StevieG

LE always sanction, nothing new. To me this looks a fairly even fight. Yes, OB may carry a bit of dead weight, but I guess LE had to lump someone else in there as well to not make it seem unfair. Truth be told I think LE vs OP is pretty close even with the NS advantage LE have due to OPs massive average NS and Nukes. LE did get the blitz in though, which probably puts it in their favor. I might be biased towards OP, but if OP can bring about their activity they get from offensive wars into this defensive war, and combine that with their nukes then I see this as a dead even fight. Good luck.

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289852943' post='2513736'] What specifically is the "problem" for which we are looking for a "solution"? [/quote] OPs average NS.

But why should Catharsis have to play by your rules? Just because you think they shouldnt attack nations that are not involved doesnt mean they dont think differently. They may be wanting to send a signal, and whilst they will rightly be crushed for creating an AA war out of this, you will likely not bother them next round. Maybe TPC will look more closely at their war screens in the coming rounds because of this mess? Anyways, I recommend resetting the amount of nations an AA must have for it not to be a legal raid. An AA of 14 members can be a credible and potentially powerful factor.

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289502164' post='2510531'] Ok, I understand the concept of white peace now, but there have been unclear cases of the victor in the single war. But white peace shortens war. You white peace to gain a victor? A lot of white scenarios the war could have easily continued and the losing side could have easily changed things around with a bit of creative thinking. Hard to have a prize fight if peace is reached in 3 days. Or when a serious war takes place its end of round. If this is truly a tournament, only the strongest alliances should remain strong at the end of the round. The overall victor should be the last standing alliance or the strongest of the remaining. It does not last indefinitely, so why is everyone holding back? This is what I mean by competition. Everyone is praising how this is a Tournament and then just have mindless war. Ya, I could make an alliance and just mindlessly attack those with close stats. Or I can actually try to destroy the upper tier alliances and come out on top. Dominance is the major political thing I have been saying. Thriving to take out those ahead of you through cunning strategies. Everything is so cold and precise now. People plan out the amount of wars they will have. They study the peoples stats to precisely and choose the closest. This is why I say Confusion is good. He is not cold and precise. He tries different things every round. Sometimes he fails sometimes he succeeds. At least he isn't afraid of failing. Although at this moment I really can't do much because TE seems to think I'm barking mad for challenging it's current systems, but if I had the time to round up a few players from other area's I wouldn't just be planning out 1v1 wars. I'd be planning out how to make #1 without mass recruiting. And not #1 on the point charts, since member count plays such a large effect, but number one on NS. [/quote] I can understand some of your points. However, this domination idea you have of an AA or AAs trying to dominate the game is not what most AA leaders are going for out of their own choosing. Im fairly confident that domination could easily be achieved, as in the early rounds we had it, and later on WOLF also dominated for a bit. How long it will last is anyones guess. Opponents will work a way to bring you down, or you will succeed and dominate for a round or two until the members in those AAs become bored with the game plan, or government will fallout with eachother etc. The only way I could see this idea panning out is if you got a massive AA that could control the game on its own. That will likely never happen, as there are a few elite AAs who could all come together if the #1 got to big and dominant. So, now that we can see that domination strategy not being able to work anymore there are some alternatives left to AAs and AA leaders. War practice. Many SE AAs use TE for war and co-ordination practice, as well as interaction between AAs. Fun. Some just play to have fun, whether that means they tech raid their hearts out or whatever. To be in a relevant AA. AAs like LE, PS, and OP currently, are not the #1 AA in the game, yet they are round changers. The actions they take influence the round as it is played out, and these are some of the biggest political powers. The reason is that they are big and strong. In OPs case, not very big in numbers, but very high ave NS. Other AAs such as RE, TPC, and now tW are also significant players, mainly due to their size, although they are not that elite. Thats not to say that a few nations in an AA cant be elite on their own merit. You also have new AAs who come in, such as FARK this round and DR last. They usually have the numbers to play a little part, but dont ussually have as many experienced members. Other AAs hang on the lower regions of the sanction race, contributing in their own way. Sometimes ending up on winning sides of a war, other times on the losing end. I guess a goal of an AA could be to remain relevant for the entire round. This means no suicide wars early in the round. They get saved for later on in the round. What does that mean? Well, pretty much looking for an AA that you can hit, that wont be a stomping, but also so that you dont cripple yourself too much. This is so that you can retain nations in the top 5% and hold nukes for your later wars. And Ill quote myself now. [quote]Think of the AA wars in the first month of the game as merely appetizers for the main course. The bigger and better wars usually come at the end as the AAs who won their early wars usually clash in the end.[/quote]

Nice average NS WAPA.

Think of the AA wars in the first month of the game as merely appetizers for the main course. The bigger and better wars usually come at the end as the AAs who won their early wars usually clash in the end.

Catharsis have 14 nations. Thats kind of on the higher end of tech raiding. DR allows for 10 or less, and we do go 2 or 3 on 1, but usually those guys will raid full slots, so will be like 3 on 3, with the advantage definitely to the raiders. This is for a few reasons. Co ordination is practised, and the likelyhood of the raidee peacing out is high. Maybe they will send a few CMs, but they will peace out if they value their nation. My best advice for raidees is to send 2 CMs and a peace offer if you get raided. If the raider has any brains, they will peace out and not re visit that particular nation again. If they just want a war then they might escalate it, but that should be handled by AA leadership. Competent AA leadership should not turn a raid into a beat down. However, if the raidee refuses to peace out at all, and continues to be a thorn in the side of a larger AA then I dont see anything wrong with individually destroying these nations. If, as a raidee, you want to make your point as to not get raided again, then make your point short and quick, there is no point destroying your nation trying to make a point to a larger AA, unless that provides you with a source of fun of course . Also, I would suggest AAs of 10 or less should look for protection from a friendly larger AA. Some AAs wont give protection, others will. Bear in mind that the competent AAs who will give protection will not put up with BS from a smaller AA either. So if you really want protection, dont go spoil your good faith with your protector by starting up all kinds of trouble for them.

There are very clear factions in TE, which btw gets changed up and mixed about a little every round as we start over again. An AA like warriors who were sanctioned I believe, but not very high up the rankings are now #1 for example. OP has grown into a military machine with their very active and high average NS, even eclipsing LE now, who used to probably be the very best, and still are up there, just not as elite as OP atm. PS have also come on in the last few rounds etc. Every now and then you also get new AAs (or returning) like Duckroll who jump up straight into the top 5,6, or 7 etc. The political landscape changes all the time, and we dont need binding treaties here in order to have fun. Some may have a few, others may have secret ones, while others may have gentlemens agreements etc. We also, all (or most) have our friends, but even as Gov of certain AAs change, you get variation in the interaction between AAs. Add in the flag running aspect to the game, how that mingles and in some cases interferes with AA politics, and you can see that what we have here is a very explosive exciting game that radically sway at any given time. Pretty much, my point is that this game isnt low on numbers because it is boring. All it takes is either good activity levels, or being involved in significant AAs that play a part in shaping the world round after round. Im pretty sure that most people just arent active enough to fully enjoy the game, hell, Im not that active really either, yet I still get my fun out of the game. If you want dramma, excitement, fun, and arent getting it, go create it. All you need is 20 active competent nation builders, and you have yourself an elite army right there.

I hate to hurt your feelings any more, but lonewolfe does have a point.

Weve had a chat. Just for everyone else though, DR never sanctioned any rouge attack on tW, especially not while they were at war. And yeah we hold no treaties, we just have some friends. I may be flag chasing, so what? And the issue with tW has been resolved.

Tornado FC is in. I will get you a roster in the next week or so.

I agree with the OP. Faster Rerolling would be a positive and we would lose less players who may give up after getting shafted with resources.

I cant quite catch Double 0 Seven Most Attacking Casualties[quote] [b]1) 74,365 Soldiers Lost - El Nino of Liverpool FC - Blue Team [/b] 2) 73,467 Soldiers Lost - TBRaiders of Saldaea - Blue Team 3) 69,483 Soldiers Lost - Clash of Discord - Red Team 4) 67,198 Soldiers Lost - Jarhead of Zexius - Black Team 5) 59,749 Soldiers Lost - colonel mustard of Mustardville - Blue Team [/quote] Most Defending Casualties[quote] 1) 196,549 Soldiers Lost - Double 0 Seven of Top Secret HQ - Blue Team 2) 127,752 Soldiers Lost - Bourne of Treadstone - Black Team [b]3) 114,773 Soldiers Lost - El Nino of Liverpool FC - Blue Team [/b] 4) 109,161 Soldiers Lost - colonel mustard of Mustardville - Blue Team 5) 107,707 Soldiers Lost - Dingo of Outback - Blue Team [/quote] Total Soldier Casualties[quote] 1) 200,798 Total Soldiers Lost - Double 0 Seven of Top Secret HQ - Blue Team [b]2) 189,138 Total Soldiers Lost - El Nino of Liverpool FC - Blue Team [/b] 3) 169,502 Total Soldiers Lost - Bourne of Treadstone - Black Team 4) 168,910 Total Soldiers Lost - colonel mustard of Mustardville - Blue Team 5) 143,777 Total Soldiers Lost - Clash of Discord - Red Team [/quote]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1287238110' post='2485856'] Hate to bother you guys in another AA's DoW but I got another defensive slot open. Can I get some happy time? [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001385"]PLEASE?![/url] [/quote] Warmonger Alert

Eh, forgot that would send you to your own screens

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1287221240' post='2485802'] WTG Stevie! Bout' time we got some good counters. Salute! [/quote] Well, I finally got out of Nuke Anarchy, and there is no route to the flag for me anyways. I thought Id pay the #1 AA for this round a little visit. I did have to spend cash to reach up that high though

Silly me, I just went and declared on the top 3 LE nations I could find http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000084 Welcoming counters btw. You dont need to have nukes, just soldiers and tanks will do

Perhaps I didnt clarify well enough. What Im referring to in a down declare is merely on an individual basis, not an AA basis. In an equal AA battle there may be strategical aspects that can be utilized to win the war, rather than just total NS. Also, what may be the case in some wars is that the attacking AA has a higher top tier (maybe 3 or 4 nations over the enemy) but the defending AA has a stronger middle tier. In this case, the attacking AA has no choice but to down declare. I will also give you one example from the OP/DR vs PS/RD war to highlight my point. Before I do though, I do recognize that there may be debate on whether that was a fair war or not. This is not to debate that particular issue. For the blitz I was at 8838 ns, my partner was at 7819, increasing to 9374 and 8266 NS for Military build up respectively. Us 2 blitzed 3 nations at 7310, 6340, and 6236 NS. I guess you could call that a down declare. There was one stronger nation that DR was allocated that we could have hit instead, but there were a couple of factors that lead us to hit these 3 instead. First of all, we were relatively confidant that we could get 3 anarchies, which we did. Secondly, those 3 nations were carrying 9, 7, and 5 nukes, so anarchies against them would mean they cannot counter and drop nukes on anybody else. Also, only the nation with 7 nukes had the HNMS, and I had the best spies in DR at the time. By declaring on all of these 3, that meant that I could spy 5 vulnerable nukes per day, which I did. Then when the guy with the HNMS was at 5 I could only get 2 off each of the others per day which I did until they were out. So as you can see, there is more thought that goes into declarations other than just mere NS.

Also, I would add that down declares are part of the game. Strategy plays a bigger part than merely proclaiming on the forums that you declared up etc. Anyone willing to argue my points, go right ahead. But you wont win.

So this whole thing started with OP not being happy that LE interfered in their AA war, and its led us to this. SoT, you are in the wrong, read my sig

Back to the fighting gentlemen I got cash and nukes Getting my GF to drop a couple of nukes while I was away was only so effective over the weekend

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1286782260' post='2481375'] Which one of you genius' did this one? [/quote] That does happen from time to time. I remember spying the wrong opponent once in SE, of which the result was what you point to. My how stupid I felt, when really it was just an error

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286285796' post='2475902'] Yeah, I was talking about VE going independent after GW3 and then getting rolled by its former friends in the Initiative. I thought that was a piece of CN history that everyone knew, even if they weren't around at the time. And yes, the situation is somewhat different here (MK was the main alliance in C&G and that bloc didn't have the divisions that the Initiative did). MK still has powerful enemies though, and they cut themselves off from MDP support; it wouldn't surprise me if the powerful figures in NPO and what was the Polar coalition in Bipolar were at least running through plans to roll MK to see if they're practical right now. [/quote] Yeah, nah. [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286286475' post='2475909'] We welcome them to try. [/quote] Didnt work too well last time did it

Certainly a very very destructive war on all sides. [quote] Top 7 Day Smallest Alliance Gains 1) -100,828 Strength Change - Roman Empire 2) -79,190 Strength Change - Pork Shrimp 3) -44,315 Strength Change - Ordo Paradoxia 4) -43,438 Strength Change - Duckroll 5) -30,112 Strength Change - Rodentia Dominatus [/quote] As it should be

I see quite a few PS nations in the top ranges not in anarchy, and with no offensive wars or even wars. If thats because you are planning a counter, I take it back. Inkarra - no wars Prolinea - 1 defensive war Smithsonian - no wars Fightins - no wars