Jump to content

Stealthkill

Members
  • Posts

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stealthkill


  1. You're quite behind on offensive damage before you can talk. x3

     

    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.

  2. One has to wonder why this war has been so poorly planned and run that Sparta, an alliiace known for its lack of fighting ability, was left to hang out to get crushed for so long.  Granted it is no secret Polar and TOP have nothing but disgust for Sparta but, and MHA most likely still does not a know a war is going on but, Fark should have noticed and said something before Sparta had to spend all this time getting crushed.  

     

    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.

  3. I'm not knocking NATO's performance either, I just am tired of people !@#$ talking sparta when it has been shown they are definitely not pushovers, they've been told they sucked at war for 3 years, have given performances like this one at least twice before but still are getting no respect.

     

    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.

  4. 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:

     

    That is what we get for crowning an inactive as AA owner.

    Also, we know why NoR lost 3 million NS. Why did Int lose more than 1.3 mil NS?

     

    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.

     

    Great fighting alliances (HB, VE, MW) are responsible for that.

    Int has been mediocre in all this.

     

    I know it pains you that filthy lolcommies are smashing you to nothing. While HB, VE and MW have all been great help and have fought excellently it is plain to see on the many damage stats posted around these forums that INT has dealt the most damage and is engaged in the largest number of wars against you. Of course this is a team effort so no point really saying who's doing more damage anyway but your attempt to tarnish our image is pretty bad considering all the data is easy to find.

     

    MW and HB are doing damage. INT? Meh. Still sending 15 bomber raids.

     

    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.

  5. This type of behavior, commonly know as ODN's Modus Operandi, are the proof that IRON was just waiting to see if NG plans would be successful or not to then safely choose who they would support.

     

    [19:57] Old man Derwood1[NG] if I can ask a question, and I have
    heard many things about this but I would like it direct from you: why
    are you not defending us?
     
    [19:58] BaronAaron[IRON] becasue for months we told you this was going to happen

     
    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.

×
×
  • Create New...