Jump to content

Stealthkill

Members
  • Posts

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stealthkill

  1. Fighting on both sides of the war is something only RIA can do.
  2. More fun that way. And also berbers. Definitely berbers.
  3. The ampersand ban. The very bane of our existence.
  4. Fair enough, or well it could be if the situations were comparable. We're not even an hour into fighting. And so far there's a bit of a crunch for slot availability. Although I suppose I should be reasonable. Yeru's 8k infra tech selling nation is in a tough warring spot, and that's a pretty understandable nation to move into PM to avoid unnecessary damage.
  5. This is dumb. TOP privately thinking Sparta's a sack of morons wouldn't surprise me really, but you're ridiculous if you're gonna paint Polar as anything but wholly supportive of their blocmate. Not to mention the rest of the ignorance found here. Sheesh.
  6. I found three nice targets in TOP and that's good enough for me.
  7. Can we change it to your avatar instead. Or at least not kata's.
  8. You should have done this. Would've made literally everybody happy.
  9. CN is horrid at changing its perceptions of alliances, particularly on the public level. Sparta's war performance this time around (as well as during EQ) has been pretty good, with them ranking quite highly in the number of wars fought and amount of damage done. Anybody saying they are useless meatbags or pushovers when it comes to war is very wrong, but well, being correct isn't exactly high on the list of priorities for trash talk during war. Hell, I'm pretty sure I saw members of NSO mocking Legion for sucking at fighting earlier in the war. It's bull, but unfortunately, it seems that people would just rather revert to tired old lines rather than actually coming to terms with the reality that their enemies have either improved, or perhaps were simply never that bad in the first place.
  10. We're really hoping they'll take FC back one of these days.
  11. 1) lololololololololNoR. AA deleted, that's a laugh and a half. But yeah, good luck fixing that mess, though I wager it shouldn't be too hard considering you have a list of your members. May make things slightly more of a hassle for your opponents depending on what they use as a target program, but eh. 2) Overall Stat Summary (according to RI5) NoR Overall: 2.6M taken 2.7M inflicted 587 wars (139 offensive, 448 defensive) INT vs Nordreich: 837k taken 834k inflicted 209 wars (164 offensive, 45 defensive) Note: DBDC took a 30k bite out of INT, which has been ignored here) HB vs Nordreich: 460k taken 540k inflicted 127 wars (119 offensive, 8 defensive) VE vs Nordreich: 78k taken 111k inflicted 16 wars (15 offensive, 1 defensive) DoD vs Nordreich: 264k taken 259k inflicted 37 wars (30 offensive, 7 defensive) MHA vs Nordreich: 300k taken 292k inflicted 66 wars (all offensive) Umb vs Nordreich: 78k taken 94k inflicted 8 wars (all offensive) MW vs Nordreich: 683k taken 510k inflicted 122 wars (44 offensive, 78 defensive) It's worth noting that, as with all damage stats, this doesn't really take into account who's doing the nuking. If you've got 2 INT nations and 1 Umb guy, and the Umb guy is the only one of the three lobbing nukes on their NoR target(s), then that's gonna make INT's damage ratio look not as nicely as Umb's (though it will have no impact on NoR's). Also, in regards to # of wars vs amount of damage, these stats also don't break things down into tiering. More damage is done in the upper tier than the lower ones. Basic fact of CN warfare. And finally, there may be slight interference with regards to who's doing the nuking and coordination and whatnot with alliances that are outside this selection (such as Non Grata nations also at war with some of these alliances). Just the standard issues with damage stats when you're looking at individual fronts. But well, we may as well assume it's all a wash and just move on to the takeaways: These numbers are just flat out wrong. NoR hasn't lost 3M (yet, it's getting close... but your AA breaking will be a bug in stat tracking for sure) and INT has yet to break 1M of damage, let alone 1.3M. Deletions aren't taken into account, just wars, but well, still... this is off, as even if you include all deletions and such, INT's still only lost 910k NS, nowhere close to 1.3M. Alliances by Percentage of Damage to NoR They Have Done: INT- 31% HB- 20% MW- 19% MHA- 11% DoD- 10% VE- 4.1% Umb- 3.5% Note: 1.4% lost in rounding differences. INT is by far the alliance that is doing the most damage to NoR, and the one that is most heavily committed. HB and MW are both, of course, doing a strong share as well, but trying to say that INT isn't doing damage, or just isn't doing adequate damage is not very convincing, especially if you try to say that they are inadequate compared to VE as Holy Ruler asserted, seeing as VE has done roughly an eighth of the damage INT has done. And while HB and MW have (if combined) done more damage to NoR than INT has, if you combine the HB/MW totals and put it side by side with INT's: MW/HB vs NoR 1.143M taken 1.050M inflicted 249 wars (163 offensive, 86 defensive) You can then look at the damage inflicted per war and see that INT's (4k NS per war) and the combined HB/MW total (4.2k NS per war) are really rather close, with HB/MW doing slightly better likely due to stronger tiering on their part. However, there is interference with HB/MW having a higher defensive war percentage (35%) compared to INT's (22%) and MW just being at war with NoR longer than the other alliances. Yet overall, I would say that HB's higher ANS is more of a driving factor for the difference than INT's alleged inefficiency. So far, the damage outputs for both sides are close, particularly INT's, but the bottom line is that the issue is probably more that NoR has still yet to run out of nukes in their war mode nations than anything, and that's simply a clock that's waiting to tick out. I mean, damage is being done well, sure, but if you exclude MW entirely on account of the fact that they were outnumbered for a bit, NoR's lead in damage inflicted vs taken is entirely erased, and flips the other way. By all means, I'm sure NoR's fighting hard, but by no measure whatsoever do the stats show that INT is doing poorly. Considering their lower tiering and the fact that I wager most of their targets are perhaps just pure nuke turrets (which is common in this stage for mid/low-mid tier warfare) they're doing fairly well, and NoR's claims are nothing more than mediocre trash talk.
  12. It is not them. We booted gorbachov off the CMEA AA that we are protecting, and afterwards we gave a temporary protection to CobaltWolf's AA, CIN, which expired on September 30th. We do not, and have not, agreed to protect gorbachov's new AA, COMECON, which he moved to after vacating CMEA.
  13. I have to say, I'm impressed. We haven't had Micro-Morons with a comedy:annoyance ratio this good since TOLWYN.
  14. FTFY. I mean seriously. How did you miss that >_> And MI6, feel free to go for it. Would easily give us a better name than OuO or Disorder War for sure.
  15. You act like we're not a soap opera already. Damn, you really are oblivious.
  16. Just gonna say, that last bit you're trying to take it where IRON was hedging their bets by keeping the treaty doesn't really stand up too well. It's been clear for a while that NG didn't have a shot so while you could try to spin IRON's refusal to support NG in a variety of ways against them, saying that IRON was hedging its bets doesn't work very well. And judging from these logs alone, IRON was not supportive of NG for quite a while, with the treaty remaining for whatever reasons. Ironically enough, NG (in a way) can be seen to be the one hedging its political bets a bit here. Not in regards to this war, but the next. They've been preaching about how the next war will be TOP taking aim at IRON, and have been making moralist claims against TOP (and constantly talking about Beerosphere as TOP's meatshield, a claim that the stats aren't showing just yet), while simultaneously trying to publicly shame IRON. The latter may be fairly legitimate, but if IRON's been saying for this long that they were not planning on defending NG for the war that they brought upon themselves, one could easily wager the outrage is mainly for show. Especially if NG isn't cancelling the IRON/Val ties in response to such a thing. As for the former... I mean, the irony of NG making moralist claims and trying to appeal to Beerosphere is just flat out funny. Whenever an alliance is stuck with ties on both sides, it's a shitty position. Handling it requires a mutual understanding from all treaty partners, regardless of if the alliance with conflicting interests is electing to join the winning side or losing side. It seems from these logs that IRON communicated to NG well in advance what their intentions were, though apparently they either didn't do so very well, or people are just milking the hell out of this. Or NG thought that the LoSS bullshit may have created wiggle room to change something.
  17. God Kaskus, what's so special about RIA? The rest of us have horrible treacherous leaders too y'know.
×
×
  • Create New...