A question of a platypus nature

[shahenshah]

Very good point, KB is a bit of a tard for bringing it up and I am a bit of a tard for rebutting :/

More on point to some of the TOP people replying, why do you guys feel Mi6 and Sparta are contributing so much more than you guys to the war effort? Is it cultural differences? Better leadership? Is it because of physical appearance and sex appeal? Please do tell, it may shed some light on why people actually want to be treatied to you?

Do note unlike Sparta and Mi6, they don't have to face Umbrella, furthermore, TOP has had a lot more tech and also the most damage potential due to high tech.

This delayed entry strategy is only going to be an increasing liability, allows us to manage the tiers better, do massive down declares etc, so the pressure isn't really on us. They've seen top tiers of thier friends destroyed and did nothing, its absolutely fine with our side if they also see the middle tiers grinded down. Piece meal is good for us, bad for them, if you think there is any pressure, its not on us. Frankly its ok if they come in later, its makes things simpler for us and builds more pressure on their friends. I'd rather just deal with Sparta's top tier nations floating around in mid tiers ATM, rather than also having TOP wonder heavy nations floating in mid tiers right now. We can do that later, its really just a matter of 'when'. I encourage TOP to stick to peace mode at least for another month. This front is just month old, no one is in hurry or holds any such expectations on any side. Edited January 6, 2015 by shahenshah

[Charles the Tyrant]

Polar has the Loch Ness monster
MI6 has poached the Loch Ness monster from Polar
I can see how that might play out :D

Wasn't doch in polar at one stage? And I do believe he has some scot in him...ahem.

[Sir Keshav IV]

 

Hey, MI6 is the worst alliance in CN at the moment, I would figure with that honor goes a rightful amount of stupidity... :P

 

 

As for the coalition strategy, yeah, personally I agree. It was not the smartest strategy at all, caused the war to be prolonged, and in the end our side is probably getting thrashed worse than it could have but on the flip side, we actually have no idea. For all we know, we could have entered a lot sooner and still be at war now. If we had followed the strategy y'all wanted, our upper tier would probably be considerably smaller than it currently is and everyone on this side would be in the same situation now (well actually a worse one since our entire side would have been at war for probably a month or so longer than we currently are). 

 

Going balls to the wall is only smart if you know the war is going to end in a relatively short time. Otherwise, it just means that y'alls upper tier would be almost fully uncontested in the next war and let's face it, y'all gonna work on ensuring the next war will be yet another beatdown of our side. It would take some seriously political blundering for any alliance on your side to be on the opposite side let alone the next target.

 

It's easier for top-tier alliances to pick a part your side top tiers one at a time giving us enough time to relax and wait for the next set of DoW's. Going in quicker may have helped give you guys some sort of co-ordinated move across the board to weaken our stranglehold in the top tier imo. You guys could have pushed to even out the playing field and dropping more of us down into the mid-tier for the grind where you guys have some sort of greater numbers could have inflicted more damage on our folks. 

 

Just my two cents. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by Sir Keshav IV

[Garion]

Why not have a treaty with them? I mean, you want to throw around numbers, let's throw around some numbers shall we? 
 
NATO has 121 members currently. TOP has 80 members currently. This means TOP has 2/3rds the membership of NATO. 
 
NATO is currently doing 1,794,451.59 NS worth of damage. TOP is doing 1,551,409.66 NS worth of damage. That means TOP is doing 86% the damage that NATO is doing with 66% the membership. 
 
But wait, you stated in the OP that around 72% of TOP is in PM. I mean giving PM cycling, we can what assume that 50% of TOP is in PM for this whole time? (not gonna go through and look but Berbers can since this is his whole schtick which is funny since iirc Berbers was the one defending NPO's use of PM in Disorder...) So that means 40 members (or 1/3rd the amount of NATO members) are doing roughly 86% the damage all of NATO are doing.
 
Frankly, if it takes 3 times the amount of members to do the damage TOP members are doing, why should anyone be allied to NATO?

Ehy dude, as long as you're happy burning alongside other TOP's allies while TOP watches the fireworks I'm be happy for you :P Makes our job easier, I'm sure you'll admit that at least.
 

I'm quoting this so I don't lose it later :D

That's a nice zinger there, kudos. Still doesn't provide a real answer, probably because you can't state the real one. I'm sure most of your coalition is happy to burn for you at these conditions, though. Must be as smart of a plan as allowing Sparta to hit NPO last war.
 

Does it matter? TOP is far better at war if it hides in PM and is able to still do almost as much damage as NATO. :P Though I will give you this, if TOP had gone balls to the wall, they would probably be doing far more damage than NATO could ever dream of doing.

No !@#$: an alliance with one of the best upper tiers on Bob could have done more damage than a mid-tier alliance. Such cunning, Doch |: Edited January 6, 2015 by Garion

[infinite citadel]

 

There's something to be said for the blaze of glory. [OOC]Everybody remembers the charge of the Light Brigade.[/OOC] However, I agree with your basic premise.

 

EDIT: However, I think back to the conduct of TDSM8 during the BAPS War. They went all-in against overwhelming odds and were lauded by most for giving their all in support of an ally.

 

I don't think there's a 'right or 'wrong' here, but I do think that one action leaves one open to criticism, while the other does not.

 

I think I'm the last former member of TDSM8 still playing CN (that's sad), but yeah that war was a blast and this war has been as well ~

[Dochartaigh]

 

What are you retarded, we fought MK who had one of the best Upper Tiers in the game at the time.  They had so many more people > 10K tech than us that it was a farce of a fight lol.  But we at least wanted to spit in their eye when we fought so we actually fought instead of TOPPING out :/  (Get it, I made a pun from tapping out, like you guys gave up before you started, har har)

 

 

 

Well I'm going to assume you are smarter than this post indicates, but if you bothered to look, almost none of our top 20 nations got to see *any* fighting... at all.  Mostly because the people who hit NpO's upper tier were pretty badass and beat them down efficiently.

 

So most of NATO fought in tiers where there wasn't that much damage to be done, like there were not 40K damage wars or anything because nobody had that much infra/land to blow up, hell some of the early wars amongst the big nations accounts for a very high % of the damage done to date in the war.  Based on how we rolled out and with who we rolled out with, there wasn't a whole lot more that we could do, and our war target is suitable dismantled.  We declared 100's of wars, didn't blow any staggers and did a good bit more damage than we received, nothing wrong with that.

 

I guess that's one reason to ally NATO.

 

Now TOP on the other hand, half-assed their way into the war, have probably the worse damage ratio, did next to no damage in the tier they should have been fighting in.  If TOP commited like NATO did to this war, they'd have done a ton more damage and put more pressure on our coalition to end the war.  But they didn't, they hid away and so the coverage on everyone else is overwhelmingly worse than it needs to be.

 

Hell TOP could come out right now with it's PM nations and ruin some people's day pretty bad, and maybe, just maybe, end the war quicker.  But of course I'm not telling them what to do, I just wanted to have a debate on the merits of allying TOP.  I've gotten very few answers, mostly people just saying "no u", but it's entertaining so far.

 

Worst damage ratio? You need to look at RI5 a bit harder mate. Fairly certain I gave you an answer. If TOP committed in this war like NATO did, they probably would have seen several oAs into them from the likes of DT/Aztec simply because why not? Y'all have such a top tier advantage that sure TOP would have committed more damage but would have sustained far more damage in return. You talk about being smarter than a post, what you are considering is basically having TOP demolished to a mid-tier alliance simply because it can do so. 

 

Wasn't doch in polar at one stage? And I do believe he has some scot in him...ahem.

 

Yes and I have Irish in me, possibly some scot though it is unverified. 

 

 

It's easier for top-tier alliances to pick a part your side top tiers one at a time giving us enough time to relax and wait for the next set of DoW's. Going in quicker may have helped give you guys some sort of co-ordinated move across the board to weaken our stranglehold in the top tier imo. You guys could have pushed to even out the playing field and dropping more of us down into the mid-tier for the grind where you guys have some sort of greater numbers could have inflicted more damage on our folks. 

 

Just my two cents. 

 

I know for a fact that DT wanted to hit TOP more than Fark. Having TOP bring out their upper tiers would have allowed DT/co to rip them apart alongside FTW and IRON. They may have inflicted more damage but they would have been brought to the mid-tiers far faster for them to inflict too much and the stranglehold y'all hold would have actually grown instead of been weakened. 

 

Ehy dude, as long as you're happy burning alongside other TOP's allies while TOP watches the fireworks I'm be happy for you :P Makes our job easier, I'm sure you'll admit that at least.
 

That's a nice zinger there, kudos. Still doesn't provide a real answer, probably because you can't state the real one. I'm sure most of your coalition is happy to burn for you at these conditions, though. Must be as smart of a plan as allowing Sparta to hit NPO last war.
 

No !@#$: an alliance with one of the best upper tiers on Bob could have done more damage than a mid-tier alliance. Such cunning, Doch |:

 

Your side's job is easy no matter which way y'all spin it. As for me stating TOP>NATO, what cunning? Berbers attempted to slight TOP, so I showed why TOP is better than NATO on any given day. 

[Unknown Smurf]

I said A prime mover not THE prime mover :|

They were neither. And they aren't exactly a powerhouse of activity these days if we're being completely honest.

[Rush Sykes]

 You talk about being smarter than a post, what you are considering is basically having TOP demolished to a mid-tier alliance simply because it can do so. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When they presided over a coalition that punished NPO for FAR less Peace Moding, and lets be honest, it does not matter who pushed for it or wanted, its existence falls at the feet of NpO and TOP, then why not expect TOP to pony up and get properly wrecked. What you do in the past has, will, and should always, effect how you are treated in the future. If they could not stand up to the coalition they helped create (along with NpO) and LEAD it, then they leave themselves subject to that which happened under their watch. This is not a new thing on Bob.

[Mogar]

 

Worst damage ratio? You need to look at RI5 a bit harder mate. Fairly certain I gave you an answer. If TOP committed in this war like NATO did, they probably would have seen several oAs into them from the likes of DT/Aztec simply because why not? Y'all have such a top tier advantage that sure TOP would have committed more damage but would have sustained far more damage in return. You talk about being smarter than a post, what you are considering is basically having TOP demolished to a mid-tier alliance simply because it can do so. 

 

I know for a fact that DT wanted to hit TOP more than Fark. Having TOP bring out their upper tiers would have allowed DT/co to rip them apart alongside FTW and IRON. They may have inflicted more damage but they would have been brought to the mid-tiers far faster for them to inflict too much and the stranglehold y'all hold would have actually grown instead of been weakened. 

These points are going to continue to be ignored because evidently completely demolishing any upper tiers the polar side has and causing another year of recovery after being on the highest damage fronts in hard fought wars by half of the Polar coalition is just not enough, they've gotta make sure they destroy everyone! I hope everyone that's on the winning side grasps that whatever you do this war will come back to haunt you later, Sparta learned that this war, you'll do so down the line.

[Sir Keshav IV]

 

Worst damage ratio? You need to look at RI5 a bit harder mate. Fairly certain I gave you an answer. If TOP committed in this war like NATO did, they probably would have seen several oAs into them from the likes of DT/Aztec simply because why not? Y'all have such a top tier advantage that sure TOP would have committed more damage but would have sustained far more damage in return. You talk about being smarter than a post, what you are considering is basically having TOP demolished to a mid-tier alliance simply because it can do so. 

 

I know for a fact that DT wanted to hit TOP more than Fark. Having TOP bring out their upper tiers would have allowed DT/co to rip them apart alongside FTW and IRON. They may have inflicted more damage but they would have been brought to the mid-tiers far faster for them to inflict too much and the stranglehold y'all hold would have actually grown instead of been weakened. 

 

My point was to consolidate your side's upper tiers and use them in unison rather than having NpO go in and like 10 days later Fark goes in alone; this made it so much easier for us to group on Fark and hit their upper tiers hard, hit NpO and take their upper tiers out individually as their pool was limited to their own AA's tiers. Maybe using TOP alongside Fark and NpO could have led to far more damage taken by DT. Seeing how we're a sub-100 alliance with a member base made mostly of old farts, that damage would take us longer to rebuild than most of the mentioned alliances, which makes us one less cog in DBDC's side of things. 

 

Just a thought of using your side's upper tiers in a far more unified manner could have possibly dragged a lot more of us semi-upper tier folks into the mid-tiers to be swamped with constant wars etc. 

 

By staggering your entrances by weeks, we were able to pick and choose whom to eliminate as it was one set of folks running into a goddamn wall. 

 

Also personally as a DT member, I just wanted some target, don't care who it was :P 

[Lord Hershey]

Personally, I do not have an issue with alliances utilizing excessive usage of peace modes as long as their intents are tactical, strategic, or to a lesser extent, avoidance. TOP's lucky to have allies that have no issues with TOP not deploying its upper tiers as far as I can tell. That may change, seeing that the war is not yet over so it is premature to conclude whether TOP will utilize its upper tiers or not.

 

I would like to note that NATO sacrificed most or all of its upper tiers  at Doombird Doomcave during the MQ's Jihad. That act demonstrates that NATO is not afraid to use its upper tiers against odds. That also applies to Random Insanity Alliance and New Polar Order. Those alliances have certainly earned my respect.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Lord Hershey

[SpacingOutMan]

I'm okay with TOP's upper tier in PM despite that resulting in a paucity of targets in range of me. I think Keshav was right insofar as better timing of Polar and friends' upper tiers entering but it is what it is. TOP can enter as fresh legs [i]at some point[/i] in the future once some DBDC [i]et a.l[/i] have been worn down, but I'm not sure how tenable a strategy that is since a lot of us aren't sustaining any damage. For example, my GDA target hasn't attacked back at all or tried to rebuild since, presumably, he is away and unable to respond. I won't presume as to what the end-game here is for Polar, but there are only so few options remaining.  Just food for thought. :v:

[the rebel]

Every single poster in this topic and nearly everyone on Bob, had and is allied to alliances that adopt one form or another of avoidance of damages.

Its pathetic that people are trying to score points on the subject when they or their allies do the exact same thing.

[SpacingOutMan]

Every single poster in this topic and nearly everyone on Bob, had and is allied to alliances that adopt one form or another of avoidance of damages.

Its pathetic that people are trying to score points on the subject when they or their allies do the exact same thing.

 

The same people who complain about it are the same people who get butthurt that people don't play by their rules. People still do it at the beginning of every war when people are in PM despite being a viable strategy for years. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by SpacingOutMan

[Lord bagel]

I take back everything I said, TOP should be fighting and you specifically should be rolled into a fine powder. Ginger too.

Finally something we can agree on

[berbers]

I've decided to use hip pop culture references to illustrate how I feel TOP decision making went down as to who went to war and who did not :|

 

Starring!

 

Gingervites:

 

 

King Brandon:

 

 

Vlad:

 

 

 

 

 

[Gingervites]

I take back everything I said, TOP should be fighting and you specifically should be rolled into a fine powder. Ginger too.

Pls don't roll us again Argent. 

 

I've decided to use hip pop culture references to illustrate how I feel TOP decision making went down as to who went to war and who did not :|

 

Starring!

 

Gingervites:

 

 

King Brandon:

 

 

Vlad:

 

 

 

 

 

I see nothing wrong here. 

[James Spanier]

Pls don't roll us again Argent.  

 

Give me 500 tech and a ZI on iamthey and I'll consider it.

[shahenshah]

Every single poster in this topic and nearly everyone on Bob, had and is allied to alliances that adopt one form or another of avoidance of damages.

Its pathetic that people are trying to score points on the subject when they or their allies do the exact same thing.

But they don't impose terms for doing it.

Also that statement would be true only in its most vaguest form.

- No one has ever hidden ~70% for the duration of the war or hide approximately 50% of their alliance in several wars, name one alliance other than TOP that does it to the scale they do it, every time.

- TOP is one of the very few alliances that has imposed terms on its front in every major conflict it has won. Terms in last war were no coincidence. Everyone uses peace mod to some extent, but very few impose terms for it or use it to the extent TOP does.

[Dajobo]

Please drop the terms nonsense Shah when you were also in the coalition that imposed them and the strongest supporter of terms is now in your current coalition as well.
We have a good war going, don't ruin it with drivel.
You're better than that.

[DeathAdder]

That's a nice zinger there, kudos. Still doesn't provide a real answer, probably because you can't state the real one. I'm sure most of your coalition is happy to burn for you at these conditions, though. Must be as smart of a plan as allowing Sparta to hit NPO last war.

 

Sparta and NPO had a lot of fun warring each other last war. Don't belittle it by trying to use it for your propaganda against Polar this war. 

 

And yeah, you really need to quit pretending that IRON isn't aware of who imposed/wanted terms last war, Shah. No one is buying it, and most have proof IRON was sending out logs of it. -Yawns.-

Edited January 7, 2015 by DeathAdder

[Dochartaigh]

 

When they presided over a coalition that punished NPO for FAR less Peace Moding, and lets be honest, it does not matter who pushed for it or wanted, its existence falls at the feet of NpO and TOP, then why not expect TOP to pony up and get properly wrecked. What you do in the past has, will, and should always, effect how you are treated in the future. If they could not stand up to the coalition they helped create (along with NpO) and LEAD it, then they leave themselves subject to that which happened under their watch. This is not a new thing on Bob.

 

As others have pointed out, y'all conveniently forgetting that Umbrella was one of the main pushers for those terms and now resides on your side of the war avoidng "due punishment". 

 

 

My point was to consolidate your side's upper tiers and use them in unison rather than having NpO go in and like 10 days later Fark goes in alone; this made it so much easier for us to group on Fark and hit their upper tiers hard, hit NpO and take their upper tiers out individually as their pool was limited to their own AA's tiers. Maybe using TOP alongside Fark and NpO could have led to far more damage taken by DT. Seeing how we're a sub-100 alliance with a member base made mostly of old farts, that damage would take us longer to rebuild than most of the mentioned alliances, which makes us one less cog in DBDC's side of things. 

 

Just a thought of using your side's upper tiers in a far more unified manner could have possibly dragged a lot more of us semi-upper tier folks into the mid-tiers to be swamped with constant wars etc. 

 

By staggering your entrances by weeks, we were able to pick and choose whom to eliminate as it was one set of folks running into a goddamn wall. 

 

Also personally as a DT member, I just wanted some target, don't care who it was :P

 

That is pretty damn false. Considering the tech levels on your side vs the tech levels on this side, to claim that you would take damage that is longer to rebuild is ridiculous. Y'all could easily double if not triple team most of our upper tiers and given the tech disparity, would wreak havoc on this side. Even if we all came in within a few days, we may have damaged a small percentage but it would have cost all of our upper tier to do that. 

[Lord bagel]

But they don't impose terms for doing it.

Also that statement would be true only in its most vaguest form.

- No one has ever hidden ~70% for the duration of the war or hide approximately 50% of their alliance in several wars, name one alliance other than TOP that does it to the scale they do it, every time.

- TOP is one of the very few alliances that has imposed terms on its front in every major conflict it has won. Terms in last war were no coincidence. Everyone uses peace mod to some extent, but very few impose terms for it or use it to the extent TOP does.

Tbf, part of the reason (granted not all of it) that our pm usage is so high is because you can't pick up a stagger to save your life. sure TOP started the war with 50% of our nations in PM, but what does it say about out oppents that they have literally let have our fighting nations escape to PM to restock on nukes and lick our wounds

[Sir Keshav IV]

 

That is pretty damn false. Considering the tech levels on your side vs the tech levels on this side, to claim that you would take damage that is longer to rebuild is ridiculous. Y'all could easily double if not triple team most of our upper tiers and given the tech disparity, would wreak havoc on this side. Even if we all came in within a few days, we may have damaged a small percentage but it would have cost all of our upper tier to do that. 

 

Well seeing how you folks were in the long term from the beginning, looking to drag even 15 DT nations into the mid-tier where you folks have an advantage would halve our entire 100k NS + nations. A few months down there and I'm certain the damage we've taken would bloody us far more then say it is doing now. 

 

Just saying if you folks were going to lose an upper tier, might as well do it with the aim of bloodying the other side rather than letting us pick one alliance at a time and dismantle it without too much damage imo. 

 

PS: I'm talking from a coalition stand point. What TOP is doing is of little concern to me as it seems a fair enough strategy seeing how they're so little against a whole bunch of folks that can be called upon. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by Sir Keshav IV

[Dochartaigh]

 

Well seeing how you folks were in the long term from the beginning, looking to drag even 15 DT nations into the mid-tier where you folks have an advantage would halve our entire 100k NS + nations. A few months down there and I'm certain the damage we've taken would bloody us far more then say it is doing now. 

 

Just saying if you folks were going to lose an upper tier, might as well do it with the aim of bloodying the other side rather than letting us pick one alliance at a time and dismantle it without too much damage imo. 

 

PS: I'm talking from a coalition stand point. What TOP is doing is of little concern to me as it seems a fair enough strategy seeing how they're so little against a whole bunch of folks that can be called upon. 

 

If we could drag 15 DT nations down but you have to know that if we started doing any sort of real damage to DT, the rest of Aztec would have jumped in to save those 15 from getting dragged down too far. So if we go with just IRON/DT/FTW- that is 7 nations over 30k tech (excluding SCM) and 135 100k+ NS nations vs TOP's 1 nation over 30k tech and (currently) 29 nations over 100k NS... So yeah, even from the beginning y'all would have had 3 times the amount of nations TOP had over 100k NS with 7 times the nations over 30k tech... But please continue to tell me how we would have hoped to drag down 15 DT nations... 

 

Come on Keshy, you are far smarter than this. Y'alls side has a far superior advantage in the upper tier. If every alliance on our side went balls to the wall and left all of our upper tier in war mode, we would see DBDC/DT/Umbrella/Aztec/etc dismantling them at will. We have seen it already. So can we please move on from this argument that if we (or just TOP) let (or let's) their upper tier out of PM, we have a hope of taking down anything other than our own nations?