A joint Roman Empire and Warriors Production

[Freddy]

18/114 nations in anarchy...real war my ass.

[Clash]

[quote name='Swatch0' timestamp='1357625407' post='3072700']
What this man said. Seriously though why not just have crushed them upon their act of war? Why negotiatie with them an organized war...lol These wars that you call "organized" are really getting old. Regardless, good luck to [s]both of[/s]
all three of you in this "organized" war.[/quote]

Swatch you've been useless in war for a long long time lol.
Nice of OP to carry you around, they could use the handicap

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1357624763' post='3072692']I was just wondering why, after stating you DESIRED to be attacked, were attacked in a spy op, decided to work out a deal for a war as opposed to defending tW. That's all.[/quote]

I dont see what you don't get. Spy attacks means someone is going to attack us, usually. Plus getting caught means they should be coming right away. Which is what we wanted and I thought it was great. Again, we didnt really work out a deal - we were the only ones left. It was pretty much beyond obvious.

Imagine the sniveling everyone would be doing now if we weren't at war with each other? THAT would have been worting out a deal. Or if we had just gotten together and beat the crap out of everyone else. THERE would have been a deal. Maybe next time we should just do that, might as well give people an actual reason to cry like newborns lol

[Clash]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357629210' post='3072729']
18/114 nations in anarchy...real war my ass.[/quote]
Thats from yesterday. Go look at the nuke screens, son.
More will be coming throughout the day.

Oh lets not forget you guys are afraid to get nuked. TPC sure wasnt going to do it, NDO wasn't going to do it last round, and you were afraid of going with us against TPC and getting nuked. You were afraid to hit us and you had more nukes than us - but apparently not enough, right? You needed to hit an alliance that didnt have any at all. You guys must have radiation allergies or something

Edited January 8, 2013 by Clash

[Clash]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357623212' post='3072687'][b]AGAIN: MUTUAL BLITZ IS TOUGHER THAN SINGLE BLITZ.[/b] One has return wars and one doesn't. Why is that confusing? [s]You guys[/s] Other alliances picked a nice easy war [s]you are going to[/s] they could win handily. You (all) definately took the softer road than we did, and any argument different is pretty much silly. Why is it so hard to understand that when wars go both ways, the war is harder then when it's one sided?[/quote]

Scoreboard.

Our war is by far the toughest one this round so far. It is not even remotely close.
When any other alliance has the courage to match it, I'll consider their opinions worth more than unwiped butt.

[Freddy]

22...I certainly hope more will come throughout the day...

[Clash]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357632761' post='3072757']
22...I certainly hope more will come throughout the day...[/quote]
We have 17 right now. Watch and see, son. There will be a lot of nukes going around on both sides in this war, unlike every other war of the round so far. I suppose you must be jealous since TPC did a lot more than that against you guys on their re-opening night

[Freddy]

Anarchies happen in real wars. Not so much in arranged wars.

[Clash]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357633745' post='3072765']
Anarchies happen in real wars. Not so much in arranged wars.[/quote]

They surely happen when you get nuked.
I seem to remember nuking you a few times

[Freddy]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357634207' post='3072771']


They surely happen when you get nuked.
I seem to remember nuking you a few times
[/quote]

I nuked you, too. Good times

[bcortell]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357634207' post='3072771']
They surely happen when you get nuked.
I seem to remember nuking you a few times
[/quote]

Your war didn't start until over three weeks into the round while most guys were already fighting. I would hope you guys have nukes, and well, you know my opinion on using all the tools available. Plus, most of you guys should have $20M-$30M, a nuke doesn't mean much when it's easy to rebuild.

Edited to make sense. Damn typing on my phone.

Edited January 8, 2013 by bcortell

[StevieG]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357590137' post='3072514']
To be on the recieving side of an OP blitz, no matter if you hate us or not, is devastating and our bread and butter, we rely upon doing that intial damage to [s]overcome numbers[/s] MAXIMIZE ADVANTAGE.
[/quote]
And suffocate nukes away from the enemy while remaining highly nuclear. That is OPs text book war.
[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357595939' post='3072545']

Remember when you and I were leading PS one round? We tried to hang back and let someone attack us so we could practice being on the defensive side of a war. Turned out terribly.
[/quote]
I think youl find you were taken up on your defensive war.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357623212' post='3072687']
AND AGAIN: MUTUAL BLITZ IS TOUGHER THAN SINGLE BLITZ. One has return wars and one doesn't. Why is that confusing? You guys picked a nice easy war you are going to win handily. You definately took the softer road than we did, and any argument different is pretty much silly. Why is it so hard to understand that when wars go both ways, the war is harder then when it's one sided?
[/quote]
Pre arranged wars no good.
Inter alliance wars followed by flag running, a ok.

[Clash]

There is so much silliness from the peanut gallery in here, I'm just going to try to patiently take my time to beat the crap out of some of the sillier parts of it. I just happen to have some [s]insomnia[/s] extra free time right now, and I'm wasting it on y'all neanderthals. You should feel special. We shall start this lesson with this claim:

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']We had 9 guys active to their 17 (really 16 if the 3 NS nation didn't build up, but he did, so 17)
[...]
With our small AA's, it isn't difficult to have the number of nations actually matter more than ANS.[/quote]

Now, this is something many of us TE vets have seen before when alliances try to hide their down-declares by saying that "Well the other side had more nations!" The theory is that more nations = more wars, and if enough smaller nations can put together their offensive counter wars in the right places, and provide above average coordination, they can take down bigger ones.

But does it actually happen in practice? Let's look at the scoreboard rather than just talking out our butts on it.
For a more blatant example and answer, we start with the OP war first.

[url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/alliance_all.asp"]Nations[/url]
SUN/Citadel: 48
OP: 32

[url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/alliance_wars.asp?ID=10&Page=1&searchstring=&search="]Wars[/url]
SUN/Citadel: 10
OP: 83

So in this case, NO, it did not remotely work out according to theory.

Yes I'm sure we can all pull some "blame the victims," but we are evaluating this theory based on results, not the butts such claims come out of. OP got in around 30 anarchies between the two alliances on the first day. After all they have a great blitz and they attacked an alliance that was thoroughly unprepared for them. Nations in anarchy cannot declare wars, plus the difference between the average nation sizes shortly after the blitz meant many of the unanarchied SUN/Citadel nations were out of range of the average OP nation.

Plus, and this is just sort of occam's razor, but most people have a general idea of what they can handle. Since every OP nation was on average so much bigger than their average target nation - why would the average target nation go looking for MORE ns to hit? Each of them had their plates full as it was, so they didn't. That's just common sense, but it makes sense doesn't it? It fits the results and it also most likely appies to the MH/WD war

So. let's now look at the MH-WD war, where bortell claims 17 WD nations against 9 MH matters.
Did it actually matter? Or is this a case of claims/results separation of reality?

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']I won't say that the fighting back made it a great war because it didn't. War Doves centered all there counters on 2 smaller nations...[/quote]
[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']We had 9 of the first 10 wars declared after TE came back.[/quote]

So, even though MH had TWO blitzes on WD, MD made a grand total of perhaps two (2) counter wars against MH's smallest nations. In this case the theory was ABSOLUTE BS and needs to pointed out as such. It looks like the percentage of offensive to defensive wars might even be worse than the OP war, and I didn't think that would be possible.

You can't just talk it and have it count.
You gotta throw it at the truth, and have it stick.

Some of the reasons for the discrepancy in this situation are different than those of the OP war, however. MH only had about 6 anarchies (I think it was, I forget). Yet, I'd have to bet those nations were chosen for special attention by (and personally targeted by) the more experienced leaders of the MH government. Those were also the nations most likely to fight back.

The reasons for the difference are most likely and accurately found here:

[quote name='dockingscheduled' timestamp='1357602395' post='3072595']
just for clarification clash, u keep referencing the WD-MH war but to be genuinely frank, the problem with that war was that WD just didn't fight back...
[...]
...we certainly couldn't help that their limited counters were basically all on our inactive 10th nation. numbers were good, we just had no way of knowing they 1. wouldn't counter with wars, 2. didn't have great warchests 3. didn't coordinate[/quote]

For the record, I think WD is like a training AA for those noted peace huggers of SE, GPA. Not sure on that one, but from the results of this war it seems likely. Which would mean they probably have even less war experience than the newer members of MH.

...and that was way more than you're actually worth, bcortell.
So please feel special, indeed

[scytale]

If this thread is any indication of how the round is going to go, this could be a fun round... at least on the forum.

There were a few poachers trying to recruit me. Maybe I'll join.

[spoiler]
watch my inbox get flooded with recruitment messages now
[/spoiler]

[hartfw]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357659460' post='3072837']
I refuse to even defend that the pre-arranged war was a weak start to what may be a great war, so let me instead attack other wars.
[/quote]

Okay, now that that is out of the way.




[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357659460' post='3072837']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][b][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=3072417"][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_images/master/snapback.png[/img][/url]hartfw, on 07 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:[/b][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]I won't say that the fighting back made it a great war because it didn't. War Doves centered all there counters on 2 smaller nations...[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][b][url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=3072419"][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_images/master/snapback.png[/img][/url]bcortell, on 07 January 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:[/b][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3]We had 9 of the first 10 wars declared after TE came back.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]So, even though MH had TWO blitzes on WD, MD made a grand total of perhaps two (2) counter wars against MH's smallest nations. In this case the theory was ABSOLUTE BS and needs to pointed out as such. It looks like the percentage of offensive to defensive wars might even be worse than the OP war, and I didn't think that would be possible.[/font][/color][/quote]


My apologies if I didn't make clear the subtle differences between centered on 2 smaller nations, and 2 total wars. 2 total wars is of course inaccurate.

Looking back it looks like 5 nations countered, including 2 that we hadn't hit at all. 3 still around and two that rerolled but hit a nation of ours that wasn't involved in the blitz and was our lowest NS.

The problem for them wasn't insurmountable odds. It wasn't that they couldn't use their nation advantage and have each of us fighting 1-2 more wars then each of them. Their problem was that they used over half their counter declares where it wouldn't matter at all, and wouldn't help any of them.

Given that a) they didn't ask for peace, and b) seemed intent on a we will let our 6 nations burn, but instead attack down and try to hurt as much as possible 2 nations of yours, we did pick it back up when the server came back and fired upon the nations that had been attacking us. Why not defend them before peacing out? And still it was us approaching them about peace. A peace they didn't accept and
then had a coalition possibly declare on us before it backfired. We were ready to move on and try and find a "good" war.

But since you like to keep the issue off you the topic people brought up here -- your prearranged war and the choice to do it that way -- I will reiterate:

1) WD wasn't a good war.
2) But the initial stats were such that it could have been.

My understanding was they have been around before, but lets just say that I think it is safe to say we over estimated them. With the benefit of hindsight, we would have picked someone else.


Now, you want to address the actual topic that people brought up about your war. Or is there another alliance somewhere that did something that you can lean on to distract from that?

[paul711]

Clash, for the record I have no problem with this war. I do not believe, however in taking a tool out of the toolbox. By arranging a joint blitz, which has become a common theme of late with some of your wars, you eliminate the blitz, your choice but I do not have to agree with it. I personally feel that you arrange such wars to avoid pissing people off so that you can remain friends with everyone. I have posted my opinion which is a far cry from the bashing you have been trying to weed out against us.

[Clash]

Can you understand that I absolutely don't think that way, hartfw?
Is that concept within your realm of thought?

Your keyboard flaps impressively, but my scoreboard says differently. This game is so much about math and what you cry about doesn't add up. If your words had any weight, they wouldn't need so much repetitive obnoxious volume.

----


This is something new I'll be coming back to later.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=75"]http://forums.cybern...hp?showforum=75[/url]

That is the TE suggestions forum. I'll wait while you look.

If you did look, you would have seen seven pages of threads with people demanding new things from Admin. I've made my share of posts there too. Each thread has posts by people debating ideas and what could be added to TE that would, in their humble opinions, make it better. Some ideas are good and some ideas are not, but there sure are a lot of them by an awful lot of people.

A common theme is that everyone wants something new and complains that the game is it is now is becoming stangant, and many say that stagnation is killing the game because poeople need new things to keep them interested. They say this is why so many have left. I tend to agree. Any innovation might or might not make the game better - but new things almost always make them more interesting.

In a game where so many people criticize that lack of innovation by Admin is causing it to go stagnant - what innovations did any of those people make by [i]themselves?[/i] When was the last time innovations were made by the [i]players?[/i] Admin upgraded TE not all that long ago, but game play is ALWAYS remains the same. I think game play is a bigger source of stagnation than the mechanics of the game itself.

In this thread, so many posts have been made that cling to stagnation like a baby to its mama, afraid to take a single step.

Many of the people making posts here, in the past have made posts in the TE Suggestions forum demanding innovation from Admin - yet they are terrified by the idea of any game play innovation by the players THEMSELVES. The cure to stagnation is evolution. Its thinking outside the boxes so many players demand the rest of us stand in and are afraid to leave themselves. New things can make an old thing more interesting.

That's what I think and I think I am right. I think I support what I think not only with logical systematicly thorough reasoning, but CLEARLY by the math of the game itself, and the actions of ourselves when compared to what others do and say. No flapping keyboard of purely stupid insults will change that.

Tl:dr: We dared to do something different. We chose innovation.
Our critics crave the same stagnant old crap, and demand we act just like them.
We chose a harder path while they ALWAYS take the old familiar easy one, and demand we do the same.

Scoreboard.

[hartfw]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357708666' post='3073086']
Can you understand that I absolutely don't think that way, hartfw?
Is that concept within your realm of thought?

Your keyboard flaps impressively, but my scoreboard says differently. This game is so much about math and what you cry about doesn't add up. If your words had any weight, they wouldn't need so much repetitive obnoxious volume.

----


This is something new I'll be coming back to later.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showforum=75"]http://forums.cybern...hp?showforum=75[/url]

That is the TE suggestions forum. I'll wait while you look.

If you did look, you would have seen seven pages of threads with people demanding new things from Admin. I've made my share of posts there too. Each thread has posts by people debating ideas and what could be added to TE that would, in their humble opinions, make it better. Some ideas are good and some ideas are not, but there sure are a lot of them by an awful lot of people.

A common theme is that everyone wants something new and complains that the game is it is now is becoming stangant, and many say that stagnation is killing the game because poeople need new things to keep them interested. They say this is why so many have left. I tend to agree. Any innovation might or might not make the game better - but new things almost always make them more interesting.

In a game where so many people criticize that lack of innovation by Admin is causing it to go stagnant - what innovations did any of those people make by [i]themselves?[/i] When was the last time innovations were made by the [i]players?[/i] Admin upgraded TE not all that long ago, but game play is ALWAYS remains the same. I think game play is a bigger source of stagnation than the mechanics of the game itself.

In this thread, so many posts have been made that cling to stagnation like a baby to its mama, afraid to take a single step.

Many of the people making posts here, in the past have made posts in the TE Suggestions forum demanding innovation from Admin - yet they are terrified by the idea of any game play innovation by the players THEMSELVES. The cure to stagnation is evolution. Its thinking outside the boxes so many players demand the rest of us stand in and are afraid to leave themselves. New things can make an old thing more interesting.

That's what I think and I think I am right. I think I support what I think not only with logical systematicly thorough reasoning, but CLEARLY by the math of the game itself, and the actions of ourselves when compared to what others do and say. No flapping keyboard of purely stupid insults will change that.

Tl:dr: We dared to do something different. We chose innovation.
Our critics crave the same stagnant old crap, and demand we act just like them.
We chose a harder path while they ALWAYS take the old familiar easy one, and demand we do the same.

Scoreboard.
[/quote]

Yes. Because I have been crying? Nope. You make your comment like my post was a long diatriade about your choice. Instead, if you read it you should be able to see it just continually correcting your latest inaccurate and plain wrong statements about our war (or skirmish if you prefer.)

If prearranged wars are what make you happy, I'm fine with you doing it this way and have said already in this thread. And that you have a war that can be great here. But in defending your admittedly weaker then it could be start, you have ignored that complaint and gone out of the way to attack what we did. And have continually made absolutely inaccurate statements. Statements that should be corrected.

You like saying scoreboard a lot. But up until your last post the only thing your forum post scoreboard was racking up on this forum is inaccurate rants. Its good to see a comment from you focusing on what your thinking was with the pre-arrangement. Maybe this is where your realm of thought should have been to begin with.

[Freddy]

Serious question...no grief. What is the innovation you have introduced?

[Clash]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357712094' post='3073118']Serious question...no grief. What is the innovation you have introduced?[/quote]

The thing everyone is sniveling about lol
Read the damn thread, lazy you.

[paul711]

What I am gathering is that if friends disagree with you then you turn your back on them and bash them. That is not how to effect change nor to win converts towards your way of thinking and is instead a very good way to make enemies.

[Freddy]

You have no idea the depths of my laziness. Only thing I read is the arranged war. I don't see that as innovative. If an arranged war is so clever, then why not go all the way and agree to a non-aggression pact with RE, NDO, TPC - whoever is in range at the moment?

[Freddy]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357714854' post='3073133']
What I am gathering is that if friends disagree with you then you turn your back on them and bash them. That is not how to effect change nor to win converts towards your way of thinking and is instead a very good way to make enemies.
[/quote]

My sentiments exactly of my friend Clash and the Warriors.

[Clash]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357715077' post='3073138']Only thing I read is the arranged war. I don't see that as innovative. If an arranged war is so clever, then why not go all the way and agree to a non-aggression pact with RE, NDO, TPC - whoever is in range at the moment?[/quote]

That has got to be among the stupidest post in a long thread glutted with stupid posts.

Read the [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovation?s=t"]defination of innovation:[/url]
[color=#333333]1.[/color] [color=#333333]something[/color] [color=#333333]new[/color] [color=#333333]or[/color] [color=#333333]different[/color] introduced

It made our war significantly harder, not easier. You picked a really easy war (or so you thought it would be) by comparison. We sought the hardest war we could possibly get and you think that somehow means non-aggression pacts? We are at war with Roman Empire RIGHT NOW, a really hard war with no initial advantages taken by anyone, and isnt that the extreme polar opposite of a non-aggression pact with them? What the hell is wrong with you? LAZY INDEED!

Edited for grammar because I have big fat fingers.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Clash

[Clash]

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357711887' post='3073117']But in defending your admittedly weaker then it could be start, you have ignored that complaint and gone out of the way to attack what we did. [/quote]

Weaker? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!

At war's start, both RE and tW:
1. Were armed to the teeth with tanks and soldiers and camps etc.
2. Everyone had full planes.
3. Both sides had plenty of nukes.
4. Almost no nations were in defcon 5.
5. Each was attacking the other simultaneously, meaning no one got in free attacks.
6. Each was solidly warchested.
7. Full spy attacks going both ways.

What else? Well, everything else as along those lines too. From the start both sides were LITERALLY as strong as they could possibly be. All of that is inarguable facts, and YES, scoreboard yet again. There maybe has never BEEN a war stronger from the start than this war. We made this war as hard as it could be, and I find nothing weak about THAT.

[Clash]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357706640' post='3073062']Clash, for the record I have no problem with this war. I do not believe, however in taking a tool out of the toolbox. By arranging a joint blitz, which has become a common theme of late with some of your wars, you eliminate the blitz, your choice but I do not have to agree with it. I personally feel that you arrange such wars to avoid pissing people off so that you can remain friends with everyone. I have posted my opinion which is a far cry from the bashing you have been trying to weed out against us.[/quote]

The war we had before this war was last round's last war against Hellas. I imagine you remember that one? We blitzed them in that one for sure. I don't think it made us any extra friends in Hellas. We mix it up a lot these days, we don't just do the same ol same ol that everyone else has been doing forever.

On the toolbox thing, I perfer to think of it as both sides using all their tools, instead of just one side. In a one-sided blitz, it's like one side gets a jackhammer and the other doesn't. Which makes the [s]war[/s] toolbox stronger?

I think I am bashing your war because it deserved bashing? It really did end up as a 2 day tech raid judging by the amount of NS you guys lost and our war is far from that. Look at the list from my last post on what the RE and tW looked like at the start of this war. The criticisms about it being soft or weak have got to most ass-backwards things ever. Many of those criticisms have come from your alliance mates. Thomas thinks this war is the end of TE for cryin' out loud, and he thought your war was wonderful. Wtf is that lol.

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357714854' post='3073133']What I am gathering is that if friends disagree with you then you turn your back on them and bash them. That is not how to effect change nor to win converts towards your way of thinking and is instead a very good way to make enemies.[/quote]

Well bcortell called us soft and weak and unmanly and a whole bunch of other goofy stuff that was incredibly inaccurate. He's still my friend even though he's an idiot lol. Read swatch and Thomas' posts, freddy and hartfw's ridiculousness, and some of the others. They go a little bit beyond "disagreement." As a general rule I've been on defense in this thread, but the best defense is usually a good offense.

I know you haven't been nearly as silly as them, so my apologies to you there. I'm trying against all odds to win converts with reasoning and math and truth. People can hate on the person if they have to, but don't hate on an idea that gives TE a breath of fresh air it really seems to need.

---

I was thinking about your belief that your one-sided blitz is a tool that OP absolutely needs to be successful, and I gotta say, I have more faith in OP than that. I think you would have beaten SUN/Citadel without it. I think your war would have been more even from start to finish, more fun for both sides and more challenging as a result. Yeah, you beat the crap out of them right from the start. So? You can do better than that.

I assume you believe OP can get better? I am sure of it.
You get better by taking on hard challenges, not easy ones.

I know it would be hard to improve on your blitz, but one way that would do it would be blitzing while getting blitzed. We have done it just twice now, but both times were the most exciting and fun starts to wars I've ever had. I've been in a lot of wars too. It's more competitive. It's more fun. It's harder. It makes us better.