Gurney Halleck

Every thread should be about Tecumseh, the villainous swine at UPN. From From Bob's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I fling my last nuke at thee (if I had nukes). Ye damned Bucknut!

Every thread should be about Tecumseh, the villainous swine at UPN! From Bob's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I fling my last nuke at thee (if I had nukes). Ye damned Bucknut!

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1267662961' post='2213125'] Still, if it burns down a warchest a few hundred k quicker a week, it's a pain. Not to mention, buying infra and military would be more expensive. [/quote] Well, it would have an economic effect (you would lose some happiness), but picking up your trades on none would still give you the military discounts.

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='03 March 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1267661358' post='2213103'] Not sure what bills are like with no trades, not so good I guess. [/quote] You pick up trades as soon as you're sanctioned (unless you've voted recently). You just go to "none" and pick up trades there. Besides, when your infra is 1000 or less, it's pretty cheap regardless.

Meh, sanctioning those in a never ending war just forces them to go to none, or do the secret trades for a bit. It's not like your collections amount to anything in nuclear anarchy anyway.

[quote name='Quiziotle' date='02 March 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1267572795' post='2211885'] TOP has impressed me the most this war. I figured they would do somewhat well, given that they have (perhaps "had" would be better word choice) an extremely powerful upper-tier, but even still, they surpassed my expectations. [/quote] Thanks. We like you guys, too, as opponents. We should totally war more often.

[quote name='Franz Ferdinand' date='02 March 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1267567880' post='2211739'] So... does this mean we can Tech Raid him with no repercussions at all? [/quote] Oh, I can guarantee that there would be repercussions.

This is disappointing.

Well, it is certainly within their rights to delay working on peace.

I'm torn. I love to see people with the courage of their convictions and who would rather leap off a cliff than to go back on their word, but on the other hand I hate to see Ivan step down. Nonetheless, congrats to the Sith on peace (even if peace is a lie).

War is hell. Fok had to make a tough decision here. I can relate. o/ Fok

[quote name='Roadie' date='24 February 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1266996431' post='2201067'] It's almost as if they [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79847&st=0&p=2152238&#entry2152238"]said[/url] they did, but didn't mean it. 10.We are committed to ending this war as rapidly as possible, preferably by a white peace agreement for everyone engaged including but not limited to TOP, IRON, C&G and SF and all their related friends and well wishers. I can not however stand idly by whilst my comrades are in deep trouble on our behalf.[/i] [/quote] Whose words are these? (edit: nevermind. Found the link; it's late, sue me)

Fok did what they felt they had to. Tough positions are made in war. As far as MK bringing in #22, totally understandable. War isn't fought by queensberry rules. They aren't looking to make this a 'fair fight.' That would be silly. Besides, neither side can peace out yet. We still have nukes left.

TOP has long been an alliance of bloodthirsty and incorrigible warmongers, hellbent on aggressively attacking alliances who posed no real threat. They are known for recklessly throwing their nations to the wind to attack without even the slightest provocation. It is their brand and trademark. Why, if you grant them peace now, they'll just continue back down this path as they have for time immemorial. Kidding aside... As far as peace terms go, we have to be presented terms before we can turn them down or (admin forbid) accept. I will say this about reps: We (TOP) have accepted them before. They aren't all they're cracked up to be. <in before "sure, you say that NOW!">

OMFG, to the man, are great folks. Glad you've got some peace and prosperity coming your way. [i](tell Nobby I said hello) [/i]

I agree with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Walker Ninja. See you out there, Fokkers.

Congrats, TSO. Here's to many more.

Congrats on peace.

[quote name='Fronz' date='16 February 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1266376220' post='2186822'] That is perhaps true for the first week of war, but after continuous anarchy (assuming they stagger) that option is lost and it is the other side that takes advantage of declaring on smaller nations. [/quote] No doubt, but they take advantage of it within limits. A 20K NS Nation has a small window of nations that can declare on it. The nations in that window are usually not flush with wonders. (Edit: added the K to 20)

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='16 February 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1266369904' post='2186619'] So, I know you guys are still bragging, even while you get stomped, but I don't think you know as much about game mechanics as you think. I've saw at least two other posters talk about "mutual destruction" and it's leading me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Which makes sense as this is TOP's first war that didn't have overwhelming odds with them. So I'm going to enlighten you , or try my best to get through to you. As the war progresses you will lose more and more tech. Without tech you won't be able to do much damage, obviously. [b]In the past two weeks you've lost about 250,000 tech, down to 950,000.[/b] Ref: http://uevil.maybe.net/testing/newcharts/ATE.html. I expect this to accelerate as you lose more infra (losing more GA's mean faster tech drain). So I figure in another month you'll be down to around 400,000 in tech and another month you'll probably bottom out around 200,000-300,000. 75% of this will be in PM so it really factor in. The point is you keep continually losing your potency, and at a very fast rate. As I stated above you'll be losing a lot more ground attacks due to less infra. Your navy will also be destroyed so you win less air battles plus it's nearly impossible to win an air attack against a nation with navy without a nuke, and you won't be able to nuke as often. No one cares about CMs. Now onto nukes, the only think that matters at this point after a month. You'll be facing 3 attackers and by this time you'll be down to 0 nukes. Anything more will be spied away quickly since you won't have much tech left after a month or so of war as stated above. I'll assume you all have WRCs (150/225). Without a WRC you are basically useless. A 7 day war allows for 14 nuke rebuys. I'm assuming your attackers have SDIs, as most of us do who are fighting. So (40% hit ratio of 14) = 5-6 nukes hitting. So maybe 1-2 nukes per opponent per round of wars. [b]Firing off 1-2 nukes at each attacker per war plus CMs isn't really anything that will make people scared who are cycling in to hit you. All the while you'll have to rebuy all that infra every day (which is annoying). Fact the facts that game mechanics (SDI) in a prolonged curbstomp prevent a situation of "mutual destruction".[/b] [/quote] First, game mechanics? What is that? Are you talking about war strategy? Second, when people say "mutual destruction," I think they are talking more about continued mutual destruction of infra and tech and warchest - not Alliance A and Alliance B are actually mutually and completely destroyed. Third, when you lose NS, you fight nations who are smaller (to be in range), and the tech loss can actually be less. Because, when facing these smaller nations, the rate of tech destroyed is less per nuke and lost GA. Further, at that level, you run into a lower rank who have a smaller percentage of SDIs, WRCs, and even nukes - so, some lucky opponents will get more that the 1-2 nukes per week. Sounds like great fun; interesting times.

[quote name='skokie' date='16 February 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1266303360' post='2185097'] Kid A wants to beat up Kid B, but kid C and Kid B are really good friends, so he pushes kid C for "self defense" and then Kid C(&G) punch him really hard. and now KID A is really upset and says everything could have been avoided. [/quote] Nah. Here, I'll help. I majored in analogies and got a cool C+ in tech school: Kid M implies that he is going to fight Kid T at 5th period recess. Kid T asks Kid M's friend Kid P if he is gonna jump in if something goes down. Kid P says, "Nah, brah, it's cool." So, Kid T hits Kid M before 4th period lunch (in the hallway by the watercooler and the 'buy a yearbook' poster). Kid M says "What!? I wasn't serious! You are paranoid and this was aggressive!" And upset? This isn't my upset face. All-in-all this is fun. Carry on.

[quote name='Requia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266299440' post='2184883'] Are there any alliances not currently offering individual surrender terms? Those are usually pretty mild, and offer an easy escape for someone who doesn't want to 'pay for the sins of their alliance'. Abandoning your current alliance vs getting nuked repeatedly may not be the best choice in the world, but it is a choice, and every day a nation stays they continue to make that choice. [/quote] I welcome their surrender. No judgments will be made about their decision.

There is a time for all things. There will be a time for peace. Obviously, that time is not now, and I think both sides are fine with the situation. Discussing this [i]ad nauseum [/i]is kind of silly at this point.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345'] Well it's a shame that you didn't listen to people in Citadel who told you at the time that the GPA war was bad news, and it instead took you two years and getting beat on for you to come to that realization.[/quote] We should have listened. And, and as I said, that realization occurred well before this war. [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345'] Sons don't choose their fathers, nations choose their alliances. And there are plenty of alliances without such sins on their conscience. Maybe they aren't sanctioned, but maybe that's not what matters.[/quote] To the first point: I was speaking figuratively. Replace father with 'elder' and son with 'new applicant' if you must. To the second, TOP wasn't sanctioned when I joined. That is a rather recent occurrence. None of that matters. What does matter is that we are a collection of friends. [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345'] We'll see, won't we. [/quote] Without a doubt.

Arcturus, The GPA war isn't something to be proud of. For what it's worth, there are alliances on both sides of the current conflict that went to war with GPA. I cannot speak for them. I can say that TOP regrets her actions in that war, and -even though that was nearly two years ago- considered paying back the GPA back a couple of months ago. We may still; not in an attempt to buy an indulgence, but because that situation left a bad taste in our mouths. It, and a few other more recent happenings, certainly tempered our view on things like reparations - both paying and receiving. As far as inheriting guilt for all past sins when you join an alliance, I disagree. I do not believe that the sins of the fathers transfer to the sons. As a matter of record, it would be hard to join most established alliances under a rubric so stringent. And, even if one insists on accepting guilt for such things, that does not mean that that designation of 'guilt' is actionable. As to people who [i]were[/i] a part of the alliance during that time (I was), all I can say is that I believe that all people, alliances make mistakes, and hopefully they learn from them over time and grow. As always, you mileage may vary. As to when the war will end, we're at quite the impasse: One side will not stop because of the fear of future aggressions. The other side sees surrender and reparations as an option much worse than fighting on to ZI and beyond. Which side is correct? It doesn't really matter. These are the cards currently in play. Interesting times we live in. (edit: misspell)