratio. So, is Atlas doing badly? Yes, no denying that. Are they the worst? No. You showed 3 alliances doing worse than Atlas but still not as bad as PPO and I showed CSS who is doing the worst out of all the alliances done. If someone wants to be bothered and breakdown the damage ratio for the rest, go for it. I am by and far too lazy for that. So, now we are down to CSS with an offensive damage ratio of just .39 times and a defensive damage ratio of 3.42 times. Not sure who out of DBDC they fought, but that is just horrible unless they fought DBDC's upper crust. (given the amount of wars and damage amounts, that is not the case though so...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 It's also pretty telling that, Invicta currently has 12 declared wars on Atlas vs 6 Atlas declarations on Invicta. So out of the 70 or so members in your alliance, 40 or so who are not in PM, you are currently declaring 6 offensive wars, in a battle where you should be winning. So not only are you getting your asses kicked, you aren't even close to pulling your weight. You should be embarrassed, and you should be apologizing to NPO and DS every day for the fact that they are forced to pick up the slack that you and GATO are unable to do. If you are going to complain about not being prepared for war, then you don't keep your entire top tier in PM, where it is impossible for them to send aid out to your smaller nations. Unless you are terrified of the 4 Invicta nations above 100k coming out of PM and laying waste to your top tier. You can make all the excuses in the world about why you are doing poorly, congrats those same excuses are part of what make you a terrible military. Looking at your stats and reading this thread, I would have 0 issues voting Atlas as the worst military of the year. Everyone know GATO military sucks but Atlas is a new force on the battlefield and I can only think it reflects back on a failure of leadership. I can only conclude that the proper level of training and indoctrination was not conducted with new members. Discipline and ideological training are key when creating a new military force on the battlefield. However, if this reflects poorly on anyone it is NPO, not Atlas. Why were they not there to assist Atlas before the war? If I were NPO I would insist that Pacifican advisers be accepted in Atlas govt areas if the treaty is to be kept, to ensure reforms are made and Pacifica's reputation is not so tarnished in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Everyone know GATO military sucks but Atlas is a new force on the battlefield and I can only think it reflects back on a failure of leadership. I can only conclude that the proper level of training and indoctrination was not conducted with new members. Discipline and ideological training are key when creating a new military force on the battlefield. However, if this reflects poorly on anyone it is NPO, not Atlas. Why were they not there to assist Atlas before the war? If I were NPO I would insist that Pacifican advisers be accepted in Atlas govt areas if the treaty is to be kept, to ensure reforms are made and Pacifica's reputation is not so tarnished in the future. Are you advocating for a form of viceroyship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 However, if this reflects poorly on anyone it is NPO, not Atlas. Why were they not there to assist Atlas before the war? If I were NPO I would insist that Pacifican advisers be accepted in Atlas govt areas if the treaty is to be kept, to ensure reforms are made and Pacifica's reputation is not so tarnished in the future. Why is the failures of Atlas leadership NPO's problem? They're only treaty [MDoAP] partners, not a protectorate. If anything, there's more responsibility to C&G with the higher MADP treaty to be more "responsible" for the shortcomings of their blocmate.But, at the end of the day, the issue is entirely within Atlas. No one is to blame except Atlas.You love to shift blame, take responsibility from where it belongs and place it under other labels. The parasites, the bourgeois, the this, the that ... Anything except the party truly responsible for [i]their own well-being, existence, actions and choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 VE member not recognizing strategy, where have I seen that? I mean, outside of the EQ war planning board. What is your strategy? Being one of the objectively worst military alliances in Bob, or losing to an alliance that is horribly outmatched? Oh wait, you know what I am saying is true, so you are doing the only thing you know and lashing out trying to make yourself feel better about the sorry shape of your alliance. Kudos to you sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 I don't need to "feel better" about anything. You made a bunch of ~astute observations~ that aren't all that astute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 I don't need to "feel better" about anything. You made a bunch of ~astute observations~ that aren't all that astute. If that is the case, why did you start this tread in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 If that is the case, why did you start this tread in the first place? Don't you see? He is back seeking attention he has missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 If that is the case, why did you start this tread in the first place?There are some people who used actual statistics -- like Smurf and Doch -- to make a case. You made a bunch of words that are entirely subjective.Invicta is a tough target, and thus not a very good measuring stick to decide the "worst military" off of a few wars. You also made mention of our military not having a bunch of wars declared during the holiday season Don't you see? He is back seeking attention he has missed.How do people not realize that, assuming these posts are true, this is the most counter-productive thing you could do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 CSS- .16 times damage ratio offensively against Badlands and .47 times damage ratio offensively against DBDC for a total of .39 times damage ratio; DBDC did 2.4 times damage ratio offensively and Badlands did 4.6 times damage ratio offensively for a total of 3.42 times damage ratio. Don't care about your other stats, but it should be noted that CSS isn't really in the war, they're "attacking" DBDC because chow, and company raided them, then moved to the DBDC AA (in my view, to get away from people hitting them in turn for raiding CSS) so CSS declared on them while on the CSS in defence of their raids that have been going on for months, prior to this war. So, I don't think they should be included in this war, but then again, I guess you can include them in the worst military, but when you're getting nuked by nations in the 15k range, and you have no nukes, for months, the numbers will be skewed. Though using the same Atlas excuse that nations with wonders, and nukes at the low tiers that were beaten down shouldn't count against them does well for CSS too. So if we say CSS is doing the worst, using the Atlas theory of military, they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Yeah I wouldn't say CSS are doing so bad considering they're just responding to a bunch of horseshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 There are some people who used actual statistics -- like Smurf and Doch -- to make a case. You made a bunch of words that are entirely subjective. Invicta is a tough target, and thus not a very good measuring stick to decide the "worst military" off of a few wars. You also made mention of our military not having a bunch of wars declared during the holiday season It's the holidays for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 And that means that everyone should be here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Facts we should just accept and call it over on this thread: 5) Had we not been taken off our original target we'd either be at a 1:1 ratio or better. Coulda woulda shoulda. Can't predict anything like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 And that means that everyone should be here? Point is whatever excuses you're bringing up for atlas (i.e. not declaring because it's the holidays) is same thing every alliance deals with so as long as were comparing the same time period (i.e. this war) then the poor performance is correct. That is to say if Atlas would potentially do better when it isn't the holidays, like you insinuated, then every alliance would do better and Atlas would still be at the bottom. Unless you are saying the holidays hit Atlas harder than other alliances, in which case I would point you to your previous post about the benefit of hard stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Coulda woulda shoulda. Can't predict anything like this.While predicting that much is possibly a stretch, there's no doubt in my mind the original target (and date, for that matter) would have suited Atlas much better.Point is whatever excuses you're bringing up for atlas (i.e. not declaring because it's the holidays) is same thing every alliance deals with so as long as were comparing the same time period (i.e. this war) then the poor performance is correct. That is to say if Atlas would potentially do better when it isn't the holidays, like you insinuated, then every alliance would do better and Atlas would still be at the bottom.Unless you are saying the holidays hit Atlas harder than other alliances, in which case I would point you to your previous post about the benefit of hard stats. Context is key. He pointed to a lack of ongoing wars. I imagine a lot of that is due to holidays. Again, not the best performance, but it's hindered by outside factors.[OOC: Probably doesn't help that our gov is a bunch of retail workers too!] Edited December 29, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Don't care about your other stats, but it should be noted that CSS isn't really in the war, they're "attacking" DBDC because chow, and company raided them, then moved to the DBDC AA (in my view, to get away from people hitting them in turn for raiding CSS) so CSS declared on them while on the CSS in defence of their raids that have been going on for months, prior to this war. So, I don't think they should be included in this war, but then again, I guess you can include them in the worst military, but when you're getting nuked by nations in the 15k range, and you have no nukes, for months, the numbers will be skewed. Though using the same Atlas excuse that nations with wonders, and nukes at the low tiers that were beaten down shouldn't count against them does well for CSS too. So if we say CSS is doing the worst, using the Atlas theory of military, they aren't. Reread my post about using purely numbers as a guideline. I am far too lazy to attempt to look up the wars, wonders, improvements, etc... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 You're in it, therefore it's the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.