Schad
-
Posts
1,298 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Schad
-
-
You seem to be getting an awful lot of aid from couple-days-old nations who are sending you every dollar to their name, resulting in a bunch of aid packages of just under $2m. So giving!
-
Huh. I was pretty sure that we'd been in AZTEC for months now.
-
I am not Government, so I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors, so until things are clear, a reminder;
No doubt. However, 'what is best for the alliance' can have multiple answers depending on the time frame you're looking at. In the moment, this might be the right decision: NoR members are no doubt happy with their refusal to surrender to DoD. But unless they're expecting a palace coup if/when they surrender, that short-term gain is likely to recede quickly, while long-term they're wagering whatever goodwill NoR enjoys with quite a few parties...NG, NPO, NPO's allies, and even those against whom NoR currently fights. Win the battle (and, again, you're desperately unlikely to even win that), lose the war.
-
Not being in TLR, I would not know their reasons, other than they did the best thing for their own alliance.
As I have said before, I am sure when the time comes the Government of NoR will make the decisions which are best for our alliance. In the meantime, I am a soldier, and will fight until ordered to stop
TLR peaced out for the same reason that ODN peaced out, and NSO peaced out, and so on: their ally's own peace agreement was contingent (by the request of that ally) on the end of those fronts, and thus there was nothing gained from holding out.
You aren't an ally of NPO, and you don't owe them anything, but NG are. You're aren't doing them any favours in preventing the end of the war because you find the word 'surrender' icky, as the remaining options -- NPO keeps fighting until you cave, extending the duration of their terms, or peaces out leaving yourselves and NG on the field -- are both ugly, leaving NG in the unenviable position of having to screw over one ally or another. And yes, you will cave (because you have absolutely no leverage here), or you'll get a pointless 'compromise' where DoD has to write the word surrender in white text in the agreement so that you can pretend it isn't there, hard won at the price not just of your own pixels, but likely your ally's position with a close partner of theirs.
-
I'm seeing way too much "good luck with the rebuild!" coming from alliances that just wrecked TLR's !@#$ for months. Doesn't make any sense to me
For most of us, it just wasn't the sort of conflict that stirs up strong feelings of any kind for one's opponents; TLR wasn't being held in war against their will, and no one really begrudged them for wishing to remain in the fight given that their allies were still heavily engaged, so the fighting was all a bit paint-by-numbers. It happened, and now it isn't happening...no political motive in it, there just isn't much else that can be said.
-
As I predicted, the NSO coalition is falling apart first.
Might want to ask around, skippy.
-
Now TLR can finally come out of peace mode. So I guess thats cool....
Some fought throughout; others not at all, and others fought a couple rounds and waited out the remainder in peace mode. Some were broke from the off but managed to do damage; others had enough money to last a lifetime but didn't throw so much as a CM. In short, nothing the least bit out of the ordinary, and TLR's use of PM was largely unremarkable, on a largely unremarkable front in a largely unremarkable war.
-
Many thanks to those that added their weight to this front, and good luck rebuilding. Jedaye can now rest safely knowing that Michael Jackson will not be appearing in the night to commit unspeakable acts.
-
Misanthropic rerolls of the world, unite!
-
Standard beer/ff/construction + fish/uranium. Current pairs:
Fish/uranium: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=544900
Sugar/spices: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=544915
Pigs/wheat: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=544664
Marble/lumber: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=463832
Cattle/water: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=418318
Currently need aluminum/iron.
Contact me here or via [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=529019]my nation[/url] if interested and able to switch to purple and that resource pair...contact me before switching, preferably, just in case it fills (or someone drops out).
-
Utterly horrifying and so fucking senseless. Condolences to everyone that knew him.
-
I've seen some brave declarations in my time, people, but this...this is the stuff that the bards sing about. This is the stuff that monuments are named after, the stuff that inspires generations to try to meet such an exacting standard.
Onward, brave Skaro nations (well, at least that one guy who declared)!
-
Well in any case you made the best of it, you reduced the cost by half by only changing trade circles.
It shouldn't, though: his current circle doesn't include any discounts for tank purchases.
-
They counter-offered white peace. If you just walk away from negotiations at that point, that's on you. If they walk away at a counter, that's on them.
So far, ball's in your court it would seem.The ball has rolled off the playing surface, somewhere in the vicinity of the net, with both parties alternating between glancing at it and each other. Meanwhile, the ball shows the first signs of developing a new mossy exterior.
-
This is what qualifies as unrestrained arrogance these days?
-
Similar names? It's terribly confusing. I'm So Confused.
-
I'm just confused why people keep saying banks are obsolete then in the same breath saying that those banks are part of NPO's very efficient rebuilding process and need to be punished. If NPO's system is so $%&@ed then just let them hurt themselves with it.
"Nations used as a store of wealth is unnecessary given that any suitably-prepared nation can fulfill that function, can still fight and can still help rebuild thereafter" =/= "nations cannot be rebuilt through aid".
Conceptually, let's say that the coalition replaced their current terms with simply asking that the banks fulfill their purpose: that those 35 nations spend the next, I dunno, three months sending out $6-9m/100 aid packages to smaller NPO nations. Assuming that they have six slots apiece, it'd be a transfer of $324-$486m and 5400 tech per nation to help the fighters in the alliance.
Is there any doubt whatsoever that NPO would reject it out of hand? Of course not, because most of those nations aren't collecting tech to later send it out, they're collecting tech to have tech.
-
Jesus H Christ, even the idiots we are not fighting have no reading comprehension skills do they?
You do know that we came in on OP the same day about 5 hours after the Misfits right?I have seen multiple comments from you in this thread and every one of them is wrong.Got no life at all do we?And when did you stop beating your wife?Warriors declared 12 hours later. War Doves declared 48 hours after that. Neither is exactly a war crime, so either straight thine spine and win what ought to be a fairly straightforward war at this point, or explain to me exactly what is so heinous about their entry here."running the NS ratio above 2 to 1"You have to be the one doing the math in the other thread.How many different ways can you make the equation 52 nations against 50 seem so wrong?I have seen 3 now.C'mon, don't be shy and try and impress me with your half witTE has a pretty fluid definition of 'wrong'; that's not what we're on about here. Let's spell this out as simply as possible, with bullet points, as you seem to be a fan of fragmented sentences:- Going with a mil build early and hitting alliances that were going for with econ wonders is not at all evil; it does, however, mean a telling difference in damage output capability which came to the fore rather quickly.- The alliance(s) blitzing also have a pronounced advantage in any TE war in early damage output and target selection.- Nation count isn't exactly a perfect analogue for war-fighting capability. For this reason NS tends to be used, as it provides a better accounting of the ability of an alliance to sustain and inflict damage.- Combine those three things and you get a situation where the war quickly becomes something of a walkover.- Nothing about War Doves' entry materially changes the above...they entered at a point where OP/TPC had already sustained significant damage, and thus WD isn't likely to change the balance. It's thus amusing that Warrors/Misfits are acting as if they've been seriously wronged in this, unless it's because you were hoping that the early war would allow you to exit without suffering any significant damage, but surely it's not the case that a proud outfit of battle-hardened individuals such as yourselves have your panties in a knot because you might have to do some real fighting. -
18 vs what was it? 26?
Come up with something better than NS ratios, pls.
pls Schad.
pls.
I'll recycle my own post.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nation count for both sides when tW started their war was roughly 50/50. Granted TPC and OP had half their guys not built up (no idea why, you had $25Mil to use) so that made our job a little easier, why you would need to stack 15 more nations against tW is beyond me, but I guess that's what happens when you have some people crying about "curbstomps" when really they're just getting a dose what what they did last round. "
It's something of a fact of life in TE that many nations don't build up early; hell, many never build up if they give up on trades. It's no secret that the aggressor has the advantage in any war, and that's particularly true early in rounds, when there's greater variation in opening moves...many in OP were, by build, anticipating that a 30-day round would produce a cagey start because everyone would want to finish strong, and thus you have a lot of econ builds. That doesn't devalue the idea of an early declaration, but it does lead to war where you already had a numeric advantage strongly favouring the two declarers, and after a couple days when that advantage had shown through in a big way, it does make it a wee bit absurd to complain about an addition of nations that aren't likely to swing the balance.
As for crying, c'mon now. You're reacting to War Doves declaring a massively uphill war as if they sodomized your cat.
-
Everyone, the War Doves idea of declaring up means hitting an AA that is already completely at war. You guys are ballsy, not for hitting us, but for taking part in an actual dirty declare in TE.
Hitting OP when they're already completely at war, running the NS ratio above 2 to 1: perfectly legitimate.
Hitting Warriors when they're already completely at war, lowering the NS ratio to 1.6 to 1: dirty and unfathomably evil.
Again, it'd take a massive effort on the part of Warriors/Misfits to exit this with anything less than a convincing victory. Stiffen thine upper lip and welcome WD to the war, because this is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen judged as an outrage.
-
Taking misfits and OP out of the stats and it is 300k vs 200k with a large portion of TPC not yet built and WD have the capability to boost an extra 20k+
If WD has the capacity to boost 20k, and all of TPC's not-yet-built nations could get to 10k (they can't, but for the sake of argument), Warriors would still be larger than TPC + WD.
Steady on, lads; I'm confident that you turn a 65% NS advantage into victory, even if you aren't.
-
I understand the power of friendship as my alliance holds public treaties. However, all of WD attacking was far from needed maybe a few nations at tops. Once again taking the odds completely against warriors to the top. SHAME SHAME.
Yourselves and Warriors have a combined 460k NS. OP, TPC and WD have a combined 279k NS. How that means that the odds are massively against Warriors/Misfits, I'll never know.
-
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's common.
It's common in every war that necessitates their use. It'll become even more common now that fewer major alliances are in blocs. Using oAs to effectively cover fronts isn't just by-the-book, it's probably an entire chapter of the book.
That entire war was one giant !@#$@#$ pre-empt, lol. That is not an example of by-the-book warfare.
I even stated I am not complaining, but rather disagreeing that this is "as by the book as any war has ever been." A much better example of that would be PB-NpO (I like to think of DH-NPO as separate but obviously related).
That war featured the invocation of a number of optional aggression clauses, as well, and the use of optional clauses in NOIR. The biggest difference is that all but a handful of the biggest alliances on the winning side were in blocs, and consequently many of the declarations happened via the aggression clauses in the bloc treaties themselves.
Edit: one of these days I will actually use the multiquote function, rather than fucking up the tags doing it manually. One day.
-
"a pile" doesn't equate to what we've seen on each front in this war. Hell, Nordreich is eating what would be considered a major front's task in several other wars. EQ is the only recent war to feature such a staggering amount of oAs involved and that was lawyered to be "an attack on one is an attack on all".
This is partially because, at its peak, the sides for this war were closer to parity than in most if not all world wars. That necessitates moving alliances around to ensure coverage, which means that you often cannot rely upon invoking MD-level treaties alone.
And you're still off the mark. Check out the oA chains that were used in Grudge, as an example...a tonne of alliances oA'd in on Fark. Sparta then declared on a couple of those, which resulted in a large oA chain to bring in the alliances that had been earmarked for coverage. GOD hit Valhalla; because the alliances earmarked were a couple chains away, four oAs were invoked in covering them. There are a dozen more examples from that war alone. That's coalition warfare.
I mean, shit. There's plenty to complain about in this and every war. But "you're using your treaties to maximize the strategic advantage of your coalition" really shouldn't be one of them.
Killuminati Empire: Declaration of War
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Which will be none. This will go precisely as every one of these situations go: you declare on a couple of the weakest people in range, they stick a couple of nuclear nations on you, your nation becomes a crater filled only with impotent rage, having inflicted hundreds of dollars worth of damages in total. You'll ask for peace, GOONS will ask for something for peace (probably a joke term), you'll make no fewer than three threads decrying the injustice of it all, eyes will roll, life goes on, nobody cares.