Wired

Congrats to all!

Howl! o/ FTW o/ AW

Howl!

Howl! o/FTW

Good times were had, old friends are missed. My time in TPC was far too short for something so enjoyable, unfortunately we don't always get to choose our path forward. o/ TPC

Howl! o/ DK o/ FTW

Fun Fact: A freshly shaved Wereape creates over 50 high quality wigs and several dozen lesser quality toupees. Unfortunately the high degree of difficulty associated with shaving a fully grown Wereape means few have experienced the luxurious texture and unique odor a full mane of Wereape Hair offers. o/ FTW o/ DK

Yeah, that PM wouldn't be sarcasm would it? I mean after all, the dirty flag runner is pointing out that you and him have the same cash levels going on right? And since you are just a warrior and not a flag runner I guess he must be a pretty bad flag runner then right? If not he'd have way more than you right? You are correct, James has told you repeatedly we will handle it internally. Let me fill in between the lines for you - mind your own business and stay out of ours. If you honestly think any of these NEW guys are getting the flag you are delusional. Heck, it might be that some of them think they are...we don't. We will deal with them as members as we see fit, on our schedule. We don't take action based upon your assessment of your limited information, but thanks for your concern. So, back on point... Thanks for criticizing our members here and not privately, thanks for your continued concern over what we do with our members and thanks for making sure to criticize any props sent our way by others. We appreciate your continued efforts.

OK, let me more direct then, less political. You are not the only one responding to this thread, others are as well. The name calling is by them, and they are RE...RE Gov I might add. In addition to the name calling RE Gov also makes the claim that TPC is "endorsing" NEW hiding flag runners in COS. Interesting comments...from our friends. And you are correct, you spoke up to argue against this being an updeclare. Well, that might be something to argue if TPC was claiming it as such, we weren't. LE tried to give us a compliment and in no way even mentioned RE yet you still felt it necessary to point out that "in your opinion" TPC didn't deserve such props. Good to know you'll step in to suggest TPC doesn't deserve a compliment, even though LE's comments in no way degraded, or even addressed, RE. More to the point, it's nice to know our friends will make an unnecessary effort to suggest our actions have fault. Duly noted. There was no debate or argument until you started it. It is what it is, if you think this declare requires such scrutiny so be it. We see things differently.

Sorry if I took the "charm" comment the wrong way, I thought it implied the opposite of what you intended to convey. My bad. The point I was trying to make was that pre blitz stats are a better comparison than the numbers you took post blitz. I would hope you can agree that both AAs stats before either bought up military is comparing apples to apples. I would further hope you could agree that stats taken after blitz, with one AA fully militarized and the other not, are not measuring equal positions. With regards to 23 on 21 please note it says 21 "targets" and 23 "fighters", the assumption was some would not show for blitz and, as expected, they did not. It was also assumed that RE would have some nations grow NS quickly and expand the "targets" engaged in the first round of counters considerably. We never considered the projection of 23 on 21 to be an accurate number once actual wars were declared, it was a projection. The more realistic belief was that 25 hours into war the numbers would be closer to 20 TPC and 30 RE and that this growth would continue. At this time there are over 35 RE nations engaged. So, similar to your point that broad stats do not represent the whole picture I would suggest blitz stats do not represent the whole war. I can understand that from your perspective you see things differently then we do. From our perspective we see all of TPC/COS attacking your top and mid with the expectation more RE would enter the war, which they did. The closeness of the stats combined with the logical assumption that RE's larger nation count would have an impact made for a fair DOW IMO. I am sorry we can not agree on that point but I respect your position and we can simply agree to disagree. Again, in my opinion what is important is we focus on trying to have some fun playing the game and hopefully avoid any further name calling or any other aggressive comments towards each other.

/Begin Wall of Text There was no intent by TPC to down declare on RE. As the DOW states, this is a friend-with-benefits war, at least from our perspective. TPC wanted an offensive war with COS at our side to evaluate war performance, in consideration of our goals we felt RE was the best fit. It's really as simple as that. To suggest that "the third times the charm" implies that we tried something twice and failed, hoping the third attempt would work. We didn't "try" anything twice, RE attacked us in the first two wars, not the other way around. It also implies that TPC failed in the earlier wars. TPC and RE both dealt damage and both rebuilt and from our perspective it was simply some fun wars without any victory implied or confirmed. If RE wants to claim earlier victories I guess we'd have to look at some stats that support that position. It certainly doesn't matter enough to us to look up but afaik it was close, there was no clear victor. Similarly, we are not seeking any victory now, we are simply trying to have a fun war with an AA we have always considered friends. Our expectation was to have some fun and evaluate our members, that is all. With regard to numbers I will echo what I said to other AAs in previous discussions - [b]please compare apples to apples[/b]. The pre war stats show what both AAs looked like [b]BEFORE[/b] military buy up - this is an accurate comparison to assess the DOW. Using numbers from several hours after blitz compares our full strength to partial RE strength, many RE had not even bought back lost military let alone maxed their NS with full purchases nor had they countered yet and taken any NS away from us. Worse still, using stats several days into the war Clash does not give you a good comparison - you can compare pre war or post war, everything else provides tainted results. The only real value of mid war stats is for internal analysis of war performance or to argue the need for peace during a curb stomp. Expanded on the stats E posted earlier [b]let's take a closer look at the top nations only.[/b] These stats were also compiled one hour before blitz. RE 21 Targets 322,958 NS 15,378 ANS 133 nukes (15 nations) 5 MP's 12 SDI's 5 nations over 20k 6 between 15-20k 5 between 10-15 5 between 5-10 TPC/COS 23 Fighting 360,898 NS 15,691 ANS 159 nukes (18 nations) 6 MPs 6 SDIs 7 over 20k NS 4 between 15-20 9 between 10-15 3 between 5-10 As you can see the numbers were very close, we had more nukes and they had double our SDI count. Also, our larger navies bloated our NS/ANS but as many know navy has limited value in most wars, it certainly did in this war. As I said, this was never intended to be a down declare, we were very careful to make sure we were treating our friends fairly as I'm sure they were in their earlier DOWs on TPC. Beyond these very close numbers RE had more nations and would be capable of expanding their fighting force as the war progressed. We had no such option, what we brought was our entire effective fighting force. This is not our "upper tier", this is all of our fighters - 23 of our 28 nations. The remaining 5 nations are trade fillers and new recruits unprepared for war. Characterizing this as upper tier versus upper tier is incorrect. It would be more accurate to say this all of TPC/COS versus RE's best. Personally, I am disappointed when I see friends question our conduct or portray us as braggarts that down declare. As far as E's war actions I think when a single nation can tie up 45 nukes by putting 3 targets in anarchy [i]by himself[/i] that's just good strategy. As jraenar pointed out earlier, Romans being in Defcon 5 with no GCs created this opportunity, don't hate because we took advantage of it. I am sure it is always possible to come up with some criticism on any DOW, I am sure TPC could have criticized RE's first two DOWs if we really wanted to come up with something. We didn't feel it was necessary to try to find fault with our friends actions and even if we had we would have discussed it privately, not criticize their actions on the OWF. With regards to NEW I suggest you consider their reputation in SE, they are known as fighters...very capable fighters. I am sure if they were at all concerned with flag running in TE they could bring much more force to bear than the few NEW nations in COS. COS is more a crucible than a training AA, it exists to test and confirm member's desire and ability to fight. After this war some may be cut, others may be promoted to TPC having proven themselves as warriors. There is no automatic pass for any member, certainly not for members of any particular SE AA and certainly not for any flag runners. Some seem to think they've uncovered some grand plan to hide flag runners in COS, all I can say is thanks for the epic lulz! With regard to DM - he is not in COS, he is not in TPC. We have no idea what his intentions are this round, we don't even know what nation he is. You can believe this or not, I doubt TPC or DM will care either way. In closing I would just like to say good luck to all fighting. I thank those that support our actions and regret seeing some criticize us using distorted data. Most of all I hope that our intention to have some friendly war will not lead to hurt feelings by any involved. Hopefully we can focus on why we are here - to have fun! /End Wall of Text

I never said you did all down declares Owney, just saying your third declare on randy kj got you the results you should have expected, and it was a down declare. As far as his activities I would have thought your complaint about turtling involved the guy you were fighting? If so, and if he is firing nukes then what are you complaining about to begin with? All I know is he doesn't answer my PMs and I wouldn't consider him to be fighting back, I would have thought you saw that the first two times you fought him this round. My intent was to point out you shouldn't complain about what you get when you should have known what you went after. With regards to Les Poisson Paul - I contacted him tonight (we're RL friends). He has tomorrow off and said he'd hop on at update to fire off some nukes. Pretty sure that's about all he's done for days, and with his new job he won't be active for sure. So, my example of nations and why they might turtle is still valid - they don't have time to play for 27 days in a row, and they aren't. You pointing out they fired a nuke tonight at update doesn't change the fact they were turtling and/or they will be turtling. Also, his TE cash is still no incentive for him to remain active and fight as perhaps you expected he would, or the way anyone should. As far as the text amounts Thomas what can I say, it doesn't take me much effort, maybe you struggle with writing or typing, I do not. My point was, and is, anyone that complains when long wars creates turtles and then implies that because the enemy has cyber cash that means they should be online and clicking buttons isn't thinking clearly. The distorted view is thinking others must this game so serious that [b]everyone[/b] will play for 27 days straight and then complain when they don't and offer up [b]any[/b] reason why they should. If you think me taking a few minutes to type out a few words equals that then you sir aren't getting the point. As far as your other point Thomas I will refer back to my earlier statements - the normal procedure was talk and peace was a done deal. Did we make OP "ask" for peace in the first war? You suggested wrapping it up and moving on, done deal. We suggested wrapping it up and moving on, no deal. So again, did you expect us to ask pretty please with sugar on top? This isn't grade school, grow up and stop splitting hairs in attempt to spin the clear fact you refused to grant peace. Con, what can I say. I can understand you being "all in". Many don't see it that way. There is no requirement to fight war for 27 days in a row, you don't have to quit the game if you can't fight everyday. Everyone plays as much or as little as they want. Anyone complaining that others won't keep fighting in a long drawn our war needs to realize this. Anyone that wonders why nations with money don't fight in a long war should bear this in mind also. They don't have to quit, they don't have to fight, they don't have to [i]care[/i]. Deal with that. [i]Edit to add: OK, I'm done, I have to leave early for the city to take my aunt for Chemo and won't be able to continue with our wonderful discussions, hugs and kisses girls![/i]

So let me see if I get the ethics involed here... You shouldn't build and save WCs becauase that [b]has to [/b]mean you are focusing [b]soley[/b] on a flag run and focusing on the flag is wrong? But you can look at the flag run and focus soley on it as justification to hold people to 27 days of war and then an AA that sat on the bench for 30 days can jump anyone to clear out [b]perceived[/b] flag runners? Funny how an OP nation that was afk for 36 hours somehow woke up to hit me at exactly the same time a PS declared and hit me. I guess fighting back and not turtling for my 14 days of war didn't make it clear enough I am not a flag runner. Maybe someone was worried I could hit a flag runner? Wake up folks. It started with OP dragging Syn into hitting TPC in a planned long war and now we see the next part of the master plan.

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1321852615' post='2847814'] On the other hand, you guys do have full interest in rebuilding and hugging money for [b]27 days[/b] [i]straight[/i]. [/quote] The point is Paul implies if we had peace some would come back to life. My response was that even if true this is irrelvant to my original point - few TPC are serious enough to fight for 27 days in a row. Peace now does not mean 27 days of us rebuilding Con, come on, you know better than that. Doesn't really matter now that PS jumped in too. Looks like the amount of turtles will go up and many will be left doing nothing for the rest of this round.

Doesn't really have any bearing Paul, like I said few have the interest to go [b]27 days[/b] straight. You folks seem to keep missing that key point. Anyway, nice to see PS now jumping in on TPC too. All part of the master plan Paul?