Declaration of War

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301352830' post='2679419']
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]
Theoretically, you can still lose if every one of your nations refuses to fight back, certainly we can take our time slowly chipping away at your tech.

But that isn't anywhere close to what was ever going to happen. No matter how much DH/PB feel the need to cry about how much of a "grave threat" NPO poses to them.

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='steodonn' timestamp='1301351260' post='2679395']
Well tell the other side to get out of peace mode ( sorry I had to )
[/quote]

Go away

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1301353104' post='2679425']
Theoretically, you can still lose if every one of your nations refuses to fight back, certainly we can take our time slowly chipping away at your tech.

But that isn't anywhere close to what was ever going to happen. No matter how much DH/PB feel the need to cry about how much of a "grave threat" NPO poses to them.
[/quote]
This was just because you wanted a +1 wasn't it?

[Achilles]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301349370' post='2679362']
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.
[/quote]



Ok, if you're talking about the peek in members on our side of the fence, I understand, we may have had more numbers at our peak than DH did at their peak, but the day of attacks, that wasn't the case and it isn't the case now. So, I would like to see how the numbers were set up for the majority of the war. Also, I mean the peak of the war, where both sides were at there maximum amount of nations, not the peak where our side had the most nations. I had taken you out of context apparently.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Achilles

[Achilles]

[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]


This as well.

[Letum]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301352830' post='2679419']
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.
[/quote]

Just because an alliance is "engaged" somewhere does not mean it cannot fight more people. It does present a burden, of course, but the weight of the burden depends on how "hard" it is for whichever alliance we are talking about to fight more than one person. MK fighting CCC for example, didn't really impact their ability to take us on at the same time. If you take both wars/front/whatever together, there was a clear number advantage on the part of DH/PB/CNG/SF vs the rest. The idea that said advantage would have been confined to one area whilst another suffers seems tactically ludicrous.

Perhaps I would understand what point you are trying to make if you give me an example of what "could have" happened with the "even" numbers you talk about. Do you think if we brought all our allies, and all high ns nations, in swinging at Day 1, we could have "knocked out" DH and TOP in a short, week long war whilst the main fighting was ongoing against Polar's allies? Because I wouldn't really call that a plausible scenario.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1301370145' post='2679651']
Just because an alliance is "engaged" somewhere does not mean it cannot fight more people. It does present a burden, of course, but the weight of the burden depends on how "hard" it is for whichever alliance we are talking about to fight more than one person. MK fighting CCC for example, didn't really impact their ability to take us on at the same time. If you take both wars/front/whatever together, there was a clear number advantage on the part of DH/PB/CNG/SF vs the rest. The idea that said advantage would have been confined to one area whilst another suffers seems tactically ludicrous.


[/quote]

That's not what I meant, nor what I said. I'm not quite sure how to say it any other way though to be honest (or don't feel like rephrasing it at this busy juncture). And honestly, I dont understand why you are putting things like the word "even" in quotes, since we're talking about the tangible and documented here. Our side had around a 50-60 mil advantage total with all players in, at best. This isn't speculation, I planned the damn counters and placements. The sheet that was circulating in public also reflected that. Was it an advantage? Sure. Was it a massive one or one that you couldn't have worked around? No, it was closer then anything this planet has seen in a very long time. On top of that, the nation count stat was particularly troublesome. But, in the end, you placed your NS badly, did odd things, didn't work together, and had some alliances that were just extremely ineffective. Moreover, it was easy to predict so lining up counters in an efficient way wasn't exactly a mind bender (bipolar was much more difficult). No, someone like CCC doesn't really tie up MK, but thats not the type of situations that were the norm on the polar front. In the example above I mentioned tieing up ODN, well, MCXA and the assorted others ODN was on could have easily done that if they were effective. But, they weren't, and therefore ODN was free to support.

I understand this stuff makes it hard to tout the "woe is me we have been curbstomped!!!" line, but for the 900th time, these are public numbers and shouldn't be at dispute.

[quote]
Perhaps I would understand what point you are trying to make if you give me an example of what "could have" happened with the "even" numbers you talk about. Do you think if we brought all our allies, and all high ns nations, in swinging at Day 1, we could have "knocked out" DH and TOP in a short, week long war whilst the main fighting was ongoing against Polar's allies? Because I wouldn't really call that a plausible scenario.
[/quote]

Knock out punch? Hell no. But there is something particular you could have done. Not really trying to sit here and get into it while the war is still in progress though, maybe once it ends.

[Achilles]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301371690' post='2679666']
That's not what I meant, nor what I said. I'm not quite sure how to say it any other way though to be honest (or don't feel like rephrasing it at this busy juncture). And honestly, I dont understand why you are putting things like the word "even" in quotes, since we're talking about the tangible and documented here. Our side had around a 50-60 mil advantage total with all players in, at best. This isn't speculation, I planned the damn counters and placements. The sheet that was circulating in public also reflected that. Was it an advantage? Sure. Was it a massive one or one that you couldn't have worked around? No, it was closer then anything this planet has seen in a very long time. On top of that, the nation count stat was particularly troublesome. But, in the end, you placed your NS badly, did odd things, didn't work together, and had some alliances that were just extremely ineffective. Moreover, it was easy to predict so lining up counters in an efficient way wasn't exactly a mind bender (bipolar was much more difficult). No, someone like CCC doesn't really tie up MK, but thats not the type of situations that were the norm on the polar front. In the example above I mentioned tieing up ODN, well, MCXA and the assorted others ODN was on could have easily done that if they were effective. But, they weren't, and therefore ODN was free to support.

I understand this stuff makes it hard to tout the "woe is me we have been curbstomped!!!" line, but for the 900th time, these are public numbers and shouldn't be at dispute.



Knock out punch? Hell no. But there is something particular you could have done. Not really trying to sit here and get into it while the war is still in progress though, maybe once it ends.
[/quote]
The numbers you posted showed around a 20 million ns advantage on the side of DH. Are you saying that isn't a noticeable advantage? 2000 nations and 20 million ns is a big difference. Repeating the same thing you've been saying doesn't make what you're saying any more credible. Also, showing numbers that support what we're saying and pretending they support your "Theories", doesn't make that true. I understand the stats that you posted may not be up to date, but I'm confused as to why you posted them. They show exactly what I've been saying. Our side has been outnumbered. Unless, those statistics(Public numbers) are completely incorrect and pulled from thin air.

[Achilles]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301371690' post='2679666']
That's not what I meant, nor what I said. I'm not quite sure how to say it any other way though to be honest (or don't feel like rephrasing it at this busy juncture). And honestly, I dont understand why you are putting things like the word "even" in quotes, since we're talking about the tangible and documented here. Our side had around a 50-60 mil advantage total with all players in, at best. This isn't speculation, I planned the damn counters and placements. The sheet that was circulating in public also reflected that. Was it an advantage? Sure. Was it a massive one or one that you couldn't have worked around? No, it was closer then anything this planet has seen in a very long time. On top of that, the nation count stat was particularly troublesome. But, in the end, you placed your NS badly, did odd things, didn't work together, and had some alliances that were just extremely ineffective. Moreover, it was easy to predict so lining up counters in an efficient way wasn't exactly a mind bender (bipolar was much more difficult). No, someone like CCC doesn't really tie up MK, but thats not the type of situations that were the norm on the polar front. In the example above I mentioned tieing up ODN, well, MCXA and the assorted others ODN was on could have easily done that if they were effective. But, they weren't, and therefore ODN was free to support.

I understand this stuff makes it hard to tout the "woe is me we have been curbstomped!!!" line, but for the 900th time, these are public numbers and shouldn't be at dispute.



Knock out punch? Hell no. But there is something particular you could have done. Not really trying to sit here and get into it while the war is still in progress though, maybe once it ends.
[/quote]

The numbers you posted showed around a 20 million ns advantage on the side of DH. Are you saying that isn't a noticeable advantage? 2000 nations and 20 million ns is a big difference. Repeating the same thing you've been saying doesn't make what you're saying any more credible. Also, showing numbers that support what we're saying and pretending they support your "Theories", doesn't make that true. I understand the stats that you posted may not be up to date, but I'm confused as to why you posted them. They show exactly what I've been saying. Our side has been outnumbered during this war. Maybe it hasn't been the entire time, but the numbers under TOTAL WAR support the fact that we have been outnumbered. Unless, those statistics(Public numbers) are completely incorrect and pulled from thin air.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Achilles

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1301327108' post='2679113']
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.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that--as I anticipated--you're missing the point.

I think that the question you and Letum are both asking is perfectly fine. It deserves a thoughtful answer. I'm merely pointing out that your rhetoric (all they do is call us peacemode cowards!) makes only marginally more sense that that held by some NADC members that you are winning because we are unable to declare on you.

The inference that I was hoping you would take from my post was that you don't need to sully an otherwise good argument nonsense--because it is your nonsense that will attract the attention of your audience. Which apparently is not the reaction that you desire.

Have fun.

[Olliee]

To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!

[Goldie]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]

Shhh don't betray our internal secrets!

[Bill Wallace]

Welp, the secret is no more. Everyone, Solaris is in charge. 8 wheeled death machine keeps on roll'n.

[Sithis]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]
It depends on what system of peerage you're referencing, but in most instances the term Lord (or Lady) is used to refer to all nobility, be it Viscounts, Barons, Dukes, etc.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Sithis' timestamp='1301417046' post='2679997']
It depends on what system of peerage you're referencing, but in most instances the term Lord (or Lady) is used to refer to all nobility, be it Viscounts, Barons, Dukes, etc.
[/quote]

LIES AND SLANDER.

Just like a member of DUMBHUT to try and change the way a system has been working forever!

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]
To be honest, who can trust an alliance so terrible that almost all of its gov leaves to form another alliance?

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301419030' post='2680005']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance so terrible that almost all of its gov leaves to form another alliance?
[/quote]

That almost made sense. And was almost relevant. Almost... almost.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1301419146' post='2680006']
That almost made sense. And was almost relevant. Almost... almost.
[/quote]
If only I had meant it as a way of highlighting the absurdity of his statement....

[Solaris]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]
The Lord is highest.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301419647' post='2680011']
If only I had meant it as a way of highlighting the absurdity of his statement....
[/quote]

The way I took it, and most other people above me, was as a joke. One that was hardly insulting...

Meanwhile, your statement was just rude; and little more than a pot shot at events that happened far in the past.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1301424982' post='2680048']
The way I took it, and most other people above me, was as a joke. One that was hardly insulting...

Meanwhile, your statement was just rude; and little more than a pot shot at events that happened far in the past.
[/quote]
Yeah, my bad. To be honest, I thought it was some really stupid (no offense to poster now that I know it was a joke) person trying to jump on the "VE is...<insert negative thing here>" bandwagon. Coffee, then posting from now on.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]

We all know who the REAL leader of VE is.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Penkala

[foxfire99]

[quote name='Olliee' timestamp='1301412634' post='2679957']
To be honest, who can trust an alliance that doesn't even realise that a 'Duke' is several orders higher than a 'Lord'!
[/quote]

If that was the case, the Lord would do all the work of running the alliance while the Duke just sat around and had no real responsibilities.

Wait...

[Goldie]

[quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1301432114' post='2680128']
If that was the case, the Lord would do all the work of running the alliance while the Duke just sat around and had no real responsibilities.

Wait...
[/quote]

In all fairness neither of them do a whole lot

[Krath]

oh boy. good luck out there