AntyCrist
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by AntyCrist
-
-
I hope errbody criticizing and condemning GOONS here understands how dull the game would be without them. What would you do then?
longer nicer peaces and more tactical wars? I don't see the problem.
-
I'm surprised there was only one mention of FAN vs NPO so far.
nope your 4th
-
The funny thing about DH-NPO is that it was originally supposed to be DH "supporting" FAN preempting NPO. FAN decided not to post at the last moment. It wasn't supposed to be DH centric.
I know also intell told us that along with a faction of MK wanted the end of ToOL. The coming of the DH preempt is of thees 2 causes.
PS I forgot the FAN/NPO deceleration of IRON/ToP ve NpO.
-
A rivalry needs a scoreboard, it can't just be one side kicking the crap out of each other. NpO-TOP at least had Polaris getting revenge via proxy if nothing else during BiPolar.
That's why Fan/NPO is so good: two years of Fan beat-down followed by Karma, BiPoler, and DH-NPO
-
can we get a chart update or somthing
-
What are the greatest alliance rivalries?
What are the greatest alliance rivalries?
Id say FAN/NPO years preKarma and still ging on
-
Except it's not. Unless for example IRON is at war with NG. So, door 1 or 2 my friend?
Not either one, the police, in practus, seems to be a tempery MDP block (without firther declaration) enactable at the nation level. But (me for example) wouldn't attack a NG nation any more than MK wold counter NG if they were to counter a Top atack on us.
-
The doctrine in question is worded thus: "Any counter attacks as a result of this action will be viewed as an attack upon all." [snapback]3078819[/snapback]
What is its effect? To prevent treaty-based barriers to allocating resources where they are needed within the coalition; for example, using 2 or 3 top tier nations from Bobo Alliance to cover slots on Umbrella even though none of Bobo Alliance's allies chain to Umbrella.
Does this explicitly preclude Bobo Alliance from posting a DoW? No. It simply makes that DoW unnecessary. Why? Because you all know what is happening based on the policy, and we all know what is happening based on the policy.
So, if Bobo Alliance does indeed post a DoW once it covers a few slots, is BA or Equilibrium being inconsistent? No. The DoWs you have seen are courtesies given due to your extreme reaction to our use of your tactics; these courtesies do not negate or contradict the doctrine, though you are correct in that they are "redundant."
GOD/CoJ did not initiate this string of events. MK/EU/GATO initiated it when they recklessly sanctioned HoT55.
The doctrine in question is worded thus: "Any counter attacks as a result of this action will be viewed as an attack upon all." [snapback]3078819[/snapback]
What is its effect? To prevent treaty-based barriers to allocating resources where they are needed within the coalition; for example, using 2 or 3 top tier nations from Bobo Alliance to cover slots on Umbrella even though none of Bobo Alliance's allies chain to Umbrella.
Does this explicitly preclude Bobo Alliance from posting a DoW? No. It simply makes that DoW unnecessary. Why? Because you all know what is happening based on the policy, and we all know what is happening based on the policy.
So, if Bobo Alliance does indeed post a DoW once it covers a few slots, is BA or Equilibrium being inconsistent? No. The DoWs you have seen are courtesies given due to your extreme reaction to our use of your tactics; these courtesies do not negate or contradict the doctrine, though you are correct in that they are "redundant."
And Umbrella wold be fully justified in "recognizing an existing sate of war" (as MK did earlier with i forget).
-
Clean your cache and they will work again.
Clean your cache and they will work again.
thanks
-
spoliers are down agen on Firefox and have been for a week plus
-
While I'd like to lay claim to disbanding TOOL to fatten my villain portfolio, I can't. TOOL decided to disband of its own accord and approached MK about it, what with the war and all. They decided to disband and I agreed to have any outstanding obligations relieved if/when they did so.
While I'd like to lay claim to disbanding TOOL to fatten my villain portfolio, I can't. TOOL decided to disband of its own accord and approached MK about it, what with the war and all. They decided to disband and I agreed to have any outstanding obligations relieved if/when they did so.
as to once Top was in correct; however, there is something that serves no purpus except to disband tool and poison Top/Iron relations: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97693
-
The situation where Duckroll decided to attack Umbrella and finally did so with the backing of over half of planet Bob?
We were attacked for more than one reason. One reason is that we are in the way of your attempts at rolling MK and GOONS. The other is that our upper tiers were deemed almost untouchable and therefor you needed a coalition to try to bring us down to size.
Explain to me in great detail how Roq has anything to do with our involvement in the current war, which started when AI and co attacked us.
The situation where Duckroll decided to attack Umbrella and finally did so with the backing of over half of planet Bob?
We were attacked for more than one reason. One reason is that we are in the way of your attempts at rolling MK and GOONS. The other is that our upper tiers were deemed almost untouchable and therefor you needed a coalition to try to bring us down to size.
Explain to me in great detail how Roq has anything to do with our involvement in the current war, which started when AI and co attacked us.
From IRON rank and file MK paid for there last misdeed (NPO preempt and the disbanding of TOoL) the issue is Umb tring to nation-size out of there actions having consequences. If there heart enough to be role-able by any par of top 5 alliances (2 on 1) equilibrium is achieved (note equilibrium =/= parity).
-
as far as I can tell this was just the treaty web bringing us in (and a few other reasons, I am generalizing with little knowledge :P)
so according to the wiki the main cause for this massive war was umbrella slot filling puppets? there has to be a deeper reason then that. I mean if that is the reason, that is a lot of people upset about one nation...
It's a mater of Umb and DH thinking they don't have to respond to diplomatic greavences: "What you gonna do?"
-
looks like people think this is second only to carma
-
Do people really not understand this? I think it's perfectly clear. I mean, feel free to disagree with him, but there's no need to act like you don't understand it. For those that lack the reading comprehension or language ability to get it: he's suggesting that an alliances of infra-huggers or stat-lovers may call it quits and thereby hasten their sides eventual defeat. For instance, alliances like VE and NSO (NSO is a bit of a different story in that they're on a different front) have seen their ANS plummet and are taking a harder hit (I'm not actually sure how hard NSO is being hit, tbh, but I'm not sharing my opinion, but rather explaining someone else's) than some alliances. It's possible some of these alliances don't want to be the "new GOONS", as he says. I take this to mean a very low ANS alliance. Then he goes through a rather incomplete list of alliances (roughly in order of ANS) that may need to decide if they're willing to "go for broke" and join GOONS at the bottom. Again, this is his prediction, not mine.
He's saying that if any of these large, presumably important/significant alliances say, "Hey, you know what, I don't want to ruin my alliance (destroy all our pixels) for this silly war" and thus drop out, it will lessen the chances of eventual victory (perhaps he would even allow a Soviet over German type victory).
Do people really not understand this? I think it's perfectly clear. I mean, feel free to disagree with him, but there's no need to act like you don't understand it. For those that lack the reading comprehension or language ability to get it: he's suggesting that an alliances of infra-huggers or stat-lovers may call it quits and thereby hasten their sides eventual defeat. For instance, alliances like VE and NSO (NSO is a bit of a different story in that they're on a different front) have seen their ANS plummet and are taking a harder hit (I'm not actually sure how hard NSO is being hit, tbh, but I'm not sharing my opinion, but rather explaining someone else's) than some alliances. It's possible some of these alliances don't want to be the "new GOONS", as he says. I take this to mean a very low ANS alliance. Then he goes through a rather incomplete list of alliances (roughly in order of ANS) that may need to decide if they're willing to "go for broke" and join GOONS at the bottom. Again, this is his prediction, not mine.
He's saying that if any of these large, presumably important/significant alliances say, "Hey, you know what, I don't want to ruin my alliance (destroy all our pixels) for this silly war" and thus drop out, it will lessen the chances of eventual victory (perhaps he would even allow a Soviet over German type victory).
Almost perfect, 2 corections.
1) the order is in witch the key alliances come to there (figurative) 'All in bet.'
2) this is so close the first to blink will be desisive
The short summery is this is a giant game of chicken.
-
Sure, if you can back up the claim with some stats.
Sure, if you can back up the claim with some stats.
Im not making a claim: I'm asking about statistics. (Im too new to know evan Karma or the begging of Bipoler) I merely state what my standard is and want to know from the older nations how this war compare to older wars like karma or the grate wars?
-
Very good analysis! My take on it is that the first coalition to lose an alliance to surrender has a very good chance of losing the war. Once one alliance drops out, we could see a whole bunch on one side leaving. Also, Non Grata will be forced out of peace mode in a few days and it'll be hunt or be hunted between Aftermath and NG.
Really, the strategy for Equilibrium is to pound away at the upper tier just enough to suck opponents down into the meat grinder where they can be swarmed and beaten down to a pulp. This will force "Competence" to mobilize their high and middle tiers (at which point Equilibrium will have the vast numerical advantage). The opposing plan seems to be to keep the war up top for as long as possible. But we all know peace mode can't last forever. And the Equilibrium will slowly pick apart the opposing coalition as they leave peace mode.If we look at the damage one for one, C&G and co. will win. No doubt. But when all is said and done, it'll be the Soviets beating Germany, Zerg beating Protoss. Equilibrium will have done what it set out to do.
Very good analysis! My take on it is that the first coalition to lose an alliance to surrender has a very good chance of losing the war. Once one alliance drops out, we could see a whole bunch on one side leaving. Also, Non Grata will be forced out of peace mode in a few days and it'll be hunt or be hunted between Aftermath and NG.
Really, the strategy for Equilibrium is to pound away at the upper tier just enough to suck opponents down into the meat grinder where they can be swarmed and beaten down to a pulp. This will force "Competence" to mobilize their high and middle tiers (at which point Equilibrium will have the vast numerical advantage). The opposing plan seems to be to keep the war up top for as long as possible. But we all know peace mode can't last forever. And the Equilibrium will slowly pick apart the opposing coalition as they leave peace mode.If we look at the damage one for one, C&G and co. will win. No doubt. But when all is said and done, it'll be the Soviets beating Germany, Zerg beating Protoss. Equilibrium will have done what it set out to do.
I think its not this unless something folds early on the CnG front.
The question is 'are VE and NSO both willing to become the new GOONS in order to enable there side to win?'
If yes then are NPO,NpO, Fark and MHA?
If yes then are CnG, Mk, and ToP?
If yes than is DH?
If yess than is Umbrella?
the first one to answer no luses if we get to the end IDK
-
In terms of number of alliances involved, I don't think this is the biggest. In terms of nations involved it most certaintly isn't the biggest. In terms of damage done, this perhaps is the biggest. In terms of how quick it "escalated", it is the biggest. There are several ways of measuring how "big" a war is.
In terms of number of alliances involved, I don't think this is the biggest. In terms of nations involved it most certaintly isn't the biggest. In terms of damage done, this perhaps is the biggest. In terms of how quick it "escalated", it is the biggest. There are several ways of measuring how "big" a war is.
what about persentige of globule NS lost?: seems the measure to me
-
Personally I expect the DH side to completely control 100k and up, but I would be really impressed if they can push that control down to the 80k and up range. I dont think we have the numbers to control 50k and up.
that's my read too: BTW good fighting with ve :popcorn:
-
also for me there are spoilers
-
I suport thiss holehartedly
Can you make the same analysis as your original post but this time the time would be recently to compare how is the war faring statistically compared to the last time you analyzed it on your first post? You may also compare if your analysis on the matter is correct compared to the actual results. This should tell us a rough indication on what is happening or where is the war leaning to which side.
-
Nuts to you, here come statistics!
The probability of a successful nuke through an SDI on a single try is 40%. Not favorable, but not terrible. However, the probability of getting a nuke through in two tries jumps to 64%.
1-(1/p(x))^n, where p(x) is the probability of a successful nuke and n is the number of attempts. So we get 1-0.6^n. I threw that into Excel to see the probability of a nuke landing in up to 10 shots.
Rounded to the tenths as necessary...
1 = 40%
2 = 64%
3 = 78.4%
4 = 87.0%
5 = 92.2%
6 = 95.3%
7 = 97.2%
8 = 98.3%
9 = 99.0%
10 = 99.0%
On the average, your nuke should probably get through by the second attempt. But the average isn't what we usually notice or get miffed about. We get frustrated with (or extremely grateful for) SDIs when they block nuke after nuke after nuke. So what's the chance of an SDI blocking n nukes in a row? It's just the inverse of above: 0.6^n
Rounded to the tenths as necessary...
1 = 60%
2 = 36%
3 = 21.6%
4 = 13.0%
5 = 7.8%
6 = 4.7%
7 = 2.8%
8 = 1.7%
9 = 1.0%
10 = 0.1%
A nearly 8% chance of blocking 5 nukes in a row is not negligible. In a month of war (1v1), it's all but guaranteed to happen to you at least once, probably when you're already low on nukes. But that's much preferable to 1v2s and 1v3s; in the last of those, if you're trying to nuke everybody everyday, you're going to run out of nukes. And the 5 block rock isn't alone; the chances of an SDI blocking 4 or 6 nukes in a row is similarly non-negligible and would require 1/5 or more of a full stockpile to land one damn nuke.
This plays a huge influence in how each side fights the war and underpins macro-scale strategies.Slighlty more deateal than I ment (and Im not a fan of your notation) it miss one point. the expected value of 6 rounds and 3 targets is 3(6)p=18(0.4)=7.2 with a sd of rad(npq)=rad(18(0.4)(0.6))=rad(18(0.24)) jest more than 2
so 5-9 nucks landed totle for 3+ targets .
-
I'm not seeing it.
Initially it appears the idea was to let one side carry the biggest burden and other do a bit of fighting(mostly completely curbstomping).
Now however it is much more balanced in terms of the two fronts, mostly because of the second front.
All those alliances have a reason to fight hard, especially after the recent declarations.
The war is still young.
my gess the two frunts split XX/NpO/SF goes down to NG/TLH/Int and DH/Top/VE go down to to DR/NPO. I wonder what hapens then? -
When you try to nuke and their SDI blocks it, normally you fire another nuke.
When you nuke successfully, you stop nuking.
I believe that will skew the numbers a bit to make SDI's look slightly less effective than they actually are.
As the Chinees found out with the second child policy, this dosen't effect the statistics of W/L. SEE Binomial Distrabution Theory.
The Amazing Sanction Race
in Open World RP
Posted
And for thous of us that don't follow sports enough to Identify the one in question? This means?