Jump to content

Dagrr

Members
  • Posts

    640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dagrr

  1. Wow. I leave for a couple months and Legion starts winning wars.

    Anyway, nice job Legion. You'll probably get pressured into giving white peace to NSO, but you've scored an impressive political victory. I'll just echo the sentiments of others: don't screw it up. Don't spend all your money in one place either. Namely, trying to get the dreaded "s" word in the peace agreement. You don't need it.

  2. [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1309255539' post='2743357']
    I never preached they didn't fight, and I said a good chunk of losses could be attributed to people leaving the realm.[/quote]

    Maybe not you, but that seems to be what others are aiming for. The "96% of "Legion's NS in peacemode" being thrown around is misleading in the fact doesn't take into account that people that were fighting lost NS while those staying in peacemode did not. A few of their upper tier also came out from the middle of March to the beginning of April and declared wars on MK.

    [quote]I got hold of 38 spy reports, 8 of which have left the Legion in some way now, mostly the world.
    Which holds up to the 20%
    Between the dates you cited in an earlier post, Jan-March 26th I believe. 70 members left the alliance in some way (Alliance Member count taken from the Sanction Race Thread)of which the Av NS was 33k approx(taken from the av of the cross section of spy reports I had available),
    70 @ av of 33k = 2.3m NS

    So yes, a sizeable chunk, as I said in my post.
    [/quote]

    Its a sizeable chunk, but it still means that if Legion lost 2.3 million due to those 70 deletions or people leaving the alliance, roughly 3 million NS is not accounted for in the total losses for the duration of the war, from January 26-May 3. That would put them second in our coalition for total NS loss and a loss of over a third of their NS. 33k seems too high without having access to the reports that you're citing.

  3. [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1309240566' post='2743269']
    With 70 members being 20% of the alliances total membership, yes, you bet I think they lost a good chunk of NS through it.
    I'd be interested in looking through Legion target lists to see who is still with us.
    [/quote]

    Lets say you're right and the majority of Legions losses came from deletions.

    January 25
    Legion NS- 9.17 million
    Legion members- 349

    March 7- The last day UE posted alliance stats
    Legion NS 6.85 million
    Legion members- 291

    That accounts for 58 out of 70 of the deletions. Legion lost 2.32 million in that time frame. Assuming Legion did zero fighting, those 58 nations carried with them 40,000 NS on average. Legion's average NS at the start of the war was roughly 26,000. Your assumption depends on the average deletion being 65% larger in NS than their average member. But you know what, I'll keep going. Lets assume that remaining 12 deletions were also 40k NS on average. There's another 480k NS. We're up to 2.78 million. Going with your hypothesis, Legion still lost 2.59 million due to war losses. Thats more than any alliance on our side in total NS loss besides NPO and NADC, which also had plenty of deletions. Incidentally, its also more than any of the non-doomhouse members on our front.

    I think I'll pass on the alf kool aid myself.

  4. [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1309233037' post='2743168']
    We weren't sticklers on the surrender thread. If a ruler didn't post there but had followed all other terms, we let them go anyways. Most PoWs did that. NSO had almost no surrenders, given that most of their people willing to surrender had already left as a result of their previous two nasty beatdowns.

    The deleting nations from GOONS, on the other hand, were almost all minuscule in size, many of them never leaving 3ns.
    [/quote]

    So how many from Legion surrendered? I said there could be a couple. 10 or 15 maybe? Its still not a significant percentage more than other similarly sized alliances and doesn't account for 5.3 million NS and a sanction lost. The premise that Legion didn't fight at all is ridiculous and there are plenty of other alliances that we could go after in terms of "not carrying there weight" in the latest war. Legion is just the target people feel safe in going after for the past five years, given the current balance of power and prior history. After all these years, the Legion bashing is frankly stale and perhaps even a little cowardly on a political basis. This joke "treaty" is designed to take pot shots at a unpopular alliance that is in an unfavorable position to respond. If you really hate them that much, you should just declare war. Dislike is a perfectly acceptable CB in present times. There's no reason not to, and if Legion is really that terrible at war, your loses will be minimal.

    I never said anything about GOONS, but the majority of all the deletions occurring were small nations. Legion, GOONS, MK, NPO all lost nations during wartime.

  5. [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1309224276' post='2743068']
    You realise Legion lost 70+ members to another realm/alliance/POW Camp during this time.
    I'd guess that is where a good chunk of their losses came from.
    [/quote]


    Are you really expecting people to believe that Legion lost millions of NS from deletions and POWs? The first 2 million of their NS lose happened in the first month. There are four pages in the individual surrender thread during the time frame of DH-NPO war. I don't see any Legion surrenders there, though I grant you there were probably a couple. All alliances usually lose a couple of the younger players in war time. Most of the 70 members, if it really was that many, were probably deletions. Both sides had a lot of them.

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AprwA4GlvgCxdGxTQ1htaEF5bVB4Y0toTlduRG9tX2c&authkey=CP6_05wI&hl=en_US#gid=0

  6. [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1309169439' post='2742608']
    There's a difference between saying that I personally require therapy and have severe psychological damage and a treaty, sorry.
    [/quote]

    They're both personal attacks. You attacked his alliance on the OWF through this personal treaty, he attacked back by insulting your person. Did you not expect that?

    NSO lost about the same percentage wise as Legion. They started at 1,659,579 NS on the 29th of January and ended the war on the 24th of March at 943,993 NS, a lose of 715,586 NS or 43.1% of their start strength. Legion lost 5,371,316 or 58.6% of their start strength. If anyone cares to dispute the numbers, feel free.

  7. Legion lost 5.3 million NS or 58% of their prewar strength.
    Invicta lost 1.2 million NS or 54% of their prewar strength.

    There are alliances on both sides that lost considerably less.

    [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1309136686' post='2742314']
    Seriously? You misinterpreted the comment and then said I needed therapy. Come on. Not ok dude. When one of your members makes a comment about people should see the true side of Legion, I don't think you serve your alliance well by launching into personal attacks against your detractors.
    [/quote]

    A treaty between [i]persons[/i] against one's alliance is pretty [i]personal[/i] no? Perfectly okay in my book.

  8. [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308284424' post='2732889']
    Of all the reasons this game is in irrevocable decline, one stands out the most: alliances sign pointless treaties that create linkages all across the treaty web, thus polluting the web and removing the game further and further from the multipolar world a political simulator is supposed to have and thrives upon.Up until Great War III, the world was multipolar. There were, at the least, two defined sides (three if GUARD is included), and there were virtually no linkages between them. After GW3, alliances began signing treaties with everyone and their mother. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. Every interlocking treaty that was signed made the game that much more pointless, as a political simulator is meant to have tension between clearly defined parties. Sadly, the pollution of the treaty web has been increasing inexorably since GW3, and the game's decline has continued apace. Every needless treaty that is signed kills the game a bit more. It has for a long time taken a minor miracle for wars to occur, and even when a war occurs in today's CN, the linkages between the two sides often make it a mess.
    [/quote]

    People sign treaties with everyone because there's no reason not to. From 2007-Karma we had a series of curbstombs because one side was poorly connected to the side in power. Once those one or two connections were severed by treaty cancellations on the eve of war, there was really no chance of the defending side emerging victorious. If you have treaties with lots of alliances, odds are you can muster up a good core of people willing to fight and win.


    [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1308285316' post='2732906']
    Ya. As I noted, the WRC/tech bonus is killer as well. Brush wars were far more common before they came along, because an alliance could be at war for a week and lose maybe 10% of its strength. In GW3, it took months for Legion to lose 60% of its NS. In the WotC (the first major war after the tech bonus came about), Polaris lost over 50% of its strength in a week.Unfortunately, the game mechanics are out of our control. What we do as alliances is not.
    [/quote]

    Actually Legion lost that 60% in one month of conventional warfare. If it had been nuclear, like pretty much every war since then, it would've been worse. I've mentioned this before, but I really think nukes and multibillion dollar warchests are bad for the game. We did have more wars before every single one became nuclear and both sides lose half their NS. I don't think any of this is going to change unless its hardcoded into the game.

  9. [quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1307997969' post='2730723']
    Maybe it's just me, but when you have the Emperor of IAA saying the treaty wasn't the only reason VS NPO saying that it is the only reason.....I'd say the ball is in your court to produce evidence?
    [/quote]

    Why would I have evidence? I'm not IAA or TIO. If either party cares to pander to people wondering about the reasoning, they'll elaborate about it. If not, people will continue speculating. I never had the ball.

    edit:

    [quote]As I make it clear, the upgrade with NPO was a large factor, but personal distastes between members and a general lack of cohesion and pleasantry was a major deciding factor, as well.[/quote]

    See Chimaera I'm just not buying that without a better explanation. What personal distaste? Why wait until now if the NPO upgrade was not the reason?

×
×
  • Create New...