memoryproblems
-
Posts
1,954 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by memoryproblems
-
-
Its like a whos-who of the Roman Empire from you-know-where.
[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1314880207' post='2792171']
I do believe NpO got the theme before you guys, but I still love it nonetheless
Good luck
[/quote]
I don't get it, Polar and Oceania are some distance from one another [ooc]if you look at a globe.[/ooc] -
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314221988' post='2787793']
Prevailing opinion around these boards is like taking the local ten year old on the playground's advice on something.
Oh sure, MHA is bloated.
Doesn't take much to see that and the lack of tech.
Doesn't mean we don't have a solid mid-upper tier and/or structure enough to win a war.
Just patently false.
What's funny is I'm glad we are so "talked-down," because let's face it, the amount of damage any alliance would take attacking an alliance of this structure has enormous logistical problems and would likely get their proverbial "!@#$," rocked. Hell, even those who think you could "win," would "win," a war that no one would respect you for winning, meanwhile your precious pixels are torn to pieces.
[/quote]
Well, of course we are all biased in regards to our own alliances, but in regards to MHA, I don't think it'd be at all impossible for an alliance 1/3 your size to take you down, provided said alliance was well organized and well led.
I would think that it would simply be a matter of determining which members need to be attacked and which ones ought to be ignored. If dealt a solid blow up-front where most of your active/prepared/well-trained nations are neutralized via anarchy, it frees up room to slowly but surely chip away. In such a case, it would undoubtedly be a destructive war for whoever you are fighting, but victory can be achieved even whilst being ripped apart.
A 1v1 war would be radically different then what we normally see, so its hard to justify comparisons between the two. -
[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314162339' post='2787516']
Yeah that's true, but loads of their wonders are in nations which have been severely beaten down. In the DH-NPO war, I seriously considered joining MK and attacking NPO, but I was like 15k NS and NPO's 20-10k NS bracket was full of nations with full wonders and even WRCs. MK got absolutely owned in that tier. Because the game is nearing the end of its life, there are increasing numbers of nations in this category, where they've been beaten down and never rebuilt. As demonstrated by the last war, NPO's 15k NS nations with WRCs didn't do them much good, because as I keep reiterating wars are won in the upper tier. NPO's upper tier was so ineffective that they shifted the entire thing to peacemode. Hence why ODN would thrash them in a war.
[/quote]
It wasn't that they were ineffective, it was that they were vastly outnumbered.
From the perspective of a strategist, why do you fight in a strength range where you've got nothing to gain from fighting? I think your underestimating how long NPO would be willing to keep a war going. Its been a long time since they've fought a war where their side wasn't outnumbered by more then 3:1, I think in a 1 on 1 against ODN, they'd see a glimmer of hope and would be willing to fight perhaps harder and longer then ever before if it was necessary. -
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1314162072' post='2787513']
Does anyone here think MHA could defeat anyone in a war? I want a show of hands.
[/quote]
Perhaps Sparta?
I think it'd be close -
[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314161590' post='2787508']
NPO has fought a lot more wars than ODN, so I think their war experience and still having their military wonders would more than make up for whatever stat advantages ODN has over NPO in a one on one.
[/quote]
Excellent point, NPO has 212 MPs and 181 SDIs, by comparison ODN has 127 MPs and 139 SDIs.
I understand that there is a differential in members, but NPO's advantage in those two wonders would work in their favor in a lengthy war, which it seems is about the only type they fight anymore. -
[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314160561' post='2787498']
ODN would defeat NPO (or, for that matter, NpO) in a war. Whether or not that's from avoiding hard wars is irrelevant. The fact remains that we have a much stronger upper tier than either Order, which is why it's hilarious that they're ranked so highly on this list.
[/quote]
In close wars, it is not so much the statistics that make the difference, it is the resolve. I'm unsure if ODN has the resolve that NPO or NpO do. I think they would see victory in their sights and they would be willing to push on until the members of ODN started crying and gave up.
Rather interesting, unbiased take you've got there, though. -
[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314153897' post='2787401']
ODN has 17 nations over 100k NS, and 80 nations over 50k NS, while NPO has nine nations above 100k NS, and 44 nations above 50k NS. ODN's nations in between 100k NS and 50k NS also have a significantly higher average NS than NPO's, which is to say they're concentrated in the upper tier. Our warchest requirements are extremely stringent, in my opinion some of the best in the game, at any rate we have much more saved than NPO does. NPO might have a chance in the lower tiers simply due to force of numbers, but we would devastate them in the upper tiers, which as I have said is where wars are won.
[/quote]
Theres the whole 'knowing what your doing' thing that comes into play. -
[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1314151751' post='2787365']
My personal opinion is that wars are won in the top 5%. And in order to affect nations in the top 5% (98k NS), you have to be right around 75k NS or higher. Anything you factor in below this line is basically irrelevant to winning alliance/bloc scale wars. If you want to determine who is best prepared for war, you need to start from this baseline (only nations above 75k NS) and then look at things like # of WRC, # of Manhattan Projects, tech per nation, etc. And it wouldn't hurt to try and subjectively judge what alliances have historically produced the most effective opening night blitzes.
[/quote]
I'd disagree. In a long-drawn out war, the average alliance will suffer if they get hammered in the sub 5% range, because thats where most of their members are, and members getting hammered will make their feelings on the war known with their feet and their words within the alliance. That can seriously damage alliance morale and can tender long-term damage to an alliance even if they win in the top tier wars.
In the top 5%, its a given that everybody is going to have a WRC, that most people are going to have decent tech levels. In that level, the main difference is how many friends an individual has and exactly how far they've gone in getting technology.
Below the top 5% and down into the middle ranges is where preparation pays off, because differences between nations are more pronounced. -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1314105496' post='2786798']
That's how I read it, anyway. Others' readings may differ.
Truly, The Phoenix Lingers.
[/quote]
No, I am not at all surprised that you would read things in such a manner, I wouldn't be surprised if you read a number of individuals posts in a similar manner. With your regular attempts to improve and awe the individuals around (both IC and otherwise), I'm sure your brain has no troubles in re-writing paragraphs before your very eyes.
Rose-colored goggles, I reckon.
None the less, no matter how artful words may be, complementary or otherwise, their effects are often muted, amplified or completely altered by others ability (or complete lack thereof) to comprehend them. You've done me a great favor today in reminding me of as much. -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1314096431' post='2786764']
I wasn't aware that one could measure hubris.
Regardless, Vanilla Napalm expressed it far better than I could. Beyond adding a 'What the hell are you on about?' or perhaps a 'Slayer did it better' there's not much to be said in response. Clearly I've somehow startled you by suggesting your pony pals were worthy of nothing but contempt. Nothing else can explain your desire to swoop in and declare that you will save an alliance that....well....no one is actually threatening.
It brings a tear to me eye. Truly, it does.
And so I apologize for your hurt widdle feewings, and hope you will take this opportunity to reflect on the fact that the craptastic herd you call a protectorate came up as a completely incidental point in a much more interesting discussion, and that you and your equine pals are about as menacing as Arm Fall Off Boy teamed up with the Wonder Pets.
[/quote]
I've never been one to keep my ear particularly close to the ground, I attempt to keep myself abreast of what's going on, but I haven't gotten the time to keep up to date with everything. It would seem that in the time that has transpired since HoT presented us with something that was 'different', there have been several instances of people saying that they ought to be rolled. Serious or not, I'd consider that as much as a threat.
I've never been one to assume them serious, but considering transpired at the beginning of this year, I have no doubt that if disliked enough, a CB can be manufactured to begin a war against a party that has done nothing wrong. I hardly walk around expecting such to happen, but I find it wise to understand that anything can happen at any time.
As for United Equestria being, in your words, a "craptastic herd", I would be inclined to disagree. I've personally recently entered into 5 tech deals with them, filling up aid slots neglected by my procrastination. Just as Umbrella and MK recognised the potential of GOONS, TPF sees the potential an 86 man alliance composed predominately of new nation has to us both in regards to our short-term needs and our long-term aspirations.
I hope their ANS grows a little quicker then that of GOONS, however.
Edit: On the subject of protectorates, The German Empire has been leaving quite a positive impression from their OWF forums, I'm sure you'll agree? -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1314086740' post='2786732']
If you think anyone is serious about taking them out, then you're really quite clueless. But please, don't let that stop you from doing a bit of public flexing to show how big and scary you are. We're all really quite impressed.
[/quote]
It matters not what I think or believe, or what 'public flexing' that you might be under the impression that I'm doing. The fact of the matter stands that should anybody get any funny ideas, there are those who will not allow them what they desire without so much as a fight.
I don't expect such a situation, nor do I particularly desire it. Rarely, however, has fate taken what I desire into consideration.
Also, I appreciate your being impressed, It means a great deal coming from you. I daresay that it is deserved seeing as we are further advanced then most all alliances with sizes comparable to our own (yours included) in several areas many consider to be most vital. -
[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1314073898' post='2786639']
GOONS caused Karma.
/thread
[/quote]
Must be, GOONS was only formed two days before Karma, so it makes sense, had GOONS never been formed, Karma would have never happened.
At any rate, that statement does not lessen my desire to laugh at FEAR over this ordeal. I see the topic Lord Boris set in #cnfear still stands, reading:
CN Blueballed? Success.
I think it would have been better if it read
External Chancellor embarrasses his alliance? Success.
perhaps in Lord Boris's feeble and underdeveloped mind, this topic is still a success. I know that I've thoroughly enjoyed it. -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1314058863' post='2786445']
I think so, since the alliance I am a part of is frequently mentioned as having some kind of longstanding hate-on for alliances in SF or as a core conspirator in others' fantasies. About the other arguments? No, not really. That's just HoT being his usual five-watt self, interepreting [b]"Your alliance shouldn't exist"[/b] as "They're coming to get you, Barbara!" followed by a whole lot of chatter about yet another one of his statements that's in poor taste.
[/quote]
But why, why shouldn't they exist?
Because you dislike the theme? People dislike it, but at the end of the day, every alliance's theme is at the least, a little dumb. I'll put it on record that anybody who wishes to go after said alliance should not be expecting to be able do it painlessly. -
[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1314056029' post='2786421']
And when was the last time I attempted to use that line in the context of politics?
Oh, sorry, I appear to have made a mistake by taking anything you say seriously. My bad. BBL.
[/quote]
I haven't the time to search through your posts, but I can remember at least one such instance where you wielded it similarly to how you have here.
But yes, continue to labor under the belief of the intellectual superiority that you have over everybody else around here. I won't try to stop you. -
[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1314055717' post='2786416']
Uhhhhhh... I guess you've been sniffing the same solvents as HoT.
[/quote]
If it was wrong, then it wouldn't feel so good.
But seriously, whatever may have happened to your ancestors may be a tragedy, but no more so then the last time you attempted to use that line, and coincidentally it is no more relevant to the situation at hand now then it undoubtedly was then. -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1314035920' post='2786231']
That wouldn't be a particularly wise thing to do, especially since most of the recent discussions (I'm privy to) have involved expressing various degrees of horror at one particular new alliance and whether or not someone should give them a one-way ticket to the glue factory. Let me be clear, though, that I don't really expect anything to happen. At this point we're just taking turns saying, "Ewwwwwww!"
[/quote]
I would undoubtedly have heaps of fun should you decide to try.
[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1314051452' post='2786371']
As someone whose descendants were victims of the event you so callously refer to here, I find your comment insulting and highly inappropriate. Grow up.
[/quote]
For somebody telling somebody else to grow up, you play the 'my descendants' card an awful lot, and in many situations where its not at all relevant.
We've all heard that gambit a million times now, just grow up. -
I think something that would be of interest would be to alternate between 3 month rounds and 2 month rounds, as it would prevent people from using the same strategy round after round, as a 2 month round would require a different mindset then a 3 month round, and vice versa.
As it is, its gotten a little predictable how things are going to go, people have gotten more proficient at growing, but from the viewpoint of the patterns that alliances follow in order to have several wars per round while still having adequate time between them.
That said, I'd argue against making any other changes to complement a longer round. I'd like to see how things would go with being able to purchase more wonders, from the standpoint of alliance vs. alliance, alliances might be less inclined to go real hard in the first two months setting up a month of hard pounding, giving their members time to get big wonders, etc. -
I like the idea of 3 month rounds, gives new options for wonder progression, gives alliances more options to fit even more wars into a round, as is, it never fails that alot of alliances have three wars falling around days 7-10, 25-35, and the last 10 days of the round.
Longer rounds will give two things, you'll have some alliances that war more frequently, some that will space their wars to be more effective/destructive Would be an interesting twist. -
[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1313686272' post='2783965']
In like, the last 3 wars we fought ODN. In one of those it was ODN + the rest of CnG, before that we've faced NPO, GOONS, NoR, etc. We aren't unwilling to face the odds. I am indeed open to the idea of pre-organized war, even with stronger alliances. Although we have no quarrel with TPF, TPF & FEAR were allies for the longest time. I would like to take back the TPF statement. While certainly, TPF has made mistakes in the past, you've been more or less good than us, and in general have acted with more tact than 'we' did last night. I was just getting defensive (tough not to in this situation), was tired and irritable.
[/quote]
Understandable, If i found myself sitting where you are sitting, watching a thread such as this grow, I imagine I would be irritable as well.
I personally have nothing against FEAR aside from a distaste of the comments by none other then the individual being discussed in the beginning of the logs presented in the opening post, as well as the attitude said individual acts with. Aside from that, I think FEAR is by and large composed of stand-up folks, and its home to some who I would even call friends. I find incidents such as this one to be most disappointing in regards to what I had come to expect. -
[size="1"]strucken from the record.
Sometimes I think of things that shouldn't be said.[/size] -
[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1313671394' post='2783864']
UPN wanted the war. FEAR just made that desire public knowledge. FEAR didn't want the war, hence the lack of DoW.
Do the math, people. It's easy and fun. UPN is free to back up its big words with big guns. FEAR just let us know that those words are out there.
And GDA, seriously...
[/quote]
I don't think UPN actually wanted any war. It seems to me that it looks like it was a casual IRC conversation of Robster discussing those in FEAR who go out of their way to say negative things, and a joke answer to what was perceived as a joke question.
I guess the Chancellors of FEAR have their heads too far in the clouds to tell the difference between somebody saying they wanted war and some casual IRC banter. -
[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1313656831' post='2783756']
(My own opinion)
1. It really was more for fun than anything (isn't everything), but the execution was poor. I agree.[/quote]
I fail to see how its 'fun' from UPN's perspective. Perhaps you could elaborate how this could be seen as 'in good fun' from their end?
Isn't it more fun when both parties are in on the joke?
It might be all for fun, but I see it as rather sad when your trying to have fun at somebody else's expense.
[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1313656831' post='2783756']
2. We weren't the ones wanting to prove their honor and strength, and yes a war would be fun[/quote]
No, your the ones taking casual IRC banter and exploding it into a pathetic statement on these forums trying to make them look bad.
[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1313656831' post='2783756']3. You're in TPF dude, don't talk[/quote]
I am in TPF. I fail to see your point.
[ooc]This is so reminiscent of high school, where to fit in and curry favor with the cool crowd, people would ostracise those seen as 'out-casts'. I suppose some might refer to it as 'bandwagoning'. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.[/ooc].
I don't see TPF going around making threads with no other intention then insult somebody, at least not recently enough for me to recall. If we have a problem with somebody, either we would care enough about it to address it on the battlefield or we wouldn't care enough to address it on these forums.
It has been brought to my understanding that your not against the idea of pre-organised 1v1 wars. If that is the case, I know somebody who might be interested, if you wished to put your 36 SDIs against our 105 MPs. -
UPN hardly had to post at all in this thread, and yet they come out of it with a PR victory.
This is so absurdly stupid that it is hard to comprehend.
Was it that with the addition of NEW to BFF, FEAR was feeling bigger and badder then normal and felt like an 8 year old with a twenty-dollar bill in his pocket, and just couldn't resist doing something?
Was it that FEAR genuinely wanted a war, but wanted to goad UPN into attacking them to fight the war 'defensively'?
Was it that FEAR wanted to get some cheap attention and good PR, and decided the best way to do it was to bully somebody they perceived as weaker then them?
I've long believed that FEAR wasn't the most competent or well-lead alliance on planet bob, but this really confirms the suspicions. Whatever your intentions from this thread were, I can't see many possibilities that aren't frankly laughable and pathetic. UPN's working for years to improve their reputation, and in one night FEAR helps them out while making themselves looking like morons.
Considering my growing distaste of FEAR, this thread has been thoroughly delicious. -
UPN, I can't imagine you having any problems with this trash if you wanted to address this situation. I for one would have no qualms fighting aside you.
[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1313640925' post='2783331']
Oh proud Triumvir of UPN, we see you list many a war that has left your nation scarred (including some that we weren't even aware ever happened. I mean seriously. When the hell did GW V and GW VI happen? Hell, I knew I was a bit out of the loop on the lingo these days, but really? Somebody get me a freaking newspaper so I can catch up). If your desire is to add another war to that list, by all means, be our guest. We'll be waiting.
[/quote]
Could you be any more thick? An FA man who doesn't even know his history? Just because you know conflicts by different names doesn't mean they didn't happen. FEAR picked wisely when they drew your name out of the hat.
A New Pacific Order Foreign Affairs Announcement
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Best of luck going forward to both of my allies.
Downgrading is never a decision that one goes into lightly. Different text on a treaty does not end a relationship, and often times, it does not even have to change the relationship itself. Undoubtedly NPO and Invicta will continue to work closely together and at one point or another in the future, great things will come from their relationship once again.