Icewolf
-
Posts
6,113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Icewolf
-
-
Good luck to our allies in GLOF. Its just in time for Christmas.
-
Really....just really.
Can I declare war on Mogar for the damage done to my brain cells by reading this trash?
Sparta has committed wrongs against IRON. They know it, we know it, I assume half of the world knows it given how leaky such things tend to be. So whilst you rant about how we totally trashed our relationship with RIA, when precisely did you start calling for RIA to drop all links that in anyway connect them to Sparta out of deference to IRON?
Whats that? Never? Because it would be a stupid crazy overreaction?
Good....now kindly apply the same standards to us. -
Or the system generated two messages for the same action?
-
I may be being stupid here, but I am very confused.
This diagram explains the situation. You have the haute lulzist movement lead by Doombird Doomcave attempting to create a meatshield force of scared and confused alliances (sometimes reactionaries), to back their attacks against free alliances like Invicta who resist their attacks on alliance sovereignty.
How can you have the haute lulzist without there being any concept of a basse lulzist on the chart?
It makes no sense.
[ooc-before anyone jumps in I am fully aware that the normal equivalent would be petite lulzist however without the awareness of real world political beliefs my in character me is confused why the French word for "upper" is randomly appearing and also think its stupid that you have upper middle class and small middle class anyway] -
This alliance has contracted "you" to "u" in their Charter. Therefore I cannot respect them.
-
Only if SNX have the power to do anything. Which given their most vocal leader just tried to justify a 23 million warchest on the basis he had just bought a wonder I do not think they are likely to have the warchest capacity to risk a sustained conflict.Well he's really no worse off for it. If he hadnt agreed, he would have been nuked more. TBM would have been staggered and taken a lot more damage as well, but unless he plans to sit behind the hippy shield forever that's only going to delay things.
-
You have been at over 15K NS for a full wonder cycle (at least).
As I said..... -
Given your size in relation to the other nations around you, and the number of nations in your range that have Nuclear Weapons, I think the bigger question is not whether or not Methrage should have let you have a MP before he attacked, but why on earth you didn't have one beforehand.Keep it coming! I love it, a 500 day old nation is hiding out of range from you even though I just made an infra jump and bought a lot of tech not to long ago, in all honesty I was going to hit you once I reached your range, you know with a MP so we could have had more fun. But I see you like being a dick about it and not being any fun :( carry on!
It doesn't do your alliance many favours if you restrict your nation to conventional warfare only at your level. -
I like the part where you imply that you know IRON members better than other IRON members.Well then, I'd love to hear what this reasoning is. Certainly there has to be a justification other than boredom - but with modern CN, who knows.
I wouldn't say they approve of my posts, either. I'd go more along the lines of tolerates. I've been in many, many alliances in CN, and have always been outspoken. I've caused more headaches for leadership than you can imagine, hence why I've historically avoided large alliances and stuck to being small alliance government. More freedom. But if you wish to take my opinion as Polar opinion, it's simply wrong. The problem I've historically had with policies like that is that it discourages a great number of people from participating in debates out of fear for their alliance, or fear of their own opinion in their governments eyes. Like it or not, you are a powerful alliance and have half of CN eating out of the palm of your hand. If you encourage a policy of attacking the upper tier of alliances who have regular members who speak, you're going to very quickly have threads that are all praise and Tywinn. If that's what you want - fine, just don't complain when all these threads are incredibly dull and tedious.
I was referring to the fact that you were continually speaking about TOP being allied to DBDC.
And please stop pretending the GPA trip was anything real. Like I stated earlier, it was nothing more than a sham.
That's simply not possible, my friend. ;)
You have it listed as an ODoAP, if it isn't, my apologies for not cross-checking. Also, you have even in this thread hinted that DBDC would be defended if someone made a move. If you're going to sit here and try and convince me that you aren't allies, you need to do a better job than this.
I guess alliance morals no longer factor into decision making. I guarantee a great majority of your alliance has no friendship with DBDC. I guess I am just a relic of times past when an alliance's actions constituted whether you should be friends with them. -
IRON's opinion on raiding is that it is uneconomical. It considers that it does not want to take the risks involved for the limited economic benefit.Are we still holding to the notion that NPO of the current is the same as NPO of 2008?
Can you also explain why an alliance that finds raiding distasteful would sign a high level treaty with a raiding alliance?
Across the membership opinion is divided on the ethics of raiding, just like opinion is divided on everything from the morality of cake vs pie to the highest level of CN political theory. It is an alliance of well over 300 so opinion is divided on every single subject.
Some members dislike raiding, others are indifferent, others would like to do it but recognise that alliance policy on this issue is that it is not good for IRON.
We have treaties with alliances that raid and with alliances that do not. No alliance we are treatied with bravely supports the lives of the unaligned in open combat, and neither do we. Thats life. -
Translated into cynic speak, raiding micros and low grade unaligned is funny because you get the occaisional poor grammar rant about fairness that could be dismissed in a blaze of amusement.They're raiding an unaligned alliance.
I don't see how this is any different to a dozen other times over the years people have mass raided.
Only difference is this time they're raiding at a much higher NS range than traditionally you would have seen mass raids on :)
Now a raiding alliance has moved into the scope of being able to raid entire alliances at a level that might actually threaten those that used to quietly chuckle, they are scared.
Raiding is uneconomical and a waste of resources. It has always been about fighting because you can. This is no different to that. There really is no moral ground in standing up for pax corvus and not standing up to the GOONS "Less than X nations is not a valid alliance" threat. Difference is that this scares lots of you.
Ultimately this is about power. Most people are happy to hold power without exercising it. Be it because it is expensive to weild, be it because there are limits and they want to use what they have in the tank for other purposes, be it because they have a moral objection to abuse, or because they are not actually that powerful in reality and want to keep an illusion, most alliances don't use their power. DBDC have decided to in a certain way.
Two options;
1) Do nothing-therefore this means they have total power
2) Do something-discover if they actually have total power.
Selecting 1 because it then gives you the comfort of not having to find out about 2 is all very well, but it does mean that they have power over you. -
Can't we just rely on the propoganda put out by the prevailing powers that be regarding the fighting capacity of various alliances, and wait several wars for those to die off when they realise the masters of war just happened to be on the lighter fronts and actually have the fighting capacity of an injured field mouse going up against the worlds biggest cat.Stop it. You're going to kill me.
And if you could track each players stats over the life of their nation, and project their future actions, and build the alliances stats from that. Not to mention if you regularly kept track of the updated "activity" feature.
Not to say it's a lot of endless spreadsheets, but... just think. -
That Ponies will inflict more damage than NSO? Are you really certain that wouldn't happen?Sounds good to me.
First matchup will be the Ponies vs. NSO. Just to test your theory, Ice. ;)
Commitment is also variable-an alliance is more likely to go to the death when fighting an attempt to disband them than fighting against an end of chain alliance in a conflict originating six treaties away from them over what a noob said about another noobs mother.Casualties is a faulty metric because it doesn't take into account folks that fought while turtling or folks that have done a lot of fighting at low infra levels. A nation with 40k NS and 8 million casualties has probably done a lot more fighting than a nation with 10 million casualties and 120k NS.
"Commitment" is also kind of a goofy metric because an alliance that gets in, does its best three weeks of damage and gets out is going to end up in a better position to do horrendous damage the next war than an alliance that drags a war out as long as possible in lower and lower tiers. It's going to end up being pretty darned intangible, because the value of keeping a war going forever is bound up in the value of the war in the first place. -
Well it also depends on how much NS the alliance has to lose in the first place. So if you take on an alliance with 1 million NS vs 10 million NS, even if there is an overwhelming net damage advantage to the smaller alliance and they deal out 2 million vs 800 000 NS damage, the 10 million alliance will still be stronger at the end of it, and could be considered to have won the war.That can't really be calculated since those two things are warchest and resolve, one of which cannot be known without significant espionage, and the other isn't really quantifiable.
Alliances continue fighting until they either run out of money or resolve. -
If he went to war with NpO who would do more damage? In fact, it probably understates his power because it doesn't take into account the lack of comparable nation factor.Also, If I did the calculations right, (Infra*3 + Land Purchased*1.5) = Exposure {(Tech*5)*(Percent of nations with WRC+100%)*(Percent of nukes that are owned vs. could be owned + 100%)} = Projection
Cuba's P-E would be 928,146.9565, which would put his lone nation ahead of entire alliances like NpO.
What might be needed for this thing to be more accurate is a measure of how much damage can be absorbed. Rather than just looking at how much damage an alliance can take, there needs to be an element of how much damage it can take before it loses effective fighting power. How to calculate that I am not sure. -
The measure is of Net capacity to inflict damage, not gross capacity to inflict damage. If you take off the damage Imperium of Pony can recieve and compare it to the damage they would inflict, then they may well end up better off than other alliances.I'm sorry but there's utterly no chance Imperium of Pony would ever do as much damage as Nordreich. Even if all Nordreich did was launch nukes they would out damage them by an insane number. You are aware Nordreich is one of the most heavily armed nuclear alliances, performed well last war, and has a much, much larger alliance than Imperium of Pony? They are a 3 man AA with 85k total NS. It doesn't matter who is commanding. CN is a numbers based game, and according to this formula, numbers don't matter all that much. So...that's a problem. How you manage to defend that is quite confusing to me.
So in a war between the two, Imperium of Pony could well inflict more than 85K of damage on Nordreich, in which case in terms of net damage they would be ahead. -
It measures capacity not fighting ability. They are two different things. If the commanders of Imperium of Pony were as effective as Nordreich then maybe they would do more damage.There's no way in hell Imperium of Pony will ever deal more damage than Nordreich, who are actually a pretty good fighting alliance all things considered. It's kind of a fluky formula in that sense that seems to take too much stock in average NS.
Or alternatively some of the glorious alliances of old have fallen on less able times. Time will tell. -
As a measure of how much damage an alliance will give out and receive I think it works.I wouldn't call it "true" strength, given that about 20 one man AA's sit ahead of alliances like NSO, and Nordreich is lower than Imperium of Pony.
The part that is missing however is the size of the alliance and the capacity to absorb damage. Large alliances vs a small alliance even if fighting ineffeiciently could lose 200K for every 100K inflicted on a sub 1 million alliance and still walk away the definite victors in a political sense.
The other element that might be missing is the measure of the number of slots an alliance have-DBDC may have awesome fighting potential but only posses 60 attacking slots. IRON on the other hand has over 10000 attacking slots. DBDC can weild hellish damage, but on a limited part of the battlefield, whereas IRON can deliever merely fairly hefty damage to a wide part of the field. -
yeah but isn't there a 0.25 cap in this game? therefore effectively tomorrow's growth won't count for us.The 0.3 should still be included tomorrow, I've no idea where we are going to get enough to match that from.
Not that it really matters...IRON still reached the final whilst being unaware it was playing. -
I hearby do declare that I somewhat approve of this treaty.
-
o/IRON
o/DBDC
Also a o/ to the rest of the world whilst there is still enough of it standing to be hailed. -
Let's not forget in all this negativity that LT and co. have played a blinder here. GG Franz.
Not so sure...does it really count as winning if your opponent shoots themselves whilst trying to put on their underwear?
-
From what I can gather tywins claim to fame is that six years ago he lead an alliance to crushing defeat...and people are questioning if he even had much influence over that. Hardly seems a massive moment of glory.
-
yes, it is. I get the same bug.
Delusions vs Buzzards
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
As for exploitation, lots of alliances raid. TOP, your allies (on paper at least-this war leaves it lacking) raid. They even raided whilst nominally at war with NpO a few years back. There is no moral difference between them.
So kindly either resign from NpO as an alliance allied to raiders, or abandon your hypocritical statements, we can all see through them.