A Joint OP/LE Announcement

[paul711]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1315941890' post='2799878']
You can't possibly compare the two wars. Especially since we can take on OP 1v1 Any Day, Any time. You know you can't take us 1v1, though. We hit DF to even up the membership numbers, and statistics. You guys brought in LE because you accept, acknowledge, and fully recognize you can't take us on alone. And if you tried, you know we'd both wreck each other. Before the war was declared Anon had 23, LE had over 30, and OP had about 5 nukes. Sun had zero. Your point? And I'm pretty happy with Anonymous- No one in there right mind can expect Anon to prevail against a Nuke disadvantage & all statistics against her, it's unrealistic.... Especially since SUN is a training AA, and I applaud them for their efforts in trying to get better.


tl;dr You guys brought in LE to assure we got kicked & you receive little to no damages, Anon hit DF to give you guys a chance since we had 10-17~ more members than you. Oh wait, you wanted us to commit suicide and attack two AAs our size so we can please OP? Son, please.


Edit: What?



Confusion.
[/quote]
Bald faced lies, you know it, we know and others know it. Therm admitted last night in our public channel that DF was added to pad stats. He was also shocked when he went back through the targetting at how many of them were huge down declares.

Now back to this war, we approached LE because we thought they would like a piece of Anon along with us. We are actually hitting SUN unlike your 5 to 6 wars against DF. Hypocrite definition is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" or in other words Confusion.

[paul711]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1315943136' post='2799888']
We declared wars on DF's top nations, about 15 wars were declared- We focused the rest on OP which was where the ANS was.... The only difference between OP and Anon was Membership, and it wasn't a very broad difference. Also, no- 'You' didn't hurt us as much as you think or wish you did, Apart from OP, we were fighting DF, Rogues from Tropic Thunder, Rogues from Plutonian Nyborg, Rogues from SUN, and Rogues from TE as a whole. Also, we did win. We stomped OP, and could have easily continued to fight, even after we were quite literally fighting half of TE. You will believe what you want to believe, and that is fine. Don't let facts get in the way, though.



Confusion.
[/quote]
LOL you really don't have a clue what happened last round.

[Awesome Dog]

Therm, I wholeheartedly disagree with every single thing you have said with the sole exception of "I really don't want to debate this".

Fake Edit: "Every single" and "sole" might be a stretch, I didn't actually read your entire post.

[grandmonarch]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315933628' post='2799791']
If you took out Anon's 3 NS members then Anon would have way less total members in comparison. Either way, Anon is significantly weaker in one stat or the other. As far as the nukes are concerned, it's actually the multiplicative difference that matters more. Your example is bad because 6 times is far more than than 2 times, just as 250 is more than 15. Either way that's bad. Anyways, even as you put it "only 15 nukes" more is a HUGE difference when you factor in the fact that you got the blitz and the higher ANS than both Anon and SUN. Your upper tier nations are also much stronger. This is basically a one-sided fight.
[/quote]

Actually thats not true, Anon/SUN would still have more combined members (77-13=64) than OP/LE (61), but Anon would have much higher ANS. Also, 15 nukes doesnt even begin to compare to 250 nukes, IMO. You can twist any stat however you like based on opinion. As for the blitz advnatage, next time we will let our opponents know 2 days in advance if we will blitz them, maybe even let them blitz us

[Mark8240]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315943468' post='2799892']
I also didn't play last round. I don't know about anything that happened, but last round [i]doesn't matter[/i]. TE politics should work on a round-by-round basis. From how you're putting it I'm inclined to feel that this OP/LE declaration was in revenge for last round.
[/quote]

Te politics should work from round to round but they dont. I cant speak for LE or even OP but personally i sure in the hell hope this is pay back for what anon did. Also Con your full of it. Your idea of what happened last round is so flawed its impressive. After 4 days of war between Anon and OP/DF you had done over 200K in damage to us while doing about 20K to DF. You dint focus on them at all they were stat padding an you know it. If you would have just declared on us and said hey this is a declare down cus we dont like you i personally would have respected it. I wouldn't have liked it but I could have at least had some respect for that. And no it wasn't 15 wars declared on DF it was just a few and even if it was 15 that still leaves out all but what 7ish nations? Your a coward and you know it. You got hit with a great blitz and your mad because your losing.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Mark8240

[Ernsters]

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1315943410' post='2799891']
The real travesty is that PS lost 3 solid targets in this war.

Where's the crying for that?
[/quote]



we're actually all in cahoots with each-other after we heard what PS planned for this round.

u scary.

also.. there's no crying emoticon? wtheeeck...

[Merovingian]

[quote name='grandmonarch' timestamp='1315946962' post='2799922']
Actually thats not true, Anon/SUN would still have more combined members (77-13=64) than OP/LE (61), but Anon would have much higher ANS. Also, 15 nukes doesnt even begin to compare to 250 nukes, IMO. You can twist any stat however you like based on opinion. As for the blitz advnatage, next time we will let our opponents know 2 days in advance if we will blitz them, maybe even let them blitz us
[/quote]

"Much higher" would be roughly equal. Which turns into "much lower" after the blitz. And then you can go look at SUN, who has no nukes whatsoever. And only started off with [b]one nuke[/b]. Yeah, those LE guys fighting SUN are sure as hell having a hard time. As far as the blitz is concerned, you keep trying to falsely portray me as saying that the blitz is what's unfair. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's nothing wrong with a blitz. But don't blitz people who start off weaker than you.


[quote name='Mark8240' timestamp='1315947568' post='2799928']
Te politics should work from round to round but they dont. I cant speak for LE or even OP but personally i sure in the hell hope this is pay back for what anon did. Also Con your full of it. Your idea of what happened last round is so flawed its impressive. After 4 days of war between Anon and OP/DF you had done over 200K in damage to us while doing about 20K to DF. You dint focus on them at all they were stat padding an you know it. If you would have just declared on us and said hey this is a declare down cus we dont like you i personally would have respected it. I wouldn't have liked it but I could have at least had some respect for that. And no it wasn't 15 wars declared on DF it was just a few and even if it was 15 that still leaves out all but what 7ish nations? Your a coward and you know it. You got hit with a great blitz and your mad because your losing.
[/quote]

Like I said, I wasn't in Anon last round. I came back to TE from a 10 round hiatus. There's absolutely no reason for me to really be on either side of the argument. Even though I'm in Anon, I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective. For example, last round when I made a nation on day 50 to check it out I saw Fleegle's DoW and I defended him from false attacks, despite the fact that I'm in no relation whatsoever to him. It's fashionable to pick on people for "whining," but sometimes complaining is justified. Finally. if everyone wants this "eye for an eye" business, purposefully skewed wars will never end.

As far as I'm concerned personally, I'm fighting the only OP nation with an HNMS. Of my two opponents, one appears to be turtling and the other has been reduced to a warchest of a couple hundred k. I coordinated well with my teammate to win every GA so far. But I'm only one person in an alliance, and you can see that SUN as well as most Anon members are getting stomped. You can't deny that the top OP and LE members like colonel mustard, Senator, king scott, Infinate Citadel and more are basically fighting raids. Their opponents have no nukes, are half their NS, and are from different alliances in some cases.

[paul711]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315953735' post='2799981']
"Much higher" would be roughly equal. Which turns into "much lower" after the blitz. And then you can go look at SUN, who has no nukes whatsoever. And only started off with [b]one nuke[/b]. Yeah, those LE guys fighting SUN are sure as hell having a hard time. As far as the blitz is concerned, you keep trying to falsely portray me as saying that the blitz is what's unfair. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's nothing wrong with a blitz. But don't blitz people who start off weaker than you.




Like I said, I wasn't in Anon last round. I came back to TE from a 10 round hiatus. There's absolutely no reason for me to really be on either side of the argument. Even though I'm in Anon, I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective. For example, last round when I made a nation on day 50 to check it out I saw Fleegle's DoW and I defended him from false attacks, despite the fact that I'm in no relation whatsoever to him. It's fashionable to pick on people for "whining," but sometimes complaining is justified. Finally. if everyone wants this "eye for an eye" business, purposefully skewed wars will never end.

As far as I'm concerned personally, I'm fighting the only OP nation with an HNMS. Of my two opponents, one appears to be turtling and the other has been reduced to a warchest of a couple hundred k. I coordinated well with my teammate to win every GA so far. But I'm only one person in an alliance, and you can see that SUN as well as most Anon members are getting stomped. You can't deny that the top OP and LE members like colonel mustard, Senator, king scott, Infinate Citadel and more are basically fighting raids. Their opponents have no nukes, are half their NS, and are from different alliances in some cases.
[/quote]
At the start of this I donated just to be able to reach the guys I am fighting.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1315955559' post='2799986']
At the start of this I donated just to be able to reach the guys I am fighting.
[/quote]

That's probably because they donated too.

[Ernsters]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315953735' post='2799981']
As far as I'm concerned personally, I'm fighting the only OP nation with an HNMS. Of my two opponents, one appears to be turtling and the other has been reduced to a warchest of a couple hundred k. I coordinated well with my teammate to win every GA so far. But I'm only one person in an alliance, and you can see that SUN as well as most Anon members are getting stomped. You can't deny that the top OP and LE members like colonel mustard, Senator, king scott, Infinate Citadel and more are basically fighting raids. Their opponents have no nukes, are half their NS, and are from different alliances in some cases.
[/quote]

I attacked 3 Anon nations with nukes/HNMS, myself and a teammate also coordinated, however out of both of us, my teammate is the one with the nukes, I own 0.
IF those 3 Anon nations would have fought back and coordinated, they could have easily put both of us out of commission.

So maybe we have more nukes than you, try to steal some.
So maybe we have more ANS, build more.
So maybe we entered a war with an advantage, who doesn't?

The reason our top tiers are fighting guys half their NS, is because we blitzed the infra out of everyone.
Me and my teammate (and I'm not bragging) have destroyed over 1.7k Infra in total from the Anon nations we attacked, whilst together we've only lost some +300.

Last round we hit Anon (it [B]was[/b] and updeclare) and they fought back, well, well enough to surprise all of us.
What's different this round?

the stats.

We have more advantages this war, and what does Anon do? turtle and talk about how it's unfair.

If your alliances (SUN and Anon) were coordinating and fighting back, like how LE/OP does with every war, you guys would have more fun, and more of a chance.

this is why people say you're just whining, because that's really all we see. I don't see any action from Anon, I see two CM's a nuke and posts about how this war is unfair.

[KillerCruiser]

Well I just felt like giving an update of this war .

Update to the stats of right now at 6 PM server time, 38 hours after the war...


Nations NS Avg NS Nukes
Anon 45 121,867 2,708 11
SUN 38 106,474 2,802 0
[b]Total 83 228,341 2,751 11[/b]

LE 28 150,185 5,364 36
OP 34 184,473 5,426 6
[b]Total 62 334,658 5,397 42[/b]

-----------------------------------
And here is the stats before the war As of 5:00pm server time

Nations NS Avg NS Nukes
Anon 43 180,261 4,192 17
SUN 34 115,516 3,398 1
[b]Total 77 295,777 3,841 18[/b]

LE 28 130,158 4,649 29
OP 33 154,598 4,685 3
[b]Total 61 284,756 4,668 32[/b]


---------------
Losses and gains in the last 36 hours of war...

Anon: +2 members, -58,394 Total NS, -1,484 Avg NS, -6 Nukes
SUN: +4 Members, -9,042 Total NS, -596 Avg NS, -1 Nuke
[b]Total: +6 Members, -67,436 Total NS, -2080 Avg NS, -7 Nukes[/b]

LE: +0 Members, +20,027 Total NS, +715 Avg NS, +7 Nukes
OP: +1 Member, +29,875 Total NS, +741 Avg NS, +3 Nukes
[b]Total: +1 Member, 49,902 Total NS, +1456 Avg NS, +10 Nukes[/b]

[Merovingian]

[quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1315956005' post='2799992']
So maybe we have more nukes than you, try to steal some.
So maybe we have more ANS, build more.
So maybe we entered a war with an advantage, who doesn't?
[/quote]

1. We steal some of yours, you steal some of ours. End result: the same.
2. Easy to say. What, can I just pull money of out the air and "build more"? Keeping a WC is a decent strategy.
3. Uh, fair wars don't. You guys had the statistical advantage AND the blitz advantage. Why didn't you choose Anon and PS or something like that? You didn't want to fight a real war. Like all your members are saying, this is supposedly in revenge for something that happened last round.

[quote]The reason our top tiers are fighting guys half their NS, is because we blitzed the infra out of everyone.
Me and my teammate (and I'm not bragging) have destroyed over 1.7k Infra in total from the Anon nations we attacked, whilst together we've only lost some +300.

Last round we hit Anon (it [B]was[/b] and updeclare) and they fought back, well, well enough to surprise all of us.
What's different this round?

the stats.

We have more advantages this war, and what does Anon do? turtle and talk about how it's unfair.

If your alliances (SUN and Anon) were coordinating and fighting back, like how LE/OP does with every war, you guys would have more fun, and more of a chance.

this is why people say you're just whining, because that's really all we see. I don't see any action from Anon, I see two CM's a nuke and posts about how this war is unfair.[/quote]

And look at how I'm doing? I got blitzed at update and so far (nukes included) I've lost around 400 infra. I have won EVERY battle against untuochable and all but one against superman. I quadded very well with my teammate Tim and we have knocked 800 infra off of one guy. The other one, despite being the aggressor, is now turtling. Impressive.

We're not turtling at all. Why don't you go ahead and count how many of us are doing that? Some people are simply inactive and have somewhere around a few hundred soldiers remaining. That's not turtling, since it does no good. I simply don't care about what happened last round. I had no part in it, so don't use that against me. Choosing to attack SUN, a nukeless and relatively new alliance, is just fluff to try to even out certain stats.

[Ernsters]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315956510' post='2799998']
1. We steal some of yours, you steal some of ours. End result: the same.
2. Easy to say. What, can I just pull money of out the air and "build more"? Keeping a WC is a decent strategy.
3. Uh, fair wars don't. You guys had the statistical advantage AND the blitz advantage. Why didn't you choose Anon and PS or something like that? You didn't want to fight a real war. Like all your members are saying, this is supposedly in revenge for something that happened last round.
[/quote]

2) You can start by suggesting everyone carry fighters
3) We'd never fought SUN, maybe we wanted to

p.s. "Like all your members are saying, this is supposedly in revenge for something that happened last round."
I'm not OP, man.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='KillerCruiser' timestamp='1315956220' post='2799995']
Losses and gains in the last 36 hours of war...

Anon: +2 members, -58,394 Total NS, -1,484 Avg NS, -6 Nukes
SUN: +4 Members, -9,042 Total NS, -596 Avg NS, -1 Nuke
[b]Total: +6 Members, -67,436 Total NS, -2080 Avg NS, -7 Nukes[/b]

LE: +0 Members, +20,027 Total NS, +715 Avg NS, +7 Nukes
OP: +1 Member, +29,875 Total NS, +741 Avg NS, +3 Nukes
[b]Total: +1 Member, 49,902 Total NS, +1456 Avg NS, +10 Nukes[/b]
[/quote]

This shows just how much of a walk-over this is for LE and OP. A gain of 50k NS while warring?

[Merovingian]

[quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1315956723' post='2800001']
2) You can start by suggesting everyone carry fighters
3) We'd never fought SUN, maybe we wanted to

p.s. "Like all your members are saying, this is supposedly in revenge for something that happened last round."
I'm not OP, man.
[/quote]

1. I guess you concede this point?
2. Nobody carries 60 planes in week 1. You guys knew a war was coming, so you built up fighters beforehand. When we're blitzed, it's hard to get planes in time for everyone.
3. What? You're clearly fighting SUN.

P.S. My fault there then. I'm speaking generally as OP and LE being one entity in the war.

[Confusion]

[quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1315956723' post='2800001']
2) You can start by suggesting everyone carry fighters
3) We'd never fought SUN, maybe we wanted to

p.s. "Like all your members are saying, this is supposedly in revenge for something that happened last round."
I'm not OP, man.
[/quote]

You guys are their (OP's) accessory to achieve victory, since they know they can't do it alone



Confusion.

[paul711]

Less talk and more turtleing, I mean fighting. It is no secret, and I do not deny it, many in OP held a grudge against G6/Anonymous. Merovingian I respect your opinion but it is your opinion. TPC fought a week one war aginst us a couple of rounds ago it is where we got the inspiration (we learn and adapt), they happen and there is a precedent. As far as down declare or up declare it is hard to make any fight exactly even and satisfy everyone. Many from Anon keep asking why we didn't fight PS and Anon, well the short answer is, and I speak for OP only as I don't know all of LE's politics, we like PS and dislike Anon. The past does come into play when the same leaders stay in power for multiple rounds, hence our motto "God forgives, OP does not" ( disclaimer this is not to be taken as speaking for LE in any way). I am, however, starting to have respect for some Anon members, like Therm who I find a sensible guy and despite our problems I have always liked Stevie and Dogbite.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1315957676' post='2800013']
Less talk and more turtleing, I mean fighting. It is no secret, and I do not deny it, many in OP held a grudge against G6/Anonymous. Merovingian I respect your opinion but it is your opinion. TPC fought a week one war aginst us a couple of rounds ago it is where we got the inspiration (we learn and adapt), they happen and there is a precedent. As far as down declare or up declare it is hard to make any fight exactly even and satisfy everyone. Many from Anon keep asking why we didn't fight PS and Anon, well the short answer is, and I speak for OP only as I don't know all of LE's politics, we like PS and dislike Anon. The past does come into play when the same leaders stay in power for multiple rounds, hence our motto "God forgives, OP does not" ( disclaimer this is not to be taken as speaking for LE in any way). I am, however, starting to have respect for some Anon members, like Therm who I find a sensible guy and despite our problems I have always liked Stevie and Dogbite.
[/quote]

Well, if you want to bring up how justified attacking with a grudge is, that's a different matter. I'm not entirely against that idea. However, since this is my first round in Anon, I have not participated in last round's fights and your grudge against Anon doesn't hold against me. That's part of the reason I see that this is unjust. From the very early rounds that I've played, I have seen LE fight and I have great respect for LE as an awesome alliance who knows how to coordinate and do well. Mind you, I used to play SE and TE under a different name and I lead a fairly successful alliance myself for a few rounds. I used to do really well but I always got rouged/declared on by people who hold a grudge or just want to halt my flagrunning. Whatever. That's just fine - there's nothing wrong with war and I'm certainly not crying over any loss of infra. I'm participating in this debate just to point out that this DoW wasn't as fair as OP and LE like to portray it.

[Thomasj_tx]

I find this thread really surprising.

When I was given the targets, I did not expect any whining about and "unfair war" or a huge down declare.

I expected whining about a Sunday night attack.

I expected whining about it being too early of an attack.

I expected whining about it being carried out on 9/11.

I expected whining about it being on the One Week Anni.

This is just silly.

Excluding the 3 NS nations, everyone should be on just about the same footing. TC's are not an issue. We all started out on the same day and with the same cash/infra/etc. In many cases, Anon spent more on military and less on infra. SUN did the opposite. That was each their choice.

OP decided before the end of last round that we were going to have a early war this round, to shake things up a bit and for something different. TPC did it to us 2 rounds ago and we wnated to give it a try.

We did not decide on a target until 2 days before the DoW. We were waiting to see how things progressed. We were not even considering a joint DoW, but the opportunity arose and we chose to go in with LE because we have so many past rounds where we were always warring against them. If that did not work out, we would have gone alone.


EDIT: I just saw Paul's post that came up while I was typing. LOL!

Edited September 14, 2011 by Thomasj_tx

[paul711]

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315958183' post='2800017']
Well, if you want to bring up how justified attacking with a grudge is, that's a different matter. I'm not entirely against that idea. However, since this is my first round in Anon, I have not participated in last round's fights and your grudge against Anon doesn't hold against me. That's part of the reason I see that this is unjust. From the very early rounds that I've played, I have seen LE fight and I have great respect for LE as an awesome alliance who knows how to coordinate and do well. Mind you, I used to play SE and TE under a different name and I lead a fairly successful alliance myself for a few rounds. I used to do really well but I always got rouged/declared on by people who hold a grudge or just want to halt my flagrunning. Whatever. That's just fine - there's nothing wrong with war and I'm certainly not crying over any loss of infra. [b]I'm participating in this debate just to point out that this DoW wasn't as fair as OP and LE like to portray it.
[/quote][/b]

Fair enough and I respect your opinion.

[paul711]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315958346' post='2800018']
I find this thread really surprising.

When I was given the targets, I did not expect any whining about and "unfair war" or a huge down declare.

I expected whining about a Sunday night attack.

I expected whining about it being too early of an attack.

I expected whining about it being carried out on 9/11.

I expected whining about it being on the One Week Anni.

This is just silly.

Excluding the 3 NS nations, everyone should be on just about the same footing. TC's are not an issue. We all started out on the same day and with the same cash/infra/etc. In many cases, Anon spent more on military and less on infra. SUN did the opposite. That was each their choice.

OP decided before the end of last round that we were going to have a early war this round, to shake things up a bit and for something different. TPC did it to us 2 rounds ago and we wnated to give it a try.

We did not decide on a target until 2 days before the DoW. We were waiting to see how things progressed. We were not even considering a joint DoW, but the opportunity arose and we chose to go in with LE because we have so many past rounds where we were always warring against them. If that did not work out, we would have gone alone.


EDIT: I just saw Paul's post that came up while I was typing. LOL!
[/quote]
True words, everything is as Cowboy stated.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1315857015' post='2799328']
I wouldn't say it's a huge down declare, but it's not the updeclare I'm used to seeing. PS/Anon actually would've been an interesting target for them, but probably a bit too much of an updeclare. Maybe bringing along Synergy and also hitting THP? /shrug

Wars are getting harder to make "even" these days.
[/quote]

It could have been an old fashioned 1 v 1. Generally (in my case anyways) you bring in more AAs to make it more fair. If a 1v1 is near fair enough you just go with it. Heh, we all know whats happened here though


[quote name='dockingscheduled' timestamp='1315888613' post='2799626']
any AA complaining about ANS at this point only has themselves to look at. its only been a week with no AA wars, any short comings from your ANS is a result of being inferior builders or holding back your NS by choice.
[/quote]

It is common knowledge that Le and OP are 2 of the more "Elite AAs" Annon was just behind them this round, with PS just behind annon. (If we are using ANS+sanction as the scale)
[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315934899' post='2799801']
Another overlooked fact is that at the start of the war, Anon/SUN had 5 nations with HNMS's protecting 10 nukes. LE/OP had none.

And Anon added about 6 nukes between the 5:00pm stats posted and the start of the war.
[/quote]

That is not true, and someone else has already corrected you. Probably just an error on your part.


[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315938269' post='2799835']
I am currently ranked first in Anon NS-wise by a substantial amount. There are currently 10 OP nations above me and 10 LE nations above me. I am also stronger than any of the SUN nations. That shows how one-sided this war is.
[/quote]

As I have always said, the proof is in the pudding. It is clear to me that this is not a fair war, but hey, who cares? This makes the game all the more interesting in future rounds

[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315943468' post='2799892']
I'm not Anon gov. This is my first round in Anon and I'm just here for fun. I'm not flagrunning, I don't really care about my rank, and I like war in TE. But I can't bear to see people to say that this is a fair war when OP and LE have a clear advantage. TBH, we had a slim chance at the beginning and now with what's already happened Anon and SUN are nowhere close to you guys.

I also didn't play last round. I don't know about anything that happened, but last round [i]doesn't matter[/i]. TE politics should work on a round-by-round basis. From how you're putting it I'm inclined to feel that this OP/LE declaration was in revenge for last round.
[/quote]

You are 100% correct with that. Then again, we have also helped fuel this fued that goes from round to round. Our excuse is we were flag running

[quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1315956005' post='2799992']
I attacked 3 Anon nations with nukes/HNMS, myself and a teammate also coordinated, however out of both of us, my teammate is the one with the nukes, I own 0.
IF those 3 Anon nations would have fought back and coordinated, they could have easily put both of us out of commission.

So maybe we have more nukes than you, try to steal some.
So maybe we have more ANS, build more.
So maybe we entered a war with an advantage, who doesn't?

The reason our top tiers are fighting guys half their NS, is because we blitzed the infra out of everyone.
Me and my teammate (and I'm not bragging) have destroyed over 1.7k Infra in total from the Anon nations we attacked, whilst together we've only lost some +300.

Last round we hit Anon (it [B]was[/b] and updeclare) and they fought back, well, well enough to surprise all of us.
What's different this round?

the stats.

We have more advantages this war, and what does Anon do? turtle and talk about how it's unfair.

If your alliances (SUN and Anon) were coordinating and fighting back, like how LE/OP does with every war, you guys would have more fun, and more of a chance.

this is why people say you're just whining, because that's really all we see. I don't see any action from Anon, I see two CM's a nuke and posts about how this war is unfair.
[/quote]

Maybe people are a little unhappy with LE due to the fact that this is a 90 day round, and you decide to hit on day 7, which will carry consequences for the entire round. I believe you were let off lightly last round as a goodwill gesture, yet you come back this round with a significant advantage (this early in the round). A war on say day 10 15 or 20 doesnt carry as much weight, as with a little more time and a little more cash you can rebuild from big hits, nations will have decent spy levels etc. It also takes a little longer for nations to be knocked out of the top 5%, meaning any nuke advantage isnt as magnified. It just seems like last round didnt come into your consideration at all.


At the end of the day, we see this for what it is. Depriving everyone of what would have been an awesome PS vs Anonymous war sometime down the line. Maybe even a 2 or 3 part series

[Merovingian]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315958346' post='2800018']
I find this thread really surprising.

When I was given the targets, I did not expect any whining about and "unfair war" or a huge down declare.

I expected whining about a Sunday night attack.

I expected whining about it being too early of an attack.

I expected whining about it being carried out on 9/11.

I expected whining about it being on the One Week Anni.

This is just silly.

Excluding the 3 NS nations, everyone should be on just about the same footing. TC's are not an issue. We all started out on the same day and with the same cash/infra/etc. In many cases, Anon spent more on military and less on infra. SUN did the opposite. That was each their choice.

OP decided before the end of last round that we were going to have a early war this round, to shake things up a bit and for something different. TPC did it to us 2 rounds ago and we wnated to give it a try.

We did not decide on a target until 2 days before the DoW. We were waiting to see how things progressed. We were not even considering a joint DoW, but the opportunity arose and we chose to go in with LE because we have so many past rounds where we were always warring against them. If that did not work out, we would have gone alone.


EDIT: I just saw Paul's post that came up while I was typing. LOL!
[/quote]

That's fine. All your "expectations" don't matter as much as to the nature of the up/down-declaring of the war. All I can say is that the stats showed in the important areas how much stronger OP and LE were. Like so many people say, they held a grudge. It's natural to get revenge. But to do that AND claim that the war is even is a bit hypocritical.

[StevieG]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315958346' post='2800018']
I find this thread really surprising.

When I was given the targets, I did not expect any whining about and "unfair war" or a huge down declare.

I expected whining about a Sunday night attack.

I expected whining about it being too early of an attack.

I expected whining about it being carried out on 9/11.

I expected whining about it being on the One Week Anni.

This is just silly.

Excluding the 3 NS nations, everyone should be on just about the same footing. TC's are not an issue. We all started out on the same day and with the same cash/infra/etc. In many cases, Anon spent more on military and less on infra. SUN did the opposite. That was each their choice.

OP decided before the end of last round that we were going to have a early war this round, to shake things up a bit and for something different. TPC did it to us 2 rounds ago and we wnated to give it a try.

We did not decide on a target until 2 days before the DoW. We were waiting to see how things progressed. We were not even considering a joint DoW, but the opportunity arose and we chose to go in with LE because we have so many past rounds where we were always warring against them. If that did not work out, we would have gone alone.


EDIT: I just saw Paul's post that came up while I was typing. LOL!
[/quote]

It was too early Thomas, given the 90 day round. This will do nothing but foster ill will. There were plenty of options for 1 on 1 as well. If you were going to have an early war against Anonymous you should have IMO gotten more nukes. I feel that you didnt want to hit Anonymous 1v1 because of your nuke disadvantage. Am I right?

[Merovingian]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1315958519' post='2800022']
That is not true, and someone else has already corrected you. Probably just an error on your part.

[/quote]

I am that someone I've almost been debating alone on this side for a couple pages lol.