bcortell
-
Posts
843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by bcortell
-
-
Here's some detailed stats about how much of each thing an AA has lost: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsPHjM3AY7DgdFg1b0Fia2hMSzN6dmNQNHVHeXZqQWc&usp=drive_web#gid=2
It'll get updated periodically, probably not daily.
-
Bump. Yep, we're still here. And, mostly better than everyone (can't say that about Ginger).
-
Gopher provided me the stats for 1 Nov, so I updated the data accordingly.
63 nations were in PM on the first.
On the 9th (today), 47 of the 63 remain in PM. Ten nations that were in WM are now in PM (didn't bother to look up if they all fought). 16 nations have left PM (and again, most have gone to war since leaving).
-
Which do you need, nation stats?
Correct. I just think it would be more accurate if I started it from the first instead of the fourth. Hit me up on IRC or PM me here if you have them.
-
In the MHA DoW thread, there was a lot of talk about peace mode usage by alliance, with TOP and Umbrella both having over 50% of their alliances in peace mode. Vlad, ShamWOW, and others commented in retort that high damage numbers from TOP disproved the notion that they were "hiding in peacemode", and that TOP was actually cycling nations as per a strategy.
So, I compiled the relevant data: clicky
Interesting, eh?
Heh, I'm trying to get a hold of the 1 Nov statistics to do a weekly thing, but the earliest I picked up was on the 4th. (Probably doesn't make that much of a difference as those that would have gone to PM would still be in it). Anyways, here's a more detailed breakdown of TOP's nations and PM.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsPHjM3AY7DgdGE1ZUlDN09wbkNHWUhNSFpmSy1weVE#gid=0
If you don't want to interpret from the data:
From the 4th until today, 76% (52/68) of TOP's nations that were in PM have stayed in PM. Hence, 24% have come out of PM. Five nations that were in WM have gone to PM (all five fought a round of war prior to entering). Of the 16 nations that have left PM, all but one has declared an offensive war.
-
Nope, why?
I click on the link in the OP and it says as of "Nov 7, 6:00 AM"
Double checking now, it looks like that's just not getting updated (the date) but the data is.
-
Ogaden, did you change the link to the data?
-
Derailing the topic after being told not to? smart guy ;)
Now I say farewell Planet Tokyo, these discussions are over.
Maybe with you. It's the OWF- anyone can comment on anything in here. We can still discuss it if we want.
(Just pointing out how dumb your declaration of the discussions being done is.)
-
Yes, not this round... Didn't I explain that? Eyes are for reading, try using them ;)
Believe what you will.God damn it. It was supposed to say "Not this round, not next round."
Like I said, you don't have the power to roll anyone. Not this round, not next round.
-
You cannot say we have the upper hand when clearly as soon as any of our nations start to break into the middle/upper tier, more nations join PT and downdeclare them! It's BS and you know it.
Karma will be a sweet bitch when we roll whichever alliance you join next round, trust me...next round will not be pretty for any alliance/nation that has preyed on our nations when they were vulnerable.Let's be honest here. This talk is absolutely baseless. You have no power to roll anyone. Misfits has no power to roll anyone. Not this round, not next round. Just stop your silliness with this.
-
I understand people have a hard on for NPO though I fail to see how one could spin to make NPO a villian here. Vall only wars NPO. So it effects only the two parties. NPO is outgunned. Any relief would be nice. That a deal could have been made would be only smart for NPO. Alas it didnt happen. It would be good for coalition in which NPO finds it self as that would mean more strenght of NPO on other alliances which fight other coalition members and it.
Also, in regards to the previous dig on us--we had allies on the other side last war. Not the case this war. But please do spread in game propaganda nonsense even in this ooc venue.I actually meant my imaginary quote for Val, not you guys. Val, I could see offering something like that. You guys? Not so much. And, you are correct, it helps you guys a lot more than it does the other side.
-
Well, we dont know who proposed what to whom? It is logical that it would be my alliance, but you nor I, know.
At this point though, it is beside the point. I can say that nukes are flying now.
"Everyone figured it out. We don't need to look worse, start launching nukes."
-
How did NPO ever get Valhalla to agree to that?
It probably isn't that difficult to get Val to agree to anything, really.
-
We bleed 70% of our NS for our allies and it's somehow "not enough". We somehow "saved more". We fought on a front where we were massively outnumbered, yet "we could have brought more out".
I believe you are mixing up different points here. If you're 70% is talking about last war, no one is disputing that. Berber said two out of the last three wars, which I think everyone assumed meant last war was the one left off.
Bcortell's stats of our "upper nations" being in PM don't reflect this fact: it wasn't an upper tier anymore but a larger higher mid tier. As our warring nations fell down the ranks, they passed by those nations that we had ordered to peace mode.
Aside from 4 or 5 nations at 100k+ NS, the rest of those "upper tier peace mode" nations he's refering to are nations who were:
1)Less than 80k NS.
2)Had activity problems and would prove unreliable in combat.
While you are correct about the them not being over 100K, it's a stretch to say that where they were wasn't in the upper tier at that point in the war. The tiers slide, especially as nearly everyone in the war was getting knocked down. Right now, sure they're mid to upper mid tier guys.
Maybe activity was the problem. Of course, that doesn't really matter if it was or not, nor does it change the facts. That's just like any other AA saying, "Hey, we have a lot of useless NS, don't use it against us."
-
Is peace still happening at update tonight?
Need to verify so I can update the troops as late hits are always bad for all involved.
That's what was passed to OP members.
-
You could always try the actual POW/MIA flag:
That's not a bad idea, but doesn't seem to fit the goal. I also wouldn't be surprised if admin had problems uploading an already known image like that. (Haven't asked him of course)
I think we could build off of that, though. Thanks.
-
Hey guys, I need some community help. I'm able to upload a flag as one of the TE prizes from last round. So far, none of my suggestions have been allowed.
I would really like to build off of the last one to make it into the game.
Here is the submission that was denied:
Admin's response to why it was denied:
"You'll need to submit a flag that is in keeping with the current flag standards of the game (something that actually resembles a flag) and that is not copyrighted. If you cannot produce such a flag then you will forfeit your flag submission."
Again, I'd like to keep its current theme. Maybe instead of the current wording, we can just put P.O.W. or something similar. Can you guys help me out to make it more like a flag so it meets the current flag standards of the game.
Thanks.
-
tW should worry less about who hit them and more about not coordinating once on me (and I'm guessing a lot of other people) this war.
-
P.P.S. Victor Von Doom - If we're going to start posting intel reports on the OWF I'd love to point out how Lorien had a warchest of $4,066 on 10/30/2013, one day into the war. I am almost certain Philippines had a warchest of under $500,00 at the start of the war, as he had $117,199 earlier todayafter only throwing CMs at me(scratch that - I just checked and he hasn't sent anything other than two nukes my way before running out). He also sold off nearly all of his infra at the very start of the war. AsaPilu didn't let me down on warchest levels with a $26,401,340, however he has yet to put it to good use, to be honest.They're "elite."
-
I now see why tW don't like wars longer than three days.
-
I'm not arguing with his stats. By memory, I believe they match ours.
The initial point that I addressed was that we were, in TOP, trying to limit our engagement during our wars. Given that we're a top heavy alliance (less the case than before, maybe there's a hint there), being heavily concentrated on in two tiers means you can't simply look at peace mode numbers to see how much we actually commit. His numbers are correct but they also prove what I asserted: when faced with overwhelming numbers, we didn't shy away from the fight where it mattered.
Did we keep 45-50 nations in peace mode in the very low tiers? Yes. They represent roughly 10 to 15% of our total NS. More importantly, coalition wide strategy was to keep such tiers in peace mode because we simply couldn't win it.
To look at it from another point of view:
When faced with odds of 7 to 1 (lower tiers), we stayed in peace mode.
When faced with odds of 2.2/2.5 to 1, we engaged.
Even in the 4 to 1 (60-80k NS), we did engage several nations.
Our front was limited to us and our immediate allies. Nobody else was to be heavily engaged in the lower tiers.
Another point of view would be to look at the NS we engaged. Which would make more sense than the number of nations, given our composition.
During BiPolar, the other example, virtually all of TOP fought.
I'm amused that some people are trying to harp it as if we shy away from fights, even though we go beyond what's asked of us in every war coalition (save perhaps for Karma, for different reasons).
25 of your top 37 nations were in PM by the end of the war. In your "lower" tier, only 23 of 61 nations were in PM.
-
You're stepping into the truth of the situation here, they are not. They are cowering from it. "Those who plot against you" - as I said, is not just us. As they claim. We are just the smaller target, and they're afraid to openly admit that - they're stuck on "no one else but NSO is a threat to our pixels." So untrue.
Of course, it is their choice on who they attack out of the group of AA's that plotted against them. Do you not agree with that? Just because an AA has "wronged" them does not mean they have to attack them.
-
We committed forces, along the lines of the coalition-wide strategy which was to engage in very specific tiers. Others did not.
So that 30% is committed forces? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. I mean, you said to look at the wars you were heavily engaged in, so I did (sure, the sample size I looked at was 1).
I didn't ask about others, but thanks for informing me.
-
Do you have the stats on how many of those nations lasted for 3-4 weeks in PM? How many lasted around 5-7 days? Were they cycling nations in and out? If they were cycling nations in and out, then you are a fool who is using only partial stats as a way to prove a point most of us already know is fallacious. I have fought against and with TOP in previous years. To state that they just chill in PM for the entire war is idiotic. If that did happen, then there are a lot of idiots in CN including most of the major alliances.
This is just from last war, but TOP started with 65 of 106 in PM. Within a week they had 53 in PM. By the end of the war they had 48 in PM. (I didn't do it by <100K because by the end of the war, nearly all of TOP was below that level.)
What does this mean? Well, yes, some will come out of PM, but the smart money is on the majority of them staying in PM the entirety of war. TOP certainly PM'ed some guys as reserves, but they also PM'ed a ton of guys that didn't want to fight, weren't prepped to fight, and/or to limit the damage to those guys.
If you want to look at historical precedents, look at wars where we were heavily engaged and losing. Did we stay away from the battlefield or did we commit our forces?Eh, last war you committed about 30% of those that started in PM. The rest stayed in PM for the entire war. So, I guess that depends on what you want to consider staying away from the battlefield or committing forces? Do you consider 30% committing your forces?
Looking
in Player Created Alliances
Posted · Edited by bcortell
I urge you to not recruit him.