Declaration of War

[Goldie]

[quote name='shaneprice' timestamp='1301291656' post='2678894']
So nice to see that the Viridian Entente is now becoming the Iran and/or Libya of Planet Bob.
[/quote]

So nice to see that you so missed the fail going on from when you were in GGA that you are now reliving it again in Exodus.

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1301115371' post='2676809']
I'll go out on a limb and say they probably want to beat the $%&@ out of your alliance.
[/quote]

And so he asked all those alliances to attack NADC? You should make some sense mate.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' timestamp='1301289973' post='2678877']
Derp herp derpity derp
[/quote]
I was hoping you might address the point I quoted, but alas, it was a, shall we say, "hopeless" cause.

You fools just cant even acknowledge the point, can you? You just don't have a response that rationalizes it. I love when an argument is so airtight as that. But, my friend, we're going to have to address it at some point, if we are ever going to hope to attain peace.

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1301074089' post='2676121']
Yeah it would suck to actually have allies that could win wars. It would highlight how bad you are, unlike surrounding yourself with similarly incompetent allies. I too would be very ashamed.
[/quote]
Are you implying that being defeated in a war relates to incompetence? That includes some of your allies and even the earlier GOONS.
This is just a ridiculous assessment.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1301327604' post='2679117']
Are you implying that being defeated in a war relates to incompetence?
[/quote]


You have it backwards, gross incompetence tends to lead to being defeated in wars.

Being defeated at war could indicate incompetence, but not necessarily.

On the other hand, being incompetent to start with [i]will[/i] tend to lead to defeat unless you posses enough sheer numbers to make up for lack of ability.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

It has to do with intransitivity, which says just because some A=B and some B=C that does not mean A=C.



Today's math lesson has been brought to you by Sweeeeet Ronny D.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1301345144' post='2679315']
It has to do with intransitivity, which says just because some A=B and some B=C that does not mean A=C.



Today's math lesson has been brought to you by Sweeeeet Ronny D.
[/quote]
Two things are not equal if the transitive property doesn't hold. I would strongly recommend against looking for a career in education, you're truly horrible at it.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1301321205' post='2679066']
So nice to see that you so missed the fail going on from when you were in GGA that you are now reliving it again in Exodus.
[/quote]

So nice to see that you feel the need to take a pop shot at Exodus in a thread that has nothing to do with us. Hater.

o/ The mighty war machine of Viridia.

[Achilles]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1301342613' post='2679281']
You have it backwards, gross incompetence tends to lead to being defeated in wars.

Being defeated at war could indicate incompetence, but not necessarily.

On the other hand, being incompetent to start with [i]will[/i] tend to lead to defeat unless you posses enough sheer numbers to make up for lack of ability.
[/quote]

It seems that way in this war. Also, in the KARMA war. Sheer numbers making up for lack of ability.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Achilles' timestamp='1301347012' post='2679336']
It seems that way in this war. Also, in the KARMA war. Sheer numbers making up for lack of ability.
[/quote]

The numbers in this war were more even then any other in recent memory, for the onset and short time thereafter until surrenders started rolling in, that is. A few fronts remained even throughout as well. So while it may be true as a general statement, it certainly doesn't apply to this war.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[Volatile]

Talking about numbers while many on one side are in peace mode

Had the pleasure of meeting/working with a couple of VE nations this war
and I'm pretty sure that ability is not an issue, anything but...

VE

[Achilles]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301347274' post='2679338']
The numbers in this war were more even then any other in recent memory, for the onset and short time thereafter until surrenders started rolling in, that is. A few fronts remained even throughout as well. So while it may be true as a general statement, it certainly doesn't apply to this war.
[/quote]
You may be right if the numbers you're talking about are numbers in strength... I'd disagree completely if we were talking about numbers of nations, which I was.

[quote name='Volatile' timestamp='1301347522' post='2679340']
Talking about numbers while many on one side are in peace mode

Had the pleasure of meeting/working with a couple of VE nations this war
and I'm pretty sure that ability is not an issue, anything but...

VE
[/quote]
More Peace Mode crying? Are you not getting enough from the nations not in peacemode?

Edited March 28, 2011 by Achilles

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Achilles' timestamp='1301348041' post='2679347']
You may be right if the numbers you're talking about are numbers in strength... I'd disagree completely if we were talking about numbers of nations, which I was.
[/quote]

Your side had more nations then ours at its peak, so yea, really just doesn't apply here.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301347274' post='2679338']
The numbers in this war were more even then any other in recent memory, for the onset and short time thereafter until surrenders started rolling in, that is. A few fronts remained even throughout as well. So while it may be true as a general statement, it certainly doesn't apply to this war.
[/quote]

The raw numbers do show an even war.

The refined numbers show a pretty vast disparity. (Avg Nation NS for the DH side was almost twice that of the NPO side)

That being said, it does not excuse NPO's war strategy. The war could have been much more interesting had NPO ever decided to fight, and they may have had an outside shot of fighting to a stalemate (extremely slim outside shot). But now... they don't have a prayer. And quite frankly NPO's war effort, to this point, is pathetic at best.

[Achilles]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301348150' post='2679349']
Your side had more nations then ours at its peak, so yea, really just doesn't apply here.
[/quote]
I'm inclined to ask at what point you feel was the peak? There was a point when we had more nations, around day 3, but I don't think that's been the case the entire war.
these are the numbers around day 46 of the war.

DH 1707
NPO 1186

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Achilles' timestamp='1301349021' post='2679357']
I'm inclined to ask at what point you feel was the peak? There was a point when we had more nations, around day 3, but I don't think that's been the case the entire war.
these are the numbers around day 46 of the war.

DH 1707
NPO 1186
[/quote]

The peak is obviously the point where you had the most amount before people on your side began to surrender, so I'm not sure why you would be inclined to ask that since it's pretty much the definition of the word "peak" when applied to context. Also, I'm speaking of the larger war, not just the NPO theatre. I mean, it's not really a point that's up for debate, as there was an unbiased public stats sheet keeping tract of bare NS and nation counts, etc.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1301327604' post='2679117']
Are you implying that being defeated in a war relates to incompetence? That includes some of your allies and even the earlier GOONS.
This is just a ridiculous assessment.
[/quote]

Forgive GOONS. You sorta have to put them in perspective. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov-1S8Xxd94"]They are the small dog in this brief video clip[/url]. It explains a lot. Also, NPO's top tier nations in peace mode are of course represented by the cat.

[foxfire99]

[quote name='Achilles' timestamp='1301349021' post='2679357']
I'm inclined to ask at what point you feel was the peak? There was a point when we had more nations, around day 3, but I don't think that's been the case the entire war.
these are the numbers around day 46 of the war.

DH 1707
NPO 1186
[/quote]

Your peak was the point when you had the most total nations, so not day 46.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301347274' post='2679338']
The numbers in this war were more even then any other in recent memory, for the onset and short time thereafter until surrenders started rolling in, that is. A few fronts remained even throughout as well. So while it may be true as a general statement, it certainly doesn't apply to this war.
[/quote]



This fallacy kills me. There was a huge amount of NS in reserve that was sitting idle or mostly idle to help out as soon as DH wanted it. There was never a point in this war where this side would have had any numerical advantage for more than 1 day. If it was even in question DH would never have launched the war to start with.

[Jake Liebenow]

For the love of humanity, will you all just quit your whining, EVERYONE HERE ON EVERY SIDE, and just [b][i][u][size=200]FIGHT ALREADY?![/size][/u][/i][/b]

[steodonn]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1301351141' post='2679393']
For the love of humanity, will you all just quit your whining, EVERYONE HERE ON EVERY SIDE, and just [b][i][u][size="200"]FIGHT ALREADY?![/size][/u][/i][/b]
[/quote]

Well tell the other side to get out of peace mode ( sorry I had to )

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301350788' post='2679387']
This fallacy kills me. There was a huge amount of NS in reserve that was sitting idle or mostly idle to help out as soon as DH wanted it. There was never a point in this war where this side would have had any numerical advantage for more than 1 day. If it was even in question DH would never have launched the war to start with.
[/quote]

Once again, its not really a point that's up for debate. The numbers and people involved have been publicly tracked for all to see.

[url="https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao8LX9Y0ZHL6dEV2cFA3d05jdGFhVWJsYW9qcWtaaEE&hl=en#gid=2"]This sheet was circulating all over IRC and had constant updates as people came in and went out[/url], so this is all pretty much common knowledge (note that at this point the sheet linked obviously isn't current and the last update was well after the surrenders began, but you can still see the lack of disparity between the sides and the amount of engagement in each). Honestly, ask around if you don't believe it. I'm sorry if it ruins your excuse-fantasy, but it just kind of is what it is.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301351381' post='2679396']
Once again, its not really a point that's up for debate. The numbers and people involved have all been publicly tracked for all to see.

[url="https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao8LX9Y0ZHL6dEV2cFA3d05jdGFhVWJsYW9qcWtaaEE&hl=en#gid=2"]This sheet was circulating all over IRC and had constant updates as people came in and went out[/url], so this is all pretty much common knowledge (note that at this point it obviously isn't current and the last update was well after the surrenders began, but you can still see the lack of disparity between the sides and the amount of engagement in each). Honestly, ask around if you don't believe it. I'm sorry if it ruins your excuse-fantasy, but it just kind of is what it is.
[/quote]


The problem being that this side had pretty much exhausted every alliance that could possibly enter the conflict. The other side still has alliances that hadn't or haven't fought that could enter. Other problems also crop up, the huge nuke and tech advantage being two of the larger ones.

At no point would this war have been in doubt for DH/Allies no matter what anyone on this side did.

[Letum]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301348150' post='2679349']
Your side had more nations then ours at its peak, so yea, really just doesn't apply here.
[/quote]

The only time where we had more numbers than the other side was when we had called in all our allies, but DH had not called in much of theirs. That "peak" would only hold any significance for the result of the conflict if, for some reason, DH's allies would be kept away from the fighting. There wasn't really anything to do that.

Really, you get a "point" where the eventually defeated side has more nations than the other in almost every conflict, because of the nature of declarations and counter-declarations in the alliance web. This war simply dragged out those points more than previous ones, due to the length in between declarations. But as long as DH's allies were going to enter anyway, the length of the "peak" doesn't make any real difference.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301351905' post='2679402']
The problem being that this side had pretty much exhausted every alliance that could possibly enter the conflict. The other side still has alliances that hadn't or haven't fought that could enter. Other problems also crop up, the huge nuke and tech advantage being two of the larger ones.

At no point would this war have been in doubt for DH/Allies no matter what anyone on this side did.
[/quote]

Ugh.

At the time the NPO front began, you had far more alliances that were not involved then we did. TOP, LOST, and GR were the only main parties who had not been engaged. The rest of the support was brought in through other parties engaged elsewhere on the polar front getting their opponents to surrender, rearming, then reentering.

To your third sentence, yes, I completely agree. You're saying that the nations on our side were better prepared by possessing more tech and nukes (and a higher avg NS, which you forgot to include), thus more likely to win even when faced with more nations and close NS. That, in essence, is the point I was contending in the first place.

As for the war never being in doubt, your semi right. On paper, it could have technically gone either way, but yes, we were confident in our ability to strategically manage and in the preparation of our nations as well. That doesn't mean that you couldn't have pulled off a win here though better management, particularly in regards to the prewar phase.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1301352322' post='2679411']
The only time where we had more numbers than the other side was when we had called in all our allies, but DH had not called in much of theirs. That "peak" would only hold any significance for the result of the conflict if, for some reason, DH's allies would be kept away from the fighting. There wasn't really anything to do that.

Really, you get a "point" where the eventually defeated side has more nations than the other in almost every conflict, because of the nature of declarations and counter-declarations in the alliance web. This war simply dragged out those points more than previous ones, due to the length in between declarations. But as long as DH's allies were going to enter anyway, the length of the "peak" doesn't make any real difference.
[/quote]

See the above, there was never a large chunk waiting outside to support the NPO front that was completely disproportionate to your own reserves, it was an already engaged moved chunk. For example, keeping ODN and Athens engaged on the polar front would have completely changed the demographic of the NPO front.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano