mhawk

It is interesting that Umbrella makes up almost 50% of DH's total ns.

Oh you're gonna make me nerd war this..

Thanks. My estimate of 50% MK ns in pm was pretty close to your figure of 48%. Take that guy that said 18% and other person who called my estimate ridiculous. I still think the % NS in peacemode argument is flawed. Mostly in the fact that as time goes on, those in pm will make up a larger % of total NS on the losing side. An alliance could attack with 97% of its NS and 6-8 weeks of war later have 90% of their total NS in PM, without a single nation changing to pm besides the few that sat at the start.

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1300489049' post='2669497'] Where's the or? Also Banksy hit the nail on the head: they still were infra heavy, and I'm sure you know how fast an infra heavy nation with little tech falls, right? Well apply that to one of the most populated alliances in the game and you have your answer. It isn't rocket science... [/quote] Exactly, it isn't rocket science. Stating NPO hasn't fought is incorrect and mere wordplay.

[quote name='PinkV' timestamp='1300488787' post='2669486'] Yes. I feel that this is a horrible way to represent NPO even in a time of war, regardless of the situation. Also, please note that this man started this well though out conversation with me. Instead of honorably fighting a war, he decides that his "Trash talking" will somehow help his alliance in anyway. [/quote] Bringing the bitter comments of a random NPO member to the world view isn't quite being honorable and just fighting the war. What is your purpose.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1300488449' post='2669474'] you'll have to ask them why they are performing so poorly. as far as i can tell, they lost soft NS (infra and land) which comprised the majority of their NS pre-war. this can easily and quickly be rebought as they have (on the whole) adequate warchests due to the gap between karma and this war. three rounds of war will hardly cripple them, especially considering that after the second round they will probably outmatch us in the middle tier with the drop in NS. [/quote] The point stands that an alliance can't lose that amount of NS without either losing a large number of nations if they didn't fight. NPO has fought, you guys just want more damage to be done than you've currently or are likely in the future to accomplish.

[quote name='PinkV' timestamp='1300488485' post='2669475'] Implying I started the war/chose when to fight it. [/quote] You certainly chose to post this topic. You didn't choose to start the war, but you chose how to conduct yourself and this reflects on that.

I'm curious if you're proud to bring this to the owf, given your position of jumping into an aggressive curbstomp of NPO more than a month after the war started.

My word choice when it comes to YOU is all I need to rethink. What YOU do and have done is disgusting and shameful. GOONS attacked an alliance and got counter attacked for that direct action. Demanding several billion in addition to 4 weeks of war with no peacemode fits my definition of extortion.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1300487214' post='2669447'] yes, and they have a tiny NS so it doesn't really affect us. the figure for the NPO is not, however, compromised in any way. the point is that the NPO has not come out to fight. some DH members have entered PM to restock or for 'other realm' reasons, but we are fighting, whereas the NPO is staying in PM. [/quote] How can an alliance lose 50% of its NS by not fighting? Did they just sell it?

I think you've clouded my very frank strategic assessment with some fancy albeit irrelevant terminology. Fact is the longer a side upholds a war, unless for incredibly compelling reasons (something akin to the /b/ attacks ect) the more at risk they put themselves overall. At some point the damage you do your enemy will begin to be surpassed by the damage your extortion/demands will do to your pr/strategic position. Over the course of a long enough road of such actions, you will find yourself at the bottom end of a "preemption for security".

[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300486236' post='2669424'] The figures stated by Banksy represent all of doomhouse, not just MK. edit: Banksy got there first. [/quote] Considering there are around 160-200 nations in Doomhouse that are younger than the actual war (less than 45 days old), that statistic would seem to be pretty biased.

The reason your war is distasteful is that you are seeking such massive damage to an alliance that had no choice in the war. You guys are aggressors. You state NPO has suffered massive damage and fought, but that isn't good enough. You jumped them and knocked off 50% their NS... Not good enough for you. You guys want their last remaining NS and turn them into a crater for the flimsiest of reasons. The cited reasons you entered against NPO are over - Polar peaced out, and the unprecedented scale of reps that took a year to pay for Karma. Your alliance is a pack of criminals and in due time when the might of your allies is all that holds you up now, that will fade as their power fades. Your war is unjust, your cause is dubious and wrong. The resolve of criminals to carry out their crime should never be a subject of praise, but rather warning call to all rational individuals to prepare.

[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300478546' post='2669285'] Somehow you turned 18% into 50% with no math or appearances whatsoever. Just so you're aware, it's a stat we track. Last I checked it was ~30%. NPO's was 80%, Legion's is 99%, and GOONS less than 15%. That number only goes down as the war progresses if, as in your case, half of your largest nations are all in peace mode and have never left. Our alliances lose NS evenly across the board, and so the disparity of loss between large and small nations is equivalent, maintaining our ratio. GOONS nations in peace mode are usually only there for the five day minimum. [/quote] First of all, it was the mk guy that stated 18%. - A figure you state is at least almost half of the true number you estimate. I'm saying that if 27% of the total MK ns is in pm in just the top 40 nations. I find it highly unlikely that your figure of 30% - 3% difference makes any sense. Saying that another 50 nations in PM only account for 3% of the total NS of MK is foolish. Top 40 nations in MK. 1,861,355NS in PM 1861355/6,732,538 = 27% Either way the mk guy was clearly wrong, by your figures or mine. That was my point.

[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300477349' post='2669261'] Nation strength, not numbers of nations. Nice try though. [/quote] Then that is a horrible way to try to analyze a situation. Obviously % of NS in PM will increase to near 100% as a losing war goes on. You could have large nation in PM and it account for the majority of your NS over time if you're in a losing war. Also the figure of NS is wrong. Top 40 nations in MK. 1,861,355NS in PM 1861355/6,732,538 = 27% Considering that is just looking at the top 40 mk nations it would seem intuitively obviously far greater than the stated 18% is in PM across the entire alliance. I'd guess closer to 50%.

[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300476822' post='2669251'] Our cause is solid. [/quote] Your cause is little more than being a thug. Unless you can justify this in some coherent manner.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1300429499' post='2668837'] no, we're using the fact that 75% of your NS is in PM vs our current 18% (most of which has been in war recently). Most of your NS in PM has stayed there throughout the war. [/quote] 76/186 = 18%? You probably make pretty harsh curves. [IMG]http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r288/mhawkcmaster/mk.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300343057' post='2667320'] I'm only implying my own feelings that I, personally, would rather fight and lose, than sit in PM and have no respect shown to me. And yes, you could ask Umbrella to surrender to TPF, but the difference is that we are winning the fight, thus giving us the key bargaining chip in peace talks. I would also like to state that you completely skipped the whole bit about explaining our reasons for declaration to the uneducated masses. [/quote] Your reason for declaring as per Archon's DoW? or Roquentin's blog? Or the everything must die thread?

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300342286' post='2667288'] So by stating that you skipped my second sentence, you're stating that you don't care what the members of your alliance think about the war. I made up the part about there being logs, that was stated in humor. But I could probably get some logs of some NPO friends calling me names, and that would be sufficient for the cause. Although, I also stated that the reasoning for this war isn't understood by many "on your side" because those who understand it aren't willing to take some imaginary risk by telling their alliance our side of the story. You didn't start this war? Oh, my bad, I should have more clearly stated, here: "mhawk didn't start this war." Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that raising questions is a worthy reason to be attacked, I simply stated that the tone of your statements shows that you have a negative attitude towards the peace which could be so easily accomplished. But I did, as I more clearly stated above. [/quote] "If you want to state things like, DH is "erasing years of work from hundreds of players," then you should consider why these rulers of nations would state as their reasons for ruling their respective nations." You are trying to rationalize the damage you wish to inflict on players, by implying it will be fun? For whom? If that is the case then surely whatever caused you guys to become upset in the first place can be rationalized as "fun" from one side or another. I could ask umbrella to surrender to TPF. That could also be so easily accomplished... Just a few sigs and a post, everything is over right? Of course that won't happen the same way stating these terms could easily be executed if the other party just yields completely to your demands. It's really a rather weak argument you've created to try to justify your alliance's actions.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1300341040' post='2667205'] NPO threatened, within the first couple of days of war, to PZI or EZI every individual nation who was in peace mode for any reason. We are saying we won't give the [i]alliance[/i] peace till they stop systematically using peace mode as a way to avoid fighting entirely as they've been doing for over a month now. Not comparable at all. Even then the intention, to keep people from using peace mode as a way to avoid war entirely, was fine then and it's fine now. [/quote] So you'd also advocate the justness in holding an alliance in perma war if they do not comply with sending nations out of peacemode?

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300341743' post='2667252'] Scuffling a bunch of unfunded sub-20k nations is not a war. If NPO has no intention of coming out of peace mode that means all those nations will eventually grind into nothingness, with no support. Then all that will be left will be inconsequential nations, and nations in peace mode. Where NPO goes from there is anyone's guess. But I submit that actually fighting a war is better than eternity in peace mode. [/quote] You realize that as war carries on, top end nations that enter the war will become the lower tier. In a war like this if you sent your middle tier in, 6-7 weeks later, they will become the upper tier. This far into a war, saying x amount of "upper tier" nations means nothing.

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300339742' post='2667157'] I have never uttered the statements which you so eloquently stated. If you want to state things like, DH is "erasing years of work from hundreds of players," then you should consider why these rulers of nations would state as their reasons for ruling their respective nations. I also don't like how you state that we attacked "completely unprovoked." If you look at some logs I can post for you (as you did in one of your previous statements), it's quite clearly stated that you stated statements which provoked our (as you stated) attacks. A lasting peace is not to be expected with the attitude that your statements carry. Maybe you should think about how you state things. [/quote] You'll note, "some on your side have said". I didn't claim you specifically stated as such. Your second sentence doesn't have a coherent thought to address so I'll skip it. I would however appreciate you posting the logs which you cite as provocation worthy of unending war or destruction of complete upper tier. I didn't start this war, you guys did. I think you'd have a hard time finding more than a sentence or two said about umbrella from me in the last year before you attacked our MADP partner. So raising questions is worthy of getting attacked again? Did I take this statement wrong? Please address it if I did and what you actually meant. [quote]A lasting peace is not to be expected with the attitude that your statements carry.[/quote]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1300341115' post='2667210']. Whoever thought these up needs a pay raise, truly, because you're actually forcing NPO to say their actions were wrong, even if it's not directly. [/quote] Did you read the statement given by NPO awhile ago regarding FAN?

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300338183' post='2667098'] And yes, Legion will also face demands that they leave peace mode, though I have not yet met with them about peace. They have not come to us, as far as I'm aware. [/quote] What justification do you have for this? So a "simple peace" means no reparations and no terms?

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300337894' post='2667078'] We obviously haven't stated this clearly enough, but if you think about it, how long is a month? Do you want it to be a February-length month or a June-length month? And what is a simple peace? I think simple refers to how easily it is come to, which could mean that we demand billions in reps and you simply agree to them. All of these things need to be more clearly stated. This guy is right. [/quote] Well in all honesty, the terms of 10 billion and 300k tech were considered fair and light by some on your side. You actually do need to specify situations like this when you want to demand erasing years of work from hundreds of players. If anyone could trust your word, you might have a better response. However you guys attacked completely unprovoked and have been changing your reasoning nearly every week. How we can expect a lasting peace when this very war was brought to us for the reasoning of "you're cowards" or "everything must die", how about "NPO is too big a threat".