Lurunin

grats guys, should be interesting to see how this plays out :) now we need LOUD back too ;)

Grats you guys. Hell of an accomplishment

There have been many more wars other than this one ;) just sayin.

In order to end up on the other side of a war, the other party must first be on a side. TTE are practically neutrals that sign treaties, they find excuses not to activate a treaty when their allies call upon them

DB4D is on the case? a surrender shall be any day now!

The upper tier are where all the tech laden nations reside. In order to bring their alliance to a less militarily dangerous one, that tech needs destroyed. Meaning that the upper tier and upper mid tier are the most important to accomplish this. Especially to bring them down in range where number superiority takes over

I wouldn't say all..most? Probly. But not all

People always seem to forget that micros don't have the resources to sustain long and costly wars as well as macros can. Number of nations are limited, as are money available and the ability to spread out damage like macros can. For them to have lasted this long tbh is a pretty good feat

"If someone performs an act that the entire world disapproves of, then obviously the rest of the world are just doing it because they are told to"

er...there is no FCC? http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Fifth+Column+Confederation edit: ah, they are known as "FCC" instead of their actual name now? http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=FCC

Lulu for viceroy! I mean...grats on the retirement hawkeye

Totally worth it

grats, strange to do this mid-war though? also does this mean TENE will be graduating from SoA protectorate bloc?

And we all know just how important and valuable it is to have your blessings. Honestly this ranges anywhere from a true misunderstanding to those hooligans members deliberately choosing SRA for a safe haven (though Walsh is too traditional to allow that unless told a different story imo) For 1/5 of hooligans members and gov to jump to another AA while in peacemode is suspicious enough. Add in that their coalition has been doing it since day 1 and you has just cause to attack those nations, not any other than those who switched over though

I'd rather fight a nuke nation with no sdi rather than a non nuke nation :P

trades have always been seen as something holy, and the only time it's been justified to crash 6 nations' trades is when one of them goes off the handle and goes rogue. roguery has always been seen as something bad and has always been seen as the only reason to touch something as sacrilegious as trades. even when beaten down to ZI/ZT, with the right trade set you can atleast rebuild yourself to a certain point of where you were before so long as you have the money to do so. senators are elected by the masses to use said powers against such nations and to perform in a way agreeable by those who chose to vote for them (usually). This is not to say certain instances like this thread come about, but usually they are met with fierce opposition by the community (honestly if this happened to almost anyone other than HoT that's what we'd be seeing here today)

Maybe we'll be on the news bout one of them again :P

Funny thing is, they were. I'm sure that's one of the reasons they are being piled on now

seems to be a bit off in that data. doesn't seem to be registering all of the info for defending NS lost. i know one of my members got attacked by Cornelius and lost...7k? NS in the least. is there a damage requirement per war for it to be recorded or something? though, definitely nice to see, thanks :)

yes and no at the same time. it makes sense to remove certain criteria from the data; nations under 5k NS, while they can still fight, are not necessarily needed to fight. those nations it's not usually worth sending an aid package for them to keep on the attack. the nations down there hold no impact on the war unless say they comprise 80% of an alliance's membership and are pleading for their gov to surrender. unlikely, but plausible. a war in those ranges are more to the effect of either keeping a priority target in a war (say a member that the other coalition despises or a high gov member) than causing actual damage. it's also more worth it for one side to just say "find your own targets" rather than try to assign them at that NS. then we move on to the "super nations NS". we can remove those sorts of nations as well if there's noone in range for them to fight. that just adds a wrench into the data needed as it bloats the stats relevant to the actual war. edit: same goes for nations in PM or those that have a single to 2 nations at war with a target. those other slots are being reserved for staggering purposes. they bloat the stats but the latter are still important while the former isnt. the latter shows those slots being reserved/holding the nation hostage rather thanletting them slip to PM to restock

never said you were wrong, just that it's wrong to compare this war with any others. sure, usually the smaller side is always beat down. that is because there is always superior coverage at all tiers to ensure the beatdown will happen. when said coverage is not available, usually wars are postponed or scrapped out right so that they can have time to bring in the necessary numbers needed for a sured victory. they were wrong to say the whole "smaller side always does more damage" bit, as it all depends on certain factors: i.e. wonders/cash/tech/activity/etc/etc. this is why certain alliances in wars are able to outperform those who are dog piling them, and again, that's where this war differs from any other we've ever had. it's the "elite" vs "the common" practically

in every other war, it has never been "the massive upper tier/high tech nations" vs. "everyone else" either. again, like you said, closest we ever got to that was BiPolar and even then there were still plenty of high tech/upper tier nations to be thrown against TOP/DR & co. now thanks to beat down after beat down of the Polar and SF/XX spheres, the only ones with much of an upper tier left are those in CnG/DH spheres and DR/NPO spheres. we literally can't compare this war to any others because it's unique in that degree. so it turns the idea of the smaller side dealing less damage on it head now that it's the smaller side with the tech advantage instead of the larger side. in this war, instead of certain alliances dealing more damage than they are receiving as happens from time to time, the tech advantage has opened it up for more alliances on the "smaller side" to have that ability, granting them capability of causing more damage than the "larger side" example: goons fights against say, VE (yes i know they're allies but i need the scenario). goons have many lower NS members but few mid-upper NS member, while VE has many mid-upper NS members but few low NS members. until Goons would be able to destroy VE's advantage against them and bring them into their own advantage area, they are going to suffer far more damage while attempting to do so until they can swarm VE with fresh nations while VE are left to defend against a numerical disadvantage ____________ this means your coalition will continue to have the advantage until our coalition can shave that tech off to a point where we then have the advantage to cycle in fresh nations. simple as that. again, you're right rush. there has never been a war where the smaller coalition has dealt more damage than the larger one, but then again, the scenarios have never come close to matching this current one

just want to point out that it's TOR fighting VE, not OTR :P

Damn, DoRN are getting huge lol

I still want that damned one armed blacksmith