DougZ37

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1300285026' post='2666447'] Pretty sure they used OUT to roll on purple. [/quote] ODP in OUT was used to help take out the top tiers of OMFG, Veritas Aequitas, BAPS, Echelon, Invicta, UPN, GRAN. It was a fun war. It'd be an interesting counter-factual to re-fight that war with TOP on the NPO side. Not that I would WANT that, just make for an interesting conflict.

Now, does GOONS recognize this as an alliance war, or will you be treating them as raiders?

I'm sure it'll be a rip-roarin' blitz with all 53 of your nations capable of making war...

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1291921914' post='2535007'] No kidding. This has happened during every beatdown ever. Threads like these might as well be titled "a bunch of stupid ways to determine an alliance's fighting ability": nuke count, performance at the wrong end of a beat-down, total NS of alliance, etc. It's amazing to me how so many of the nerds who INHABIT BOB haven't taken even the most basic of lessons from intro stats to heart. edit: IC FORUM [/quote] As far as the War of the Coalition is concerned, I think this thread is absolutely right. Take my case (which by all accounts was the common experience in TOP, which was fighting the cream of the polar crop). We were both in the top 5% my NS. Our nations were similar sized, similar tech, etc. His warchest allowed him to fight for less than one week, whereas everyone attacking him had at least 40 days (this was back before the mega-warchest). It wasn't at all unusual to see their fighters with less 10% or less of the warchest of their attackers. I think preparation for war is a major part of 'war skills' - and in this they failed miserably. This was more than two years ago though. Polar isn't stupid, they have talented members, talented leadership, etc. They learned from this mistake. They grew their nations in tandem so they have large numbers of nations all in close range of one another, they invested in MPs so they had the largest nuke counts, and they grew their warchests. So, were they a military powerhouse? No, in the War of the Coalition they were a joke. Are they a military powerhouse now? Absolutely.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1280731112' post='2398090'] Unless the NPO messes up---and Cortath won't be doing that---I don't think anything will happen in this game for a long, long time. Those currently in power want to be protected on all fronts; that's their prerogative, but it means that there will be no significant wars; and, in my opinion, it also makes the game utterly pointless. [/quote] The kettle calls the pot black, or something like that. Crymson we sort of did the same thing when we helped to set up Continuum. What we'll have then is basically the same kind of drab, boring-ness that dominated CN from the BLEU / NoCB war through Karma.

So you were allowing your treaty with IRON to dictate your entire political direction, and now that you're released you need a new way to define yourselves? I'm just having a tough time interpreting what you're attempting to communicate with this announcement but oh well. [quote name='heggo' date='19 July 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1279497399' post='2377941'] Become centrists dumby, didn't you read the announcement? They're going to boldly go somewhere inbetween where everybody has gone before. [/quote] This thread delivers

Good growth guys. Its good to see you guys getting the respect you deserve.

Good work guys. This is almost as awesome as Germany's womping of Australia. Almost.

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='19 April 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1271654998' post='2265955'] Fought a dozen or so TOP. Most were pretty good. Had two rounds vs. Doug and he was definitely a tough opponent. [/quote] Haha definately not the first round. The Metaphorical stuff hit the metaphorical fan in RL during that first set of wars - plus an inactive first round mate =/ Second round was definately more fun though

I personally had a really good time with this war. Even got the chance to fight the same guy over a few rounds, definately interested. However 65 nukes eaten later, and I'm glad to have peace It was fun destroying years of stats collections. Good fight C&G. It'll be interesting to see where the next year takes us, and hopefully we won't need to revisit a war like this.

So what you're saying is - TOP and IRON managed to eradicate MK and Vanguard from the face of planet bob once and for all? Looks like our job here is done... I enjoyed the topic in any case. Well played.

NUTS!

For all our colored history and all our old disagreements, we will always have 10.10.10

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1266956632' post='2199457'] I love watching your blitzes though [b]the lack of slots prevent a real nice looking blitz [/b] [/quote] That this is in fact the case doesn't really help build the position that FOK was really needed in this war at all. If there are hardly any slots available how can you justifiably argue that FOK [b]needed[/b] to come in against us in order to fulfill your needs to defend MK? This reminds me a lot of Syzgyz's end of the world thread. This is about anything but defending an allie, theres nothing 'defensive' about this.

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 03:58 AM' timestamp='1266548326' post='2191076'] Well, I see that. Do you think there is a contradiction from signing a document designed to encourage alliances to peace out one by one, and arguing against us for having alliances peace out one by one, to create this divide and conquer technique? [/quote] I think you miss the point here. What Saber is criticizing is the tactic of offering fringe alliances white peace for the purpose of focusing on specific alliances, with the intent of creating an overwhelming enough force to ensure that the alliance has no option but to accept draconian reparations. This is contrasted with a blanket white peace and extremely public pledge not to demand any terms. Technically in both cases there is a 'divide and conquer' at work if you want to look at it that way - but the difference is in the end - one seeks to divide and conquer for the purpose of exerting their will over certain alliances / ensure draconian reps, while the other merely seeks de-escalation, not for the purpose of winning reps, but merely achieving a cessation of hostilities. I think thats a relevant difference, even if certain parallels could be drawn.