Yenisey
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Yenisey
-
-
Well, for the official response from the Order of the Black Rose, there isn't really much response to make.
Sir Experimentum's telling of events is accurate, as it should be given that he was largely responsible for the way in which things unfolded.
I'm not going to make a 10,000 word statement attempting to spin events to show the Order in a favourable light, nor am I going to attempt to assassinate the character of Sir Experimentum further. Read the screenshots and logs yourselves and make up your own minds.
If anyone who was involved has any questions, please contact me privately and I will do my best to answer.
OOC:
Miko, I don't know exactly what's going on or why you're doing this, but I still consider you a friend. If you'd like a chat, you know how you can contact me.
-
'twas a good war, best I've seen in years. Thank you all who were involved, whether friend or foe.
-
Should the alliance score calculation/ranking system in CN:TE be reworked?
It's currently heavily biased in favour of the number of nations in an alliance, rather than the strength of those nations.
Example:
Lafayette Escadrille are, by all accounts, about 4 times stronger than The Phoenix Federation, yet have only a 0.19 lead in terms of alliance score. If TPF were to pick up a few extra nations at 0 strength, they would actually pass LE.
Or, Fark and Roman Empire. Fark has a higher score in every category save the number of nations.
Or MHA. Despite having lost 50% of their total strength in the last few days, their score has barely altered.
Or, Crimson Empire and New Viridian Order, a 0.06 difference in score when one alliance is around 3 times stronger than the other?
Poison Clan/ WAPA?
etc, etc.
There are far too many examples to list.
Given the rankings are used to determine sanctioned alliances, it seems a little odd to bias them so heavily in favour of numbers. It would be quite easy to "win" CN:TE with a 500 nation alliance at 0 strength, if you could find the recruits.
The simplest alternative system would appear to be ranking by total strength.
Something to think about for the next round?
-
Blackwater-
Total Nations- 35
Total Strength- 86,127
Average Nation Strength- 2,461
Nukes- 5
Anarchy- 5 (14%)
Blackwater-Total Nations- 35
Total Strength- 87,538
Average Nation Strength- 2,501
Nukes- 5
Anarchy- 3
OK, so we haven't yet regained our starting strength of 92k, but we're working on it.
I must admit though, the tactic of not counter-attacking us is working very well for MHA's overall score. With our offensive slots filled with burned-out shells, the amount of damage we can inflict during the next couple of days is limited. I admire the dedication of the MHA troops, to sacrifice oneself for the good of the alliance is not an easy choice to make.
The last days of the round will be interesting, I only hope that there will be some targets left when my war slots open up...
-
Stranger still, now I can connect to the forum, but not the other servers (CN, CN:TE, PlanetRealm).
Route to forum:
9: ae-32-56.ebr2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.68.109.190) 58.905ms asymm 8 10: ae-2-2.ebr1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.132.142) 63.811ms asymm 12 11: ae-71-71.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.6) 65.493ms 12: ae-82-82.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.25) 64.291ms 13: ae-44-44.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.137.62) 353.071ms asymm 12 14: ae-72-72.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.150) 309.251ms asymm 13 15: ae-61-61.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.129) 306.097ms asymm 14 16: ae-2.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.85) 159.061ms asymm 10 17: ae-7.ebr3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.134.21) 186.220ms asymm 13 18: ae-83-83.csw3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.136.162) 182.589ms asymm 12 19: ae-82-82.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.136.145) 186.010ms asymm 13 20: ae-5-5.car1.KansasCity1.Level3.net (4.69.135.229) 189.084ms asymm 14 21: 11-INTERNET.car1.KansasCity1.Level3.net (4.53.32.10) 194.950ms asymm 15 22: te-2-3.bb-b.ms.mkc.us.oneandone.net (74.208.1.82) 192.354ms asymm 16 23: te-2-4.bb-b.slr.lxa.us.oneandone.net (74.208.1.34) 191.242ms asymm 17 24: te-1-1.gw-distp-b.slr.lxa.oneandone.net (74.208.1.118) 192.052ms asymm 18 25: ae-1.gw-prtr-r5-b.slr.lxa.oneandone.net (74.208.1.168) 192.209ms asymm 19 26: u15309394.onlinehome-server.com (74.208.8.115) 191.035ms reached Resume: pmtu 1492 hops 26 back 45
Trying to connect to cybernations.net still fails at "Dallas1.Level3.net"
Edit: If nothing else, could someone please give me the addresses for CN and CN:TE so I don't have to go through cybernations.net (e.g. u15309394.onlinehome-server.com is forums.cybernations.net), see if that makes any difference.
Edit 2: Connection's back as of 09:23 server time.
Still confused.
-
Still dropping all my connection attempts.
Partial traceroute below, looks like I'm getting pretty close to the server, but something (firewall, traffic filter?) is dropping my packets.
7: tengige1-9-1-0.pastr1.Paris.opentransit.net (193.251.129.122) 52.534ms 8: level3-4.GW.opentransit.net (193.251.252.138) 57.300ms asymm 9 9: ae-32-54.ebr2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.68.109.126) 66.713ms 10: ae-2-2.ebr1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.132.142) 71.146ms asymm 11 11: ae-2-2.ebr1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.132.142) 68.879ms 12: ae-72-72.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.21) 67.739ms asymm 11 13: ae-62-62.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.17) 66.686ms asymm 11 14: ae-44-44.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.137.62) 150.916ms asymm 12 15: ae-91-91.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.141) 144.965ms asymm 14 16: ae-71-71.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net (4.69.134.133) 162.384ms asymm 14 17: ae-2.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net (4.69.132.85) 171.870ms asymm 11 18: ae-83-83.csw3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.136.162) 192.975ms asymm 13 19: ae-83-83.csw3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.136.162) 194.479ms asymm 13 20: ae-3-89.edge3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.19.136) 181.513ms asymm 14 21: no reply
I'll give the rest of the trace by email or PM if required.
Still confused.
I'll continue checking during the day and update when I get access back, along with an updated traceroute.
Pretty sure I'm getting as far as the datacentre, just not the last hop or two.
Edit: I can ping twtelecom's router, but not "206.123.64.134 AS30496 COLO4" (colo4dallas.net), which as far as I'm aware is the datacentre that hosts CN.
5 66.192.240.198 AS4323 TWTC peer-02 so-0-0-0-0.nycl.twtelecom.net.6 206.123.64.134 AS30496 COLO4 unknown.colo4dallas.net
7 72.249.99.82 AS30496 COLO4 [Reached Destination]cybernations.net.
-
Down again, as of 0:14 server time.
Can't connect to any CN servers (CN, CN:TE, forums, PlanetRealm), but I can connect to 1and1.com.
DNS resolves correctly, but I never receive any data from any of the CN sites.
Posting this via a proxy so that you might be able to investigate the issue while it's occurring.
I'll update from my normal IP once CN is back up.
-
The best military wonder is the one you have, but your opponent doesn't.
-
Plenty of people living in Europe play CN.
I know.
Just a little odd that I couldn't connect for 6 hours with several local IPs, but connected instantly when faking my IP as coming from the US (didn't log in, like to keep my nation and I know proxies are banned, only posted the error on the forum). Not a France Telecom DNS issue as far as I can tell, as I wasn't able to connect to or ping the server's IP from my machine, but again, no problems when using a US based service.
Happening at exactly 0:00 server time suggests it's more likely something CN related than not, traffic management on the server perhaps?
Would be nice to know the issue, if it's likely to repeat and if I can do anything (legal) to avoid it, as being kicked off for 6 hours at update really makes a mess of any war you're trying to fight.
Somewhat confused.
-
This war started at even odds, but there are people who can't live without curbstomp.
No need to accuse us of curbstomping, just because the stronger side are dropping like flies.
Some more counter-attacks would be nice, saves our offensive war slots for later...
-
Typical, I post that... and it's fixed itself.
Still might want to check with your hosting provider.
-
As of update, or about 10 seconds after, I can't connect to any CN server (CN, CN:TE, Forums etc.)
I can, however, connect via a US-based proxy.
I've reset my router and changed my IP twice, also tried from a different IP (free WiFi), no difference.
CN has something against European IP addresses?
-
We declare war on CDT, Blackwater, and M*A*S*H
At last.
Please mount something of a respectable counter-attack, we're dying of boredom here.
-
250+/-?
Where's my 75 up, 50 down?
Ranks, not percentage.
I can't agree with the idea that the alliance that declares first wins in an instant-nuke environment. If the two alliances are +/-100% the same size and of a similar strength distribution, if there are no other alliances involved and if the attack is carried out flawlessly, yes, otherwise diplomacy and allies are going to play a far more important role.
-
Having worked with both Pius, Iforget2, and PC in the leadership of various alliances (NAAC and GGA) starting in february 2006, I can honestly say that while pretty farfetched this is certainly possible. This was definitely not the product of the NPO leadership, however, but Pius, who I myself was involved in some shady dealing with.
Anyone who was around then should be able to guess who I was.
edit: though thinking about it I don't think he could have been PC.
Interesting statement, I very much doubt the claims though, not in the least because holding a conversation with yourself on IRC is rather difficult to pull off convincingly.
Guess who you are, someone I ZI'd perchance?
Pius was involved in shady dealings with everyone.
-
Great War... I spent the first three days of it driving across Europe with all my worldly goods, so things were a little confused when I got back online.
The Great War was fun since I more or less cast the deciding vote that sent us to war against the NPO instead of for them.Votes are fun
I think I was in an alliance that declared neutrality on the great war itself but declared war upon the Covenant of the LOST and "swore to find all members that took part of the evil scheme."Who was that? I don't recall anyone ever attacking the Coven members.
-
I'd vote for diskord...
Seriously, if a 3-1 attack on a nation with no backing to return the damage is considered fun, then I despair.
I assume your members did bother to confirm that the "VG Coalition" alliance affiliation was not under protection from Blackwater before attacking? No?
Careful, the next one might have bigger teeth than you expect...
-
Holy crap you are still around?
I'm not going anywhere.
I think you were Legion for a whiel iirc.A short while.
The first ZI was probably by GC.But in May, I was on ZI lists
I think you were probably on mine
-
I remember when the 1st nation hit 10K. For some reason everyone (including me) thought is was a big deal.
In fact, I remember the 1st ZI.
OT slightly, who had the (dubious) honour of being the first to be pounded to ZI?
Not talking about scraps between small nations, but the first big nation to be hammered by an alliance until the last little bit of infrastructure had been destroyed. (tech couldn't be destroyed or stolen then)
I know the Legion wiped out Beepoon (top 6 nuke attack) sometime in the middle of April and I think the Grey Council was developing it's ZI policy at around the same time, but was there an earlier use of the tactic?
Can't have been much earlier as ZI was only possible with the introduction of cruise missiles, which came in at the end of March/beginning of April, ground battles were percentage based, so you could only get them down to about 1 infra.
Also, hi bros.
-
Looking through that thread, it seems that Legion gave it a shot as well, in between the condemnations of us doing it. Good times.
Indeed we did. Not one of our better political moves. Probably ranks a close second to Peacekeeping...
-
The failure of the "Shield Alliance" talks shortly before the Second Polar War.
While there was always some degree of friendship between GATO/Legion/NAAC after this, as mentioned GATO/Legion's early withdrawal from PW2 and fighting on the same side in several later wars, the failure of communication at this point prevented any solid coalition from ever forming between these three alliances. None of the alliances could ever quite bring themselves to fully trust the others involved.
Had the talks been successful and the alliances involved behaved in a more professional fashion (no posting things in a public forum GATO
) the formation of a bloc that excluded the NPO and was lead by relatively benign alliances would have changed the face of CN.As it was, this was the beginning of the end of the relationship between GATO and the NPO, showed the Legion's dislike for their then ally and set in motion events which had major influence on the later Great Wars.
Obviously this is a bit of a "what if", as there is no way of knowing exactly what would have happened if this bloc had formed, or how long it would have lasted, but it can't be denied that those talks had long-term influences on the alliances involved, both in their spirit and in their failure.
-
Did some alliance leader, once upon a time, have this conversation with an MDP partner? "Hey, we're going to tonk alliance X. Wanna join in?" "Well, I'd love to help you out man, but we can't. Not in the treaty.
Certainly a discussion I've had in the past, though it became rather more heated.
Treaties are only worth the (virtual) paper they're written on when the treatied alliances consider it to be in their best interests to follow the exact wording. Most of the time, they will act as they see fit and interpret the treaty in creative fashion in order to give their actions some air of legality. The fact that most treaties are very loosely worded does not help in this matter.
-
Loose surrender terms, requiring no sanctions on military or transferral of funds allow the surrendering alliance to rebuild rapidly, suggesting that they will be in a far better position for a continuation of hostilities, "drama" as you call it.
Strong surrender terms tend to produce far more emotion within the defeated alliance, while they may not be able to rebuild, they will want to continue to fight, again, "drama".
Of course there are some alliances that never wanted to fight in the first place, there are also far more sources of "drama" than wars.
-
99% of those who claim "NPO ruined/are ruining the game" arrived in CN after the NPO.
How can you possibly make such claims about an alliance when you have never experienced CN without it's influence?
As to the topic, too many treaties, not enough treaties, surrender terms too harsh, lack of surrender terms, heard them all before.
Blackwater Announcement
in TE OWF Archive
Posted
There wouldn't be enough targets to go around
Should Hellas choose to escalate the situation (please do), I will don my diplomatic robes and attempt to locate someone brave honourable suicidal enough to support them in order to give at least some illusion of parity to the sides and prevent the inevitable accusations of curbstomping.
I doubt I would be able to find a sufficiently large number of fools to keep both BW and CDT happy though.
------------------------
Someone mentioned in another thread that Commander metal was absent from this round.
You've got me instead.
Change is nice, don't you think?