Stetson76
-
Posts
906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Stetson76
-
-
Ms. Virginia. Rebel though you be, you have done nothing to harm the alliance of SNAFU and therefore we hold no claim over your blood or treasure. Go in peace to love and serve the Admin.
-
-
Congratulations to all on peace.
-
The fact is that NPO coming in and wanting a spot at the negotiating table (I'll stipulate to that interpretation of those Brehon logs, even if I don't think that's exactly what he meant) are two distinct situations. NPO was requested to help out with keeping the pressure on TOP prior to the negotiations taking place.
The discussion that took place (negotiation is a problematic term since no one was willing to move off their position) in fact did not include a member of Ai or the "upper management of the coalition" and that was something that should not have happened. Yes, there are plenty of capable people on our front that can, and did, handle the conversation well but it only makes sense that the alliance we're all here to defend should have at least had the opportunity to join in. Their exclusion was not deliberate or calculated, it was just a quickly thrown together meeting when a majority of players happened to be on and was in no sense intended, by our side, to be the final talks, even if TOP agreed to everything we requested.
At the end of the day TOP's situation has not changed, they're still unable to declare any offensive wars and are doing doink in terms of damage to Ai, which is why we're here. NPO has just made it easier on us to continue that progress. Anything beyond that is at worst a pointless ego stroke or more likely a misstatement in zealous defense of an ally. Either way, it's nothing but continued bad news for TOP.
-
I didn't need to be there, BEazy and I have an understanding... Yeah, see Ai hasn't had to deal with you guys offensively or defensively because you'be been kept in check. You declared on them and can't follow through, it's that simple.
-
I do find it funny how the "lesser beings" have the excess capacity laying around to call in another alliance when the guys who kicked this front off haven't had more than half a dozen offensive wars since they declared. I've had fun with most of my TOP opponents, but man, you guys should just quit while you're ahead. The last time you said you were winning you got another AA dropped on you. LOL
-
Not exactly seeing the hit coming.
You're right, there's not much much left to hit... :P
-
I believe the foreign affairs were handled just fine. You guys rejected a perfectly reasonable peace offer so you're getting hit with even more forces. That sounds just about right.
-
Welcome to the fray.
-
I always knew Pansy was a hippie at heart. Congrats on the retirement Tronix and here's to the new members of Ai's gov.
-
As long as the debit to Ogygia is recorded as a credit somewhere else, it will all even out in the totals no matter what starting point you use. The only difference would be there would be smaller fall if you began with a "peace time baseline". I'm honestly not arguing for or against the either coalition, although I have my thoughts on that too obviously, I'm just saying that as long as the record keeping is consistent, the totals at the end will be accurate no matter where you start off and no matter what the individual alliances look like. Accounting ledgers often look crazy as assets and liabilities get move all over the place.
I think I missed your point. If the loss was recorded as 20 NS against UMB but then was credited as 22 for DBDC because of militarizing it would cause some variation, but it would really be minor, wouldn't it?
-
So wait, if Umbrella started off with say 100 NS and that is their starting number then 20 of that NS went to form DBDC then a debit is applied to the column for UMB and a credit is added to DBDC. If then those nations lose NS, the debit is applied to DBDC and nothing further is done to UMB, correct? If that's the case, then the raw stats are perfectly fine, it's the percentage of loss that is skewed and does that really make a difference? The "side" is correct. Here's a break down. UMB's side starts off with 100 NS UMB = 100 NS If UMB takes 10% damage, they're new total will be 90 NS. DBDC forms with 20 NS Now UMB's side still has 90 NS UMB = 70 NS DBDC = 20 NS If they had stayed together and lost another 10% they would be at 81 NS. But apart UMB loses 7 NS and DBDC loses 2. UMB = 63 NS DBDC = 18 NS Which still totals 81 NS! So, the totals for the side will remain correct, even though it looks like UMB has lost 37% of their NS, the total is correct. So don't worry about what UMB or MK or TOP has lost, just add them all together and look at the coalition numbers. (Man I hope I haven't just made a fool of myself.) LOL
-
How could that possibly be?
Even if a certain number of high NS nations do manage to not only stay above the fray, but as well completely secure their position, they wouldn't be able to aid circa 95% plus of their comrades back to victory. That obviously cant work, due to odds here present. One side grossly outnumbers the other. Essentially, they become an island for themselves. In peace negotiations they can be a barging chip for the losing side to push for simple white peace, which even without that on DH fronts, is something that most likely is to occur anyway. The winning side will certainly be satisfied with pummeling what they managed to get their hands on, which is huge majority of the losing side.
I mean, I understand the fascination with high NS nations and their battles. Its a spectacle. Also, I understand the fixation with it, due to one side which is more forum active only having a fighting chance there. So we get to see some nifty propaganda pieces. But at the end of the day, what is here to happen other then what game mechanics didn't guaranteed for sure prior. No side managed to pull a miracle, why in the end this will go for the side that just has a bigger human wave.
I agree, and made that argument back during DH-NPO which is what I was referring to but some on the other side seem to think otherwise so it will be interesting to see who ends up being correct.
-
You sure did your research. It's not like I'm sitting our #1 nation or anything.
Also these folks that come and start chest beating about their current battles like what they're doing (despite any statistical embellishments) is what's going on across the entire front is laughable. Please apply something not resembling tunnel vision and come back and talk to me.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize that you were fighting the good fight with someone else's nation. Keep up the good work!
I'll just keep my blinders on and declaring wars on people and keep on grinding. See, I don't mind that we're "declaring up like mad" because I've been an advocate of this method of "giant killing" since the last time we fought TOP. Not many other people seemed interested in it at the time but it appears we might actually get a chance to see if a very small percentage of upper tier nations can indeed win a war while the rest of their alliance is ground into sand.
Just to clarify, I do say a small percentage of "upper tier" nations because despite the assertions to the contrary, 20-30 living free of harassment is a very small percentage of the forces on the other side.
-
Yev you know we're getting crushed, just face the facts. If we surrender now we might be able to survive this onslaught brought about by UE and SNAFU.
Seems you personally will survive it just fine.
But back on topic, when I declared war on TOP's new Grand Hospitaller BEazy (he's not on the TOP AA currently) we had essentially identical nations. He had just popped out of PM and I had already had a round+. We're still essentially the same size but while I have 23 nukes, 300 more tech and just got finished fighting another set of updeclares he's down to two nukes little chance of getting out of the fight to restock. That's the way this is going to continue once the DMZ is established. I don't want to take anything away from him, he's the guy that got me into this game and a pretty good dude but in the long run, if we continue down our respective paths I'll be able to start picking softer targets and the minor discrepancies in our nations will grow wider and wider and he'll have a lot farther to go to catch back up to me.
P.S. Ai and Umb thank you for this war, I've wanted to fight him for ages. :D
-
Start breaking up Equilibrium into two coalitions. Now take the competent half (DR/NPO) + 1/5th the nukes of the XX/SF/AB inactive mass and you have the true number of nuclear stockpile that could be used. Remove all nations below 50K from the that number. I think you'll see a different picture.
That's may or may not be true, but EQ can afford to have people re-buy while DH will be buying and firing. That means the number of EQ nukes will remain fairly consistent at this point while the DH numbers will continue to drop (assuming they're not all tied up in PM.)
-
It's already the most lopsided dogpile in CN history, yet you still feel the need to add more AA's to the mix! Are you not seeing what is happening?
Speaking for the Upper Tier of the war, as this thread is titled, there will not be a single EQ nation over 110k when all is said and done. This is not propaganda or idle threat, this is a certainty. I'm not sure how many different ways it must be spelled out, but that spells disaster to me, as the 120+ range is my playground as it is for many of my allies.
The guy who posted about bring up a nation "just in range of the top nations" made my year by the way. See my war chart vs zangetsu if you need a preview of how that goes. I just fail to see how this current upper tier scenario wasn't envisioned by the EQ war planners (if such a job exists).
http://www.cybernations.net/war_information.asp?ID=714399
P.S. - I am dearly hoping one of the 30k peacemoders comments about how I'm currently in peace mode...To be fair to Bob, you lost 40k NS in the time period you were fighting that guy. If you were at the bottom of a theoretical DMZ, it would be plenty to drop you low enough that others could jump in. Your performance against one nation was extremely impressive and you probably gave more damage than you took overall but in the end the goal wouldn't be to avoid damage it would be just to damage you enough to get you below the line.
I'm not saying the overall strategy would work but your reasoning for why it wouldn't is flawed.
-
Why did you paste it twice?
-
I love how the strategy here seems to be "lets hit the people honoring their MDPs." A Brave New World, Indeed...
You realize we have a MDoAP with Ai right?
-
Meh, they've had the chance once already and we're still around. :D
-
Thanks Joe. Go us!
-
I dunno, I'm having fun...at least for now. LOL
-
Excellent my friends.
-
Whew, glad to see we're still on the treaty list.
Congrats friends.
Parade (post-war)
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted · Edited by Stetson
So I heard there was a parade?
I guess there is...