Vol Navy
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vol Navy
-
-
My spy ops this war are almost solely targeting WMD. I've only fought people with full loads and wanted to run them out as quickly as possible. So far it's working well.
-
Not sure how much they spent, but in the first round I had a TOP person re-buy from around 4 to 6k infra at least twice in an effort to do better on the ground. I noticed they'd bought from around 4k to 5k again the day our war ended. They were back in the 3000s infrawise last I looked.
-
There are a couple of fallacies going around in this thread on the EQ side of things.
#3 - The sharktank is a free fall.
Not only has their been numerous reports of nations from a bunch of DH and co. AA's slipping into peace mode because of screwed up staggers and what not. I believe (its a hunch) that its also false that nations that are properly staggered will be in freefall forever. Eventually if enough WRC nations get dropped below 25k ns (where virtually no EQ nations have them) the DH and co. side will reach a critical mass of these superior nations and will pretty much obliterate any nation that tries to stagger them. Obviously this critical mass hasn't happened yet but when and if it does it means there will be a floor. A floor on which these nations can land and just start teeing off EQ's lower tier. If this logic holds then EQ will be being chopped off at the top and the bottom with a whole bunch of midtier nations not being able to help except to facilitate the "shark tank".
Actually we have quite a few well equipped nations down in that range due to the previous wars and people choosing to stay in the lower NS ranges. There's only so far down you can go with much tech, even at ZI. If you're tech gets low enough to be down there, it doesn't matter much, because you're just destroying some easily rebuilt infra based NS while losing what tech you have left.
-
Nebula-X is on TOP/friends. They were part of the first nine to DoW on us. They just never declared wars ingame, after the first week.
Vol Navy, we don't dispute some of our members will go down in the meatgrinder. TOP lacked that extra 3k tech per nation (thanks BiPolar, we still haven't rebuilt to those levels haha) that Umbrella possesses and that makes a world of difference. We also more heavily engaged some of our 75k nations knowing they'd go down. Vlad started at 70k NS.The thing you might not be seeing is this: the people we sent, with very few exceptions, are active. They're competent. And they got huge warchests. If Vlad wants to, tomorrow, he's back to 75k. Heck, if he wants to, tomorrow, he buys 15k infra and he's up to 90k NS. Might even add 3.8k tech to go up to 110k NS or so. And the worst is, that's not even half of his warchest spent in one massive purchase, the kind most nations around here do once. If he wants, he can re-buy 10k infra a dozen times over.
We brought some 70-80k nations out to help fight in the 90-100k NS tier to establish supremacy there since our front is the closest up there. We knew they'd go down. We also know they can rebuy once we're in a better position up. Or we can keep them as nuke turrets down there for little to no cost.
I would greatly enjoy seeing Vlad do that, Because in two rounds all he re-bought would be gone and he'd have trouble dishing out damage because he's only going to get 2 nukes a day provided we don't lose his stagger at some point. So far we're doing well keeping TOP there. You had 50 in pm and 50 in Anarchy out of 101 nations last I looked.
As for most of the rest of the commentary, this should be called the 5% war, because 5% of DH and company are in a good spot and the other 95% are vastly outnumbered and either getting pounded or in PM. But the 5% are happy and claim to be winning.
Personally, I've had a giant nation before. I was in the top 250 for quite a while. These days I'm happy at 60-90k. Lots and lots of targets when these wars break out. Easy to save money too. So I generally keep buying tech but am happy to top out around 7500-8000 infra.
-
Have you ever fought a lopsided war? In the first cycle I and a few others updeclared on an 111k NS nation. I had to stock up to get up to 85k to DOW him. In that war I lost about 12k NS. He went from 111k to 78k and is now at 62k. That's with him rebuying several thousand infra multiple times in the war. He has 0 nukes now, even with limited nuking in the first round.
Next round I dow'd Vlad and another nation, Both fully stocked because they'd just left peace mode. In a round Vlad went from 70k ns to 38k ns and used up all 25 of his nukes. The other guy was 80k NS and was 32k NS at the end of the round. He had 6 nukes left at the end of the cycle. I took a combined 12k ns loss on both fronts.
The 70-90k nations on the small side are going to take 30-50k damage per round and dish out that, if lucky and not out of nukes spread among 3 or more opponents,
Credit to Vlad for not turtling at least. He didn't have much success after day 3 or so when his infra advantage over me evened up. The other fella turtled and took DA's every day and ended up losing about 20k more NS than Vlad did.
I think that advantage of numbers disappears when those in the 90-100k are tearing through the 80k nations, and those in the 80k are fighting the 70k nations, and so on. As those in the 90-100k drop down from fighting those in the 80k they will hit the 70k as well, and as those in the 80k drop down they will hit the 60k, and that is when the alliances on the DH and C&G side will start getting out of peace mode in those ranges.
Attacking at the bottom of your range is a huge advantage.
Factor in that the lower in NS you fight the more inactivity you have, and that advantage will shrink even more.
I believe you will see things stop around the 50k due to this kind of fighting, and around there for nations that got there on the DH side their warchests can allow them to fight for months.
eQ has lost, but it will take about 2 months before it is clear to everyone.
And you are right about the fracture on the eQ side. Couple that with low moral after losing a war, everyone will be blaming everyone, and DH can probably get a chance to curb stomp polarsphere without anyone lifting a finger to help them after that. I am also sure you will see some alliances join the DH/C&G side due to anger with the eQ side.
-
The wailing and gnashing of teeth just cracks me up. CnG for instance has 41 100k+ nations currently out of 639 nations. That means that well over 90% of you are in range. It's pretty much a similar percentage across the front outside of Umbrella. TOP is down to 4 100K nations now out of 101. Two of them will be slipping below.
If you are willing to either keep 90 percent of your alliance in PM or let them be dog piled while you guard DH's much larger upper tier, more power to you.
This side not doing well in the upper tier was a given due to the massive tech advantage piled up by DH by 4 years of one sided wars and reps, But where 90% of the planet lives, things are much nastier for your side.
-
I'm thinking you might want to sink the bar well below 100k.
Some of you are talking about DH and Co abandoning everything below 100k. Well, frankly outside of 2-3 alliances that's almost everyone in each AA.
For example, TOP, whom we're currently engaged with, has 7 whole nations left above 100k.
And I really doubt Loli comes out of PM any time soon, because frankly they have a terrible war chest for their size.
Many of you keep with the line that this side won't be allowed over 100k. Who cares? I strongly advise you to keep with a strategy that keeps 90% of most of the alliances on your side out gunned, out nuked and out of PM for the benefit of UMB and the top 10-15 nations on most AA's.
-
It's not vastly different. We have better warchests now. We had 168 members, we're 101 now. The number we are doesn't affect our resilience, just the damage we can do.
We had 23 on 5 but 3 of those were fairly small (TSO, DAWN, TORN). IRON were the other major alliance with us. We were the main focus of the other side's efforts during BiPolar. I'd say the odds are similar. We now have a few small alliances helping us out against twelve alliances.
You guys seem to be under the impression that all you have to do is get us down to a certain level and it's job done. It's not. Firstly, we can rebuild. We got the warchests to rebuild from 0 to 10k infra a few times if we want to, at least on many nations. You suicide nations to take us down, we rebuild, what do you do? Send us people with less warchests, with less experience, etc. But even if we don't rebuild, what you're looking at is a very long war of attrition where you'll be facing nuke turrets with 9k, 10k, 12k, 16k units of technology and huge warchests. Turtling doesn't kill our economies. We'll escape to Peace Mode and rebuild.
Like I said, we have been preparing for this war. And compared to many others, we actually have experience in that kind of warfare.
Early infrastructure, yes. We DoWed large on Anarchy Inc. for our top tier. When the eleven DoWed on us, it meant many 5v1s and 6v1s. The damage has stabilized now. We also have a few big nations hiding here and there.
If this side doesn't blow a bunch of staggers it will be fine. As has been pointed out, it's not an effective nuke turret when all it can do is launch 2 nukes a day and hope for the best.
As for war chests, there are bigger ones on your side, but decent ones these days on our side too. I was 80k at the start of the last round with a multi-billion dollar war chest. So far I'm off about 180 million dollars after a full round and 2 more days of the current war. I can afford to take on quite a number of nations that fall into my range over the coming months. The big goal is to shave away a fair amount of tech over the course of the war. At my level, I can nuke someone for a week and shave off 1000+ tech from nukes alone, Usually another 300+ with CM/GA.
-
The problem is that when the infra is blown off and all the easy NS is destroyed, you really think you can find 400-600 75K+ nations willing to keep 1k infra nuke turrets in battle and properly staggered? That's when you'll see the curve lighten up.
Look at it this way. Derp Rush coaltion needed something like 22 alliances to take on 2? You really think that both coalitions aren't already jockey'ing for power post-war and trying to take as little damage as you can? I don't think DR/NPO are so much, but I know for sure that XX/SF/NpO/Afterbirth are taking as light a load as possible.
The most lolworthy even of late 2013 will be when XX/SF asserts their dominance. And I'll try to hold back my 'I told you so's'.
The problem with the high tech nuke turrets is that they only get 2 new nukes a day, so they'll likely lose GA or get DA'd if they turtle, get nuked, cms and air attacked but only be able to nuke back the people they fight 2-3 times at best in a war cycle. If lots of staggers get blown this will eventually be a much bigger problem.
-
That is the reason why DH morale will stay high during this war, and your side will slowly crumble and give up. Not only are we laughing AT you, but we're also capable of laughing at ourselves. Something your side seems to lack the ability to do.
That you may actually believe this is hilarious. This side is used to fighting month after month of losing war without being free to cycle in and out of PM for the most part to restock. Thinking you'll somehow break us in a winning war while most of our nations either don't have to fight or cycle freely is a pipe dream of the highest order.As for the other things, GATO, you're our allies but it takes stones to try and claim we're now giving in and propping up the DH way of doing things while you cling to the high ground, when you've been a cornerstone in all DH built the past few years. You guys had plenty of time before and since Dave to distance yourself and still chose to stay allied to that structure.
-
I'm glad to see the Southern Delegation in force instead of those lowbrow ungentlemanly Muschreich/Mushquedans. Hopefully I'll make it over to the barn dance before the war is over.
-
TCK posted a similar thread when UMB and MK began attacking the alliances on our side without a DoW during DH/NPO. Some of the first people to deride the post were from VE. Hilarious how different the world looks when you're on your back all of a sudden eh?
-
GATO and Ai were both in the conflict at the time you DoWed. You have an MDoAP with GATO and an oDoaP with Ai. I would have personally gone with the MDoAP because personally I vote for MDoAPs because I feel like that alliance has my back and vice versa and I vote oDoAP when I don't feel quite as strongly. Maybe TPF does it backwards. I dunno. What I do know is that TPF (although less so then loss) seemed to DoW when and where they had nothing to lose on the side that had gotten to the point of overwhelming victory already.
We can go back and forth and you can play your little quips about Optional Defense Network (when I wasn't around btw) or some other alliances past. But we can all agree on who the new bandwagoners are and they are not on our side.
You're incorrect. GATO entered the war on January 24th. We'd been fighting TOP for 3 days at that time. When we DoW'd only AI among our allies had been attacked.
And don't tell me I'm playing my "little quips" you're the one who brought up stuff that TPF was a part of 5+ years ago. If we we're still Hegemony now, you're still Optional Defense Network.
I don't see any bandwagon riding though. Just coalition warfare. You guys taught us that with your deeds of the past several wars.
-
I guess. I don't remember. What side was GATO on in that war anyway? Were we tied to ODN then...I think so.........guess I'd have to see the DoW if I posted and what I posted.
I don't remember where GATO was that war, I think you might have declared neutrality or fought briefly on both sides. I'm not even sure you were in CnG at the time. But something similar happened to us in the same war. We DoW'd GOONS. MK/UMB started attacking us without a DOW as well, claiming that an attack on GOONS was an attack on all of DH. They ended up calling in Athens and LOST to defend them once we started giving MK a ton of mid-tier trouble.
-
TPF have short memories apparently. Not surprising since they also forgot that an MDoaP usually trumps an ODoaP. Forgetful alliance apparently.
Well since you insist on equating 5+ years ago with current day, I'll type something for the first time in my 5 years of OWF posting."Optional Defense Network"
As for our entry into the current war, AI was the only ally we had under attack when our DoW happened.
You're side is the kings of calling anyone who ever attempted to fight on both sides of a conflict idiots.
But the simple truth is that we were never going to be on the DH side in this war. INT knew this. GATO knew this. I honestly doubt very much they even want to be supporting Umbrella/DH but they feel the need to go down with the ship, so here we are.
-
I seriously don't know what you are talking about. So, that's probably the reason I didn't mind.
See DH/NPO when MK attacked CoJ without any kind of DoW, then when CoJ fought back, ODN DoW'd CoJ "in defense" of MK. -
This is funny coming from a hegemony alliance.
Seriously? You really trotted out that gem? Welcome to 2008....you're about 5 years late. -
I am seriously cracking up at all the outrage from all these people who happily supported b.s like "For DAVE!!" and the Pre-Empts of the past when we'd have to fight people from alliances who never declared war on us, but it was okay because you were in a coalition together. What makes anything this coalition is doing any less legit than Umbrella declaring they were just going to attack the upper tiers of every alliance for the coalition? You people supported that, you supported Dave, you've supported GOONS here taking reps every time someone fires a shot at them, you support Umbrella starting this with AI. You've pissed off and screwed over nearly all of Bob the past 4 years. And all you've spoken of during those 4 years to any who complained was gems like 'Cry more" "we love tears" "bring it" "do something about it" etc. Now something is being done. Live with the world you created and the hatred you seemed to relish when you had the might of arms to stomp people out. You all said you looked forward to the day when people came to try and topple you. Well it's here, you should be happy.
-
No, it was a pretty direct statement.
-
They're lying to one of us then. If it's us, I'd hope we take appropriate action but I've no control over our FA.
Just did. They say you be bat shit insane. :P
-
I'd take it up with INT then, because that's how they feel about it.
There was never ANY threat to kicking INT out of C&G had they rolled with LSF. The notion that you present here, that there was one, is ludicrous.
-
Are you referring to maybe UJP in that first part? Having only been in TPF for 5.5 years now I missed that one.
Are you referring to the Christmas war when we got jumped on for one of the most paper thin CB's from the manufactured CB era? Because we committed an act of war, while at war? That wasn't a particularly easy time at all for us, that war was actually fairly crippling because we were coming off fighting 100+ days of nuclear war and then paying reps in Karma, where we had 1 nation left with a war chest over 100 million dollars. That one ended when our coalition finally was able to get it's stuff together to put out a mass DoW.
In BiPolar, you eventually attacked us and we eventually surrendered. You offered what you did to get us out of the war. We didn't (to my very best of knowledge) have a pre-arranged deal to get a quick peace post war like you guys did last war.
Outside of those events I'm not sure what you mean. In Karma we went for over 100 days of nuclear war. In DH/NPO we did the same thing.
The DH side, and this is giving them credit, smartly fought wars to cripple the hell out of their opponents. We'd have been much much better off if we'd gotten the same terms for Karma that MK got for WoTC. But they didn't allow anything less than scorched Earth. Then when we got back on our feet DH/NPO pre-empt splintering off from one of your crusades against Polaris was another crushing blow. It's why NPO has no top tier.
You're pre-arranged war during Dave didn't strongly hinder you and here you are again fighting NPO and it's allies with the strength you were able to hold onto. It's bad for business in the future if you keep letting people who hit you off with a warning. DH and company realized this and have ran things for 4 years now because of it.
Don't you get it? No matter how difficult people make it for us to leave a war, we'll always be there for the next one. So long as there exists a world where people insist on hitting our allies, there will be a world where we will go balls to the wall to defend them.
Call me crazy, but there was a time when an alliance was let off the hook after an aborted war, only to end up being again a part of the opposition in a war a short time later. That alliance fought admirably, even though we all knew they had a huge role in being antagonists before, and they were overwhelmed but still given painless terms by the victors. That was TPF, just a couple of years ago. I guess VE can be hugely to blame for being a major part of setting precedents where wars could end for non-primary combatants without reps or terms, because we'd done it for you guys (in BiPolar) and a dozen other alliances in the past. But yea, Equilibrium and everything.
-
No one ever threatened them with removal from the bloc. At least not in any of the discussions I was part of.
That was certainly their belief as of just a couple of days ago. Pretty much "we'll roll with you, but you're out post-war."
This is basically the same situation. Umbrella prodded an enemy that started a war that is likely to cost CnG quite heavily. The difference is that INT Gov members didn't assist in planning this with UMB.
The other difference being of course the magic Mushroom tie that cures up all vision into which way the treaty obligations beyond the bloc should fall.
Before we ever signed the treaty I asked INT diplomats how the MK tie affected their FA, because from an outside perspective it appears that MK still defacto controlled the bloc. I even specifically asked them about their ties with unconventional alliances like NEW and LSF but they assured me that the Kingdom would have no sway in their FA and that anyone who attacked either NEW or LSF would find that out.
Fast forward to the events surrounding the LSF war, the Dave war etc and the answers we were given at the time and since then and my fears appear very justified.
-
What price is that? That we would have rolled in with them to get our asses kicked? I don't see you defending them. Infact you are part of the force that sent 22 alliances to attack them. You authorized the use of that force against a treaty partner of yours. You have no ground to stand on here calling someone a bad ally.
Removal from CnG. They said they chose staying in the bloc over defending LSF.Edit to add:
We both knew this was coming, we both agreed as to what would happen if CnG just had to choose the path of going down with DH one time as some sort of atonement for what was going on. I have pressed them about this DH tie for quite a while now but the answer is always the same.
Upper End of the War
in Open World RP
Posted
Because we have 3 to 4 times the number of nations in that range. We can get clean collections, restock nukes, etc while you guys have to collect in nuke anarchy cycle after cycle as well as only shoot 2 nukes a day. I've fought outnumbered in this range enough over the years to know how it works, it's almost all I've done for the last 3,5 years worth of wars. You can get lucky and have uninterested opponents (MK in DH/MK) and wreck nations who aren't even trying and you can hit ill prepared nations, that guy with 8000 infra and 900 tech. But he's rebuildable.