AL Bundy Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Wolves of the North Declaration of War Apparently to someone I mentored and was once a Wolf I am stupid and worst of all compared to HG! So I guess I will just have to drop some Nukes.. And because I am horrible, Ill through in someone I guess is just as misguided as him.... 1 hour ago, Bajoran Federation said: I have to be honest, the level of egotism, self-righteousness, close-mindedness and unintelligence in this post rivals no one but HG himself. Wolves declare war on United Nations and Roman Empire: May the misguided nations of TE enjoy some nuclear anarchy, o and a smack or two: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted January 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Stats: Alliance Total Active Strength Avg Score Anarchy Infras Tech Nukes 2) Wolves of the North 19 18 546,939 28,786 50.06 0 86,536 11,006 104 4) United Nations 20 18 431,981 21,599 47.90 1 78,241 8,323 129 7) Roman Empire 8 6 106,786 13,348 17.16 1 20,000 3,618 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bajoran Federation Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Pairing us with RE? An odd combination lol Anyway, glhf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted January 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bajoran Federation said: Pairing us with RE? An odd combination lol Anyway, glhf. Pairing you with Lord Hitchcock, he always gets a visit from me... Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Have fun out there ya furry fur balls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne World Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 On 1/3/2018 at 9:27 PM, Bajoran Federation said: Pairing us with RE? An odd combination lol Anyway, glhf. RE was the last alliance not at war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted January 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 I guess I could have just hit UN, but ya I try to be fair and help the out but still they complain haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bajoran Federation Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 52 minutes ago, AL Bundy said: complain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bajoran Federation Posted January 10, 2018 Report Share Posted January 10, 2018 Stats - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d5jLCNns8ne4NzLVE9EF5AyxweoQ8d2t_OeKBoViikk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted January 11, 2018 Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Bajoran Federation said: Stats - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d5jLCNns8ne4NzLVE9EF5AyxweoQ8d2t_OeKBoViikk Your stats are missing RE If the Wolves focused solely on the UN then they'd have dealt more damage to the UN. Here you go my young padawan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/107EAKEhHQ9kXY70-sv_BKFyM-H0N4h9Mh2k-fmrzg7I/edit?usp=sharing Edited January 11, 2018 by HiredGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted January 11, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) Agree thank you HG. I am not good with Google docs so here is the summary, I went to each nation and pulled the stats because when you pull them all it is always off a tad... First time I did that and will never do it again, it was off by very little amount as you can see with HGs stats haha Alpha Wolves vs. United Nations & Roman EmpireAW declares on UN- 34 Wars AW declares on RE- 6 Wars UN retaliated - 19 wars RE retaliated - 0 wars Total Wars Fought- 59 Total Wins for WotN- 30 (More damage caused) Total Loses for WotN- 29 (You received more damage than you gave) Total Damage Overall- 316,839 WotN Damage Received- 142,506WotN Damage Given - 174,332 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/194XIGU-Ld1iJtPqyteE24zX0IUlkRX0r_gOxrRolRe0/edit?usp=sharing Good job all! Al Bundy Edited January 11, 2018 by AL Bundy Figured out Google hahaha and mine has perdy colors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 On 12/01/2018 at 6:12 AM, HiredGun said: Your stats are missing RE If the Wolves focused solely on the UN then they'd have dealt more damage to the UN. Here you go my young padawan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/107EAKEhHQ9kXY70-sv_BKFyM-H0N4h9Mh2k-fmrzg7I/edit?usp=sharing wrong. we take the real stats. UN vs wolves. you can also compare wolves vs re. but 30k damage to 0 tells the tail. they did not do anything at all as far as I can see because let's face it they are garbage and probably weren't at all interested in doing damage. they just sat there and took it. and no they did not even need to "focus" RE as there was no fight. wolves still beat us by 10k was a good war. However, in our position you would be saying UN plus RE had more NS to lose thus it's even haha. you have argued this point before. if 2 AAs are coordinating in war and using each other's strength as if they were 1, then yes it is fair to compare the total. example being when war doves have been dragged to war with us. we have together put out more damage. in RE s case, was it actually 0 damage put out? not it was close to that. and that's ridiculous really. is bundy your padawan now? keep losing them and you keep having to find more. perhaps take in some RE as your new padawans instead of insulting bundy 😀😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 36 minutes ago, StevieG said: wrong. we take the real stats. UN vs wolves. you can also compare wolves vs re. but 30k damage to 0 tells the tail. they did not do anything at all as far as I can see because let's face it they are garbage and probably weren't at all interested in doing damage. they just sat there and took it. and no they did not even need to "focus" RE as there was no fight. wolves still beat us by 10k was a good war. However, in our position you would be saying UN plus RE had more NS to lose thus it's even haha. you have argued this point before. if 2 AAs are coordinating in war and using each other's strength as if they were 1, then yes it is fair to compare the total. example being when war doves have been dragged to war with us. we have together put out more damage. in RE s case, was it actually 0 damage put out? not it was close to that. and that's ridiculous really. is bundy your padawan now? keep losing them and you keep having to find more. perhaps take in some RE as your new padawans instead of insulting bundy 😀😎 It doesn't matter if RE did nothing (RE were inactive) , they still took away WotN offensive war slots and in turn potential damage the UN would've received. You may not like facts but tough luck. Also why are you trying so hard to put Bundy against me? I never insulted him but I'm sure you'd like the old feuding to kick start again so you'd have no one making you earn the precious flags you love so much to the point where you'd even watch your alliance burn two wars in a row. Smh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNeptune Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 All moot now. Next TE is in a couple of months according to the in game announcement. Why wait so long? Just another nail in the CN coffin IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malakarlian Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 Would be nice if the wait is so long because there will be changes to the game......fixing a few things would be worth the wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 11 hours ago, HiredGun said: It doesn't matter if RE did nothing (RE were inactive) , they still took away WotN offensive war slots and in turn potential damage the UN would've received. You may not like facts but tough luck. Also why are you trying so hard to put Bundy against me? I never insulted him but I'm sure you'd like the old feuding to kick start again so you'd have no one making you earn the precious flags you love so much to the point where you'd even watch your alliance burn two wars in a row. Smh and by being inactive RE and UN weren't able to do as much damage with utilising those slots. your point is not a fact you are merely theorizing to potential damage. the fact is they did not have to focus RE and could focus the UN nations who were not receiving coordination assistance from RE. they could merely launch nukes as they pleased. and probably could get easy wins and damage on RE with remaining deploys after hitting UN with the focus of AA GA and nuke attacks. I'm not even trying. merely pointing out your belittling of bundy by calling him your "padawan" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 hours ago, StevieG said: and by being inactive RE and UN weren't able to do as much damage with utilising those slots. your point is not a fact you are merely theorizing to potential damage. the fact is they did not have to focus RE and could focus the UN nations who were not receiving coordination assistance from RE. they could merely launch nukes as they pleased. and probably could get easy wins and damage on RE with remaining deploys after hitting UN with the focus of AA GA and nuke attacks. I'm not even trying. merely pointing out your belittling of bundy by calling him your "padawan" The fact is we tally the damages of the inactives in every war where the stats have been recorded, we're not going to change that for this war cos you didn't like the result having more inactives fighting on your side. I was calling Bajor my young padawan which isn't hard to figure out if you had noticed that was in response to him trying to spin the same BS you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 16, 2018 Report Share Posted February 16, 2018 go ahead and tally the total. nothing wrong with that. we also tally the break downs. you know kind of like in a DoW we don't just use total ns vs total ns. we break it down. considering RE took 30k and put out as close as you get to 0. it is not only fair but the correct way to gauge our war with the wolves. carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted February 17, 2018 Report Share Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, StevieG said: go ahead and tally the total. nothing wrong with that. we also tally the break downs. you know kind of like in a DoW we don't just use total ns vs total ns. we break it down. considering RE took 30k and put out as close as you get to 0. it is not only fair but the correct way to gauge our war with the wolves. carry on If RE weren't attacked as well then the UN would've taken a lot of that 30k damage which is the point you continue to miss. Edited February 17, 2018 by HiredGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 On 2/17/2018 at 1:08 PM, HiredGun said: If RE weren't attacked as well then the UN would've taken a lot of that 30k damage which is the point you continue to miss. Thats not at all necessarily true. You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE. Firstly once nuked, a nation cannot be nuked again, and its likely the nuke levels we had resulted in most of our nations being nuked daily.(So you cant nuke us again) In addition ive already explained how its easy to get damage against someone not fighting by "using the left overs" Air raids Ground attacks. And nukes if you have enough. Granted "usage of slots" its most likely your strongest argument for Wolves being able to do more damage had they not attacked "some" RE nations. How many slots did they even use on RE? Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes. But likewise the UN could have done more damage in return through coordination and utilization of those exact slots as well. I myself was in this exact situation. I think only 1 or 2 nations hit me, and I hit out on 3. So had they not used slots on RE but had "filled me up" I could have done more damage back as well. For some reason, you do not feel that RE not fighting back at all is not valid enough reason for us to compare damage dealt by UN to Wolves and vice versa. You use this as a reason why Wolves didnt do more damage to UN. Thats funny really, considering we were statistically fighting uphill. We can just agree to disagree on this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted February 22, 2018 Report Share Posted February 22, 2018 5 hours ago, StevieG said: Thats not at all necessarily true. You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE. Firstly once nuked, a nation cannot be nuked again, and its likely the nuke levels we had resulted in most of our nations being nuked daily.(So you cant nuke us again) In addition ive already explained how its easy to get damage against someone not fighting by "using the left overs" Air raids Ground attacks. And nukes if you have enough. Granted "usage of slots" its most likely your strongest argument for Wolves being able to do more damage had they not attacked "some" RE nations. How many slots did they even use on RE? Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes. But likewise the UN could have done more damage in return through coordination and utilization of those exact slots as well. I myself was in this exact situation. I think only 1 or 2 nations hit me, and I hit out on 3. So had they not used slots on RE but had "filled me up" I could have done more damage back as well. For some reason, you do not feel that RE not fighting back at all is not valid enough reason for us to compare damage dealt by UN to Wolves and vice versa. You use this as a reason why Wolves didnt do more damage to UN. Thats funny really, considering we were statistically fighting uphill. We can just agree to disagree on this point. " Quote You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE. and then you go on to say this.. Quote Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes. I rest my case. 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.