Jump to content

Namayan

Members
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Namayan

  1. thank you for this new signature
  2. Wow, first DOW of TTE. can you guys bring this war to me so I can have the fun as well? :D
  3. well according to what I see Brehon Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:40 AM If the time is based on local timezone, technically it is March 27 in some parts of the world :D
  4. If I understand the game correctly, 1 land adds 0.2 population. If with agriculture development program wonder, 1 land adds 0.5 population. So if the game records timmehh to have 100k land means 50k population. If it records more like 150k land, then population added would be 75k. When comes to invincibility timmehhh ain't invincible because of land. Land loses the same rate as infra. You didn't take to account his current tech which 7th overall and 1st among warring nations. You also did not consider politics here wherein most within his range are either neutrals or allies. Another that was not considered is how timmehh plays the game or his skill at playing it. Land has always been a game mechanic available to everyone. But only timmehh maximized it while most players think that land is a useless game feature. It is quite unsettling If we are to change the game mechanics simply because a group players are doing better than others.
  5. With due respect to those who posted, I think the war alliances are more concern about war casualties and stats like those as nature of war alliances are to lose total NS.
  6. That can be provided thru the battle statistics: Stat by Mompson of Polaris as of Feb 25, 2013 Total NS detroyed by UCoN : 225,982.0193 NS Total NS lost by UCoN: 188,402.325 NS Damage Ratio : 1.19 Stat undeleted due to new mechanics of non-deletion of battle stats as of March 10, 2013 Total NS detroyed by UCoN : 159,248 NS Total NS lost by UCoN: 113,062.28 NS Damage Ratio : 1.40 If you use Missing value analysis and/or interpolate the deleted battle stats and fix the overlapping stats, Damage Ratio should be around 1.25-1.30. If you base this final damage ratio on Mompson's stat back in Feb 25, right around Pacifica, MK, GOONS, NG's damage ratio.
  7. We signed the peace with MW's permission. Better ask 2 of your allies on it rather me putting sensitive stuff here. It will clear up why we chose peace. Peace was very far from our minds until we were informed of the situation.
  8. UCoN will always stay at war as long MW ask us to do so. We had the permission of our allies at MW with regards to this peace since there is already something happening beyond our reach. There is more to this agreement than meets the eye. Please ask our common allies at MW for more info.
  9. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 7

    Statistics based on the blog for 1/26 until 3/5: Coalition : Nations at 1/26 (Nations at 3/5) / Difference of Nations between 1/26 and 3/5 (Nation difference per day per tier) Eq 150k+: 30 (7) / -23 (0.59) 150k-100k : 231 (51) / -180 (4.62) 100k-80k : 292 (161)/ -131 (3.36) 80k-60k : 449 (416)/ -33 (0.85) Co 150k+: 35 (24)/ -11 (0.28) 150k-100k : 153 (71) / -82 (2.102) 100k-80k : 104 (52)/ -52 (1.33) 80k-60k : 117 (118)/ +1 (0)
  10. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 7

    The losses seem to die down a bit. Eq good news is that it minimized its losses at the contested area which is 80k-100k. The bad news for Eq is that the Tech nation losses for Co has already dropped down for 10-15k tier and 7-15k tier not only that Co has minimized its losses also in all NS tiers. The stat also is revealing that GATO & Co plan is coming to fruition since the contested Area of 100k-80k wherein Eq lost for the 3rd straight week more nations at that tier. If Eq will want its plan of numerical superiority to come into fruition, the tiers lowers than 80k and below NS tiers should start losing more than just single digits plus should equalize or should make Co lose more nations at the 80k-100k NS tier.
  11. Just a simple question for TOP. Shouldn't GLOF and DT be the ones who TOP should be dealing for peace since it was they who dealt more damage to TOP?
  12. Taboo is a matter of culture. But whats the point of having those game mechanics if you cannot use it. I am not ignorant, I just do not discriminate game mechanics for the sake of other people saying otherwise. Forcing another people not using a game mechanic is very discriminating and more of Fascist complex by people who want it not used. Peace mode has been a taboo for some simply because some say so. But it is purely valid tactic. The same goes to other game mechanics. The senator power is available to all who can value it and organize to place their man at it it. If you cannot value or use it, you should not play this game at all. Not only that, the gameplay will be more colorful if you place back the color game politics. If you Tabooist people do not want the Senator game mechanic, better request almighty Admin to remove it and your problem will be solved.
  13. I always enjoy reading Auctor, Auinur and Titan discussions at DT channel.
  14. i dont think anything is wrong with Sanctions. It will make the game interesting again since color sanction is part of the gameplay.. Saying color sanction is bad is like saying nuking any nation, blockading any nation is bad. But then again, even though HoT was sanctioned by MK, shouldn't the GOD senator be able to repeal any sanctions done by o ya baby? If so, what is the point of the complaint?
  15. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 6

    You are correct at the TOP front it will be difficult to say who will win at the top tiers if you consider just TOP, OTR and TSO. I even expected Eq to win at that front decisively but Umbrella aka DBDC super nations interfered which probably change the course of top tier wars at that front.
  16. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 6

    Well the totality is not the same if you based it per NS range. Your percentage is based on losses of all ranges rather than per tier. There is a percentage difference between the 150k-100k and 100k-60k NS ranges. The tier by tier are more needed than totality since this will be the basis of decisions. Imagine if you based stats based on what you say and disregard the tier by tier stats, the plan for peace moding everyone at 100K NS and above for Eq will not push thru. Thus, making everyone at 100K and above at war mode because the totality stats says Eq is winning but losing on a certain tiers which result into massacre of the top tiers of Eq. The same goes for Competence, wherein if they only based the stats top tiers, and disregard the mid tiers stats, their midtiers will be massacred since they will not peace mode those mid tiers.
  17. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 6

    you are partially correct on that one. DH is losing more tech nations between 7k-15k
  18. Namayan

    Stats ITB: 6

    thank you for the stats. It seems Eq is losing more within the 100k-80k NS range. While Co is losing more at the 80-60k NS range. At least at the 100k-80K ranges, Eq was abled to minimize the losses from 47 down to 23. But still lost more at those ranges. One of the possibilities of Eq losing more nations consistently for 2 weeks at the 100k-80k NS range is DoW down by 100k-150k NS nations as well as C&G tactic of releasing only nations within those ranges. While at the 100k-150k range is a technical tie, we know the tactic of Eq is to peace mode everyone within those ranges much like the tactic of C&G at the mid to lower tiers.
  19. I can translate this for everyone. You keep claiming AI will win but refuse to war at the side of AI since DT are allies of AI. Not only that, DT joined a war wherein your NS range of your nation will not even be even touched that much, meaning no one will declare war on you at all. I wonder who will accept you as a member in war based alliances since you dodge a war wherein you have the advantage, almost immunity at your NS range.
×
×
  • Create New...