Vhalen
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vhalen
-
-
So, I was sort of skimming the thread and saw this:
Let me guess...community college and then keg stands at a state institution...do I have you pegged? <_<
I think this one actually failed at keg stand. But I have faith in you little buckaroo.
and then this:
The rest of your post I have addressed too many times to even give a damn. You need to read up before you talk, really. I do enjoy that you don't have a leg to stand on though.
and, of course, I read it as "you don't have a keg to stand on."
It made me a little sad to discover the truth.
-
I thought you and I had a round early on, but I don't have it on my war screen. Had some great wars with other GLoF still, Marcus Lucianus and TnAGLIMMERMAN were some of the higher damage wars(both ways).
I remember punching you a bit. I didn't get all that many rounds with TSO and Alchemy, though, as your NS got below my range after a bit. Mostly I ended up facing off against TOP. There were few inactives/turtles, but for the most part, quality combatants. If I had to single out one person, I guess it'd be Aesis. Had so much fun I had to come back for seconds!
Most of you guys on our front were in a rough spot. Hats off for handling it with civility and class (at least from where I was standing.)
-
Where did I say that EQ couldn't keep it up? Why didn't they though? You yourself admit it's a mistake. EQ accomplished nothing other than some empty admission of surrender. I don't get how anyone can be happy and boastful about that.
I think it's more that people have a problem with CO trying to be so boastful about giving said admission of surrender. I mean, when you come out of the blocks with "Sure, we surrendered, but that doesn't mean anything because we didn't have any terms put on us," and "Wait until next time," it puts the other side in this position where "next time" they're almost forced into demanding terms.
-
Anticipating MK/NG/Umb/TOP domination of biggest gainers
And condolences to ODN.Yeah, with all the strays returning home, there should be a quick jump there.
As far as buybacks go, that could make the gains jumping around a lot over the next few weeks as people hit their backcollections and polish up their ruins.
-
Whomever first said it was absolutely correct: CN: A Double Standards Game
Unless they said it about me, and then they're wrong.
Unless it was me who said it.
-
-
Putting Saniiro in instead of Arciel doesn't help you as I said I rescinded the order. Since I sent a message saying people can come out if they want. Voluntaryily, not an order. So that is why it doesn't apply. Have your eye's look at the edited post of your screenshot.
Probably a wise move. Makes an order look less ineffective if it isn't followed, once it's optional.
-
I have no idea. Why would it be embarassing?
Never mind. I guess one has to have standards first. :P
-
The bolded statement is incorrect. Umbrella is DBDC's protectorate c.f. DBDC DoE/Treaty/DoW
Remind me again, was this before DBDC declared any wars? No? Oh, dear, how embarrassing. Well, I'm sure you can retroactively date it. I'm pretty sure that's how everything works nowadays anyway.
-
Perhaps this AA hopping would end if EQ abandoned its ridiculous Musketeer Doctrine. Both have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on alliance politics and should be firmly kept from becoming the norm.
Can't argue with you there. I don't think too highly of either. I think the practices diminish both politics and war, but I won't get into all the reasoning right now, on account of being lazy.
-
I've never really understood why sanctions weren't considered valid war tactics.
If it is determined that a war action jeopardizes the safety of the sphere I would think sanctions are justified. If you disagree, senators are subject to a vote.
My guess is because, "way back when," people felt like it was an attack on nonparticipant nations, and depending on trade partners' activity, it could be terribly inconvenient. Nowadays, it hardly matters, what with resource-swapping.
-
there you go.
Never in any global war prior to this one, has the smaller side done more damage to the larger side.
I attribute this descrepancy largely to the DBDC AA, and before you go all, "Well, of course, they're upper tier nations, they do a lot of damage," what I mean is, it's because their roguing strategy allows them to ignore traditional war declarations and boundaries. By virtue of deserting their normal alliance and joining a new one (as DBDC has officially declared itself,) and mind you, an alliance with zero treaty ties to any at-war alliance, and a pretty piss-poor war declaration that can read however one wants it to, they allow themselves a ton of flexibility that hasn't existed in previous global wars. Essentially, they've chosen to abandon the "alliance/DoW" paradigm more or less entirely. (On a side note, it should be interesting to see how this is reflected in peace talks. One would think there'd be an interest in discouraging this sort of behavior in the future. I can think of a few things I'd suggest...so it's probably for the best that I'm not involved in peace talks.)
its funny that you facepalm over score. The score is calculated the same for every alliance. Using the same formula. It is singularly the most fair way to deduce damage. Its even more laughable that you choose to use % of NS lost as the measuring stick. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of math. If I have 100 oranges and I eat 30, I have lost 30% of my oranges. If I have 200 oranges and I lost 50, I have lost 25% of my oranges. A lower % but more overall loss. It is , in fact, statistically, the worst way to measure damage. It would only be an accurate way if every alliance and every coalition was the same size. You should be facepalming, but it should be at yourself for what you insinuate. You can present it any way you want. Raw NS lost. Score lost... in all measurables we are reaming your coalition. We are doing something that no other losing side has EVER done. As for score being a function of the number of nations in the game, it is completely irrelevant, because EVERY alliance scores is measured against that same variable, hence it is not variable from alliance to alliance. Since the # of nations in the game is the same for EVERYONE. The only variable is alliance strength. Therefore the fact that one side has taken more score damage than another side ....100% means that that side has taken more raw damage than the other side. Same as in past wars. You should re-take Algebra 1, maybe you would gain an understanding of what variables are.
I can't speak for every front, but there's been a ton of infra buybacks (and tech buybacks, for that matter) over in this neck of the woods. Pretty sure destroying 10k infra twice only counts as lost score once. ;)
Furthermore, I see regular Umb arguments that EQ's side is all infra and no tech. If that's true, and infra evaporates so fast, %NS lost should be enormously in their favor, instead of 51% to 33% the other way.
-
Now that doesn't sound like you're towing the coalition line. Have you forgotten so quickly all the anti-GOONS propaganda that suggest that's exactly what they do for DH?
I never claimed to be anyone's spokesman, and I've never seen myself as a mindless drone. I say whatever I want to say.
In this instance, though, pretty sure GOONS has said they don't exactly do that anymore, and I doubt they ever saw it as a permanent setup. Besides, I don't think aid drops were under siege the whole time (which, as I've said, is a nasty tactic that hurts everyone in the long run, but one that would work.)
Wait a minute, though. Wasn't it you who said EQ would risk giving DB/etc more consistent sellers by that tactic? If they already HAVE those consistent sellers, then what was that whole bit about in the first place? Or are you just talking out both sides of your mouth? ;)
-
The best you can come up with is "WIGGLE ROOM" lol. War weariness is hell of course, except pretty much straight across the board, although sustaining losses, our nations are doing more damage than they're taking. This makes it actually enjoyable to take a 4k tech nuke and dish out a 12k one. Sometimes you even get people without SDI's.
Wow, way to focus on the throwaway line. At any rate, 100+kNS is a lot of "wiggle room," so I probably worded that somewhat poorly. And no, war weariness isn't the same across the board. Take two sides, give one a significant numbers advantage, and see which one notices the war more. The numbers side could easily have people taking a month off, with the other side never able to declare an offensive war. To make it more fun, let's also make it so the outnumbered side's biggest nations are in virtual peace mode, so they feel like they're being pummeled and you're not doing anything. Morale's gonna SOAR over the next six months, right? I DID say I didn't advocate this approach and it'd be bad for Bob, remember.
*silly words* keeping their sellers in a selling status *gibberish*
I can delete everything except for the bits and pieces I cherry-picked to respond to in a denigrating fashion, too.
I like how in your magical world DB's tech sellers never have to actually HAVE the money, buy the tech, put together an aid offer, or get it accepted. They're all perfect little puppets who sit there and take a beating for somebody else's gain, huh? Sure. There're hundreds of masochistic altruists out there, just dying to get their faces smashed in on a daily basis to no purpose of their own. And they're all so dedicated that they coordinate minute-to-minute on IRC to avoid attacks between accepting cash and delivering tech. Such dedicated punching bags you've found. That fits the human condition to a tee. "Competence" hardly sounds descriptive of your imagined utopia, though. Perhaps "Desperate Obsession" fits better?
Seriously, though, there's a reason I specifically said I don't advocate gunning for tech sellers and young nations. It'd be bad for Bob, crippling the incoming population and driving out plenty of the old. You DID catch the part where I said I didn't advocate this and it would be bad for Bob, right? Oh, you didn't? Was that part of the "*words*" you skimmed over while searching for something to put a twist on?
Let's be realistic, though. What'll happen instead is the same thing that always happens. This war will eventually fizzle out, politics will shift, nations will wander around, and in 6-12 months somebody'll kick a rock through somebody else's window and we'll all invent new nonsense names to group everyone into so we can insult them without the trouble of actual thought. Also you smell funny. ;)
-
Mushroom Wingdom
That sounds like a particularly awful restaurant.
-
I don't consider you part of the victorious party either.
That's because you haven't seen his face light up when we pay him for our shares of the beer he brought over.
-
Good post, always nice to see the real numbers when every side is declaring statistical victories.
I want to see who has the statistical victory in most statistical victories declared.
The folks I've fought from your alliance deleted their wars with me almost the instant they were over, so I figured maybe it was a TOP wartime strategy of some sort?
One can't leave one's war history visible if one wants to AA hop to avoid staggers. I'm not saying that's everybody's reasoning, but it's not exactly an unheard-of tactic.
-
Oh Vhalen, how bleak has your outlook gotten, that you just assume that your coalition will never again have a nation in the top 270? I for one, can live with that assumption, but let's be real, EQ wanted to take down everyone, then they wanted to take down most, then a majority, and now you are just conceding that as long as you stay UNDER a certain NS you will be "untouchable" ?? This is a really dumb way to foster growth on an AA, or encourage big hitters to join you and give protection when Timmeh comes to collect his monthly land donation.
If you want to take that mindset, I'm cool with it, but at some point somebody will want to start infra-whoring again and maybe do some tech deals.
Hmm? I don't believe I assumed that. I'm not gonna hunt down my post to check my precise words, but basically what I mean is: if (and from you guys' chest-thumping, it sounds like plenty of you are leaning this way) you intend to assert a long-term aggressive control of the upper tier for the forseeable future, then it's silly to stand atop the hill just to provide a better target for snipers. And you act like nobody will be able to build at all. There's wiggle room.
In the face of your side's implied policies regarding future upper tier aggression, though, I'd actually suggest (and this is by no means good for Bob, nor the course of action I advocate, but rather, the logical tactical choice in the face of the "cap opponent nation growth" approach) that it'd be in EQ's best interest to continue this war until your side consists of nothing but its handful of "super" nations and the ZI'd wreckage of whoever didn't abandon you or delete. They should grind down mid-tier nations and allies, gun for Doombird tech sellers, etc.
And they will abandon/delete. Don't kid yourself. War weariness eventually makes it unfun, and think whatever you want, you guys aren't FAN. (Whereas that same war weariness is significantly less of a concern when much of one's side can sit in war mode and not worry about being declared upon, while cycling in whichever nations feel like a few weeks of war...ask NPO how much war weariness they felt during that, erm, "extended conflict.")
(Underlining supplied so people don't miss that bit and run off calling me a madman for all the wrong reasons.)
-
Went ahead and tallied up my wars (had to interpolate a bit since a few were deleted/not registered) and I've done a collective 425k NS damage to my opponents. That's more than certain entire AA's out there. Just because I finished my task before the "shark tank (lol)" could kill my AA-mates doesn't mean I've not done some heavy lifting. Quite the contrary sir, we've actually statistically eliminated the entire enemy super tier, and most of its remaining upper tier, thereby securing our own security for the next, I dunno, 3 years?
...thereby securing your own irrelevance for the next few years, you mean? If your "super" nations are big beyond the opponent's reach, then their nations are perfectly safe from you as well. One could speculate that over the next few wars, your opponents could treat those "super" nations like they don't exist...relegate them to a few piddlin' aid slots. Sure, maybe'd they have to leave a few of their own top end nations in PM, but if the next war conducts itself 80k and down...well, yeah.
Soooo... how exactly do you propose being able to touch the DH/CnG upper tier in the next 3 years? Seriously. With what alliances? With what nations?
You guys had a fair shot at contesting the upper tier when this conflict kicked off - you had the manpower, and you had a handful of high-tech nations that could go blow-to-blow with the best. Yet despite this, every single upper-tier nation in your entire coalition got melted, and sustained years (plural) of tech damage.
Far from contesting the upper tier, the high-tier tech gap increased. Short of a treaty/bloc shakeup, 3 years might be generous.
I've been popping into the OWF every couple of weeks, and this number continues to grow and grow.
Originally, it was 4-5 "super-tier nations" that EQ had no plan to deal with.
A few weeks ago, it was 30-50.
Now according to you, we're pushing 100.
I, for one, am rather content with this pattern.
You realize there's no value in EQ/etc. intentionally pushing their NS up to where they can look pretty on a chart and get blown up by "super" nations, right? This thread is essentially a trap in that respect. Why would anyone rebuild past what's necessary to reach targets? Because a number on this thread's gotten low? Pfft.
-
I don't know quite what you mean about wartime desertion. I joined DBDC with the full blessing of my comrades in GOONS.
As to your question about Umbrella BIBO'ing their former members, I would assume that's up to them as to whether they wish to pursue their policy now or at some point in the future - it's not something that's really worth worrying about it this point however.
Well, I'm nothing if not helpful, and I'm pretty sure I can explain that first part easily enough. You see, the act of leaving your own alliance and joining another sovereign entity during wartime is referred to as as wartime desertion. I don't claim to know GOONS' policy regarding this. You'd know better than I, so if you say they support desertion, then I'll take your word for it.
As for the latter, I was just helping them out (nothing if not helpful, after all!) I've heard comments about running low on targets at the high end, so I figured I'd give them a lead on some new ones. And you guys, as well, as per the last bit of my previous comments. You can check with your ex-Umbrella comrades to see if they remember who didn't sign that BIBO agreement.
Again, you're welcome. Glad to be of assistance. ;)
-
Oh, I'm providing some valid points, but not the imagined ones you've set your mind on. If you can't tell when you're being mocked, then far be it for me to shatter your illusions. In your own words, "please carry on" with...well, whatever you think you're doing.
-
You will never understand umbrella pal, I will fight till I'm pzied for bibo, perhaps if I insult someones ego I could get pzied again, that could be fun.
I'm not trying to understand Umbrella. I'm just trying to help you guys out. I found you some deserters (by DBDC's own admission they're a separate alliance now, so any who were BIBO signatories are subject to attacks by Umbrella, as per your posted doc on BIBO.) No need to thank me for my assistance in finding you some targets with whom to get started on your quest for self-ZI. You're quite welcome.
-
They briefly left MK to join the alliance Doombird Doomcave, They rejoined us ~2 weeks ago. We are not at war with DT, NEW, or Sparta.
So they deserted during wartime? Tsk tsk.
No. They're members of MK.
But they were rogues at the time. Gotcha.
The technical structure is that DBDC is launching undeclared wars on the Equilibrium coalition. For players to join DBDC in order to declare on Equilibrium nations is not technically roguery. With regards to Mushroom Kingdom and Non Grata's offshoots, on the other hand, these have not been declared to be under the protection of either Mushroom Kingdom or Non Grata and may be considered as rogues, although this is strictly an element of legalese; I would not be surprised if either MK or NG continued to claim these nations as their members.
Mushqaeda, on the other hand, I believe was declared under the protection of MK perhaps a year or so ago. Other AAs might not fall under the same protection.What's roguery if not undeclared wars? Or are you running the DBDC "point" below, in which case is sounds like they're deserters. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Then say what you mean instead of using terms that usually have different connotations. AFAIK our off AA nations are hitting people MK are at war with.
And people MK isn't at war with (see above.)
FYI, DBDC is an alliance:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/114848-dbdc-doetreatydow/
So its members are (I'll say pretty much, because I'm disinclined to backcheck them all) wartime deserters from other alliances? Is Umbrella gonna attack those guys as per BIBO?
According to their DOE, they protect us. And as to any claims of roguery from DBDC, they also issued a blanket DoW against anyone who is anti-BIBO.
That declaration doesn't fly. How can you tell someone's opinion on something like that if it hasn't been stated? Or are they just assuming anyone who hasn't declared "pro" is "anti?" Because it seems to me anyone in Umbrella who didn't sign BIBO is "anti-BIBO" by that standard. Hey, I've found DBDC some more targets! You're welcome, guys!
-
Give me gifs all you want, Bcortell. The truth of the matter is that one is these is true:
1)You're hurting and had to call in help;
2)Pacifica doesn't trust your front to hold negotiations and wants a seat at the table.
Pick your poison.
@Hart: Take a look at the number of nations you've lost in the same category. Your entire front has one nation left above 90k NS that isn't in permanent Peace Mode. While no alliance on your side has lost as much as TOP in terms of pure NS, one must also think that we're the largest alliance engaged on our side. We also engaged AI heavily in the first wave, likely causing heavy damage there.
If you take all of the AAs, our front has lost 6.8m NS. Yours is down 13m (not counting AI) and it's pretty concentrated in five AAs. We're holding just fine.
I see these nation-NS comments and think, "Well, that only really matters if they're broke, since infra-based NS is readily available at a click." That is to say, a lot of us are sub-90k for a reason, the same reason a lot of you are buying 10k infra. We'd rather be able to pick our wars, and you'd rather be able to avoid them. Strategy both ways, and it's empty words to state "X nations above Xk NS."
There was no diplomatic failure though. Your side wanted to roll us and no amount of diplomacy would have changed that.
What is hilarious is that you needed NPO to come in to make sure your side didn't make a peace with TOP before you were ready.
Some coalition you have there ...
Some might argue that finding oneself in that state is the definition of a diplomatic failure.
The Political Pro's & Con's of Joining an Alliance
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
True freedom comes after 25 days inactive.