war is afoot

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301332807' post='2679161']
PS gained NS during the 10 days of that war.... in fact, it was some 43k NS overall that was gained. So you should not use the GR war as an example of being beaten down. As for the RE/Syn war, ya'll went from 196k NS to 154k NS and pre-war you had went to 237k NS. The war ended on the 14th and we did not hit ya'll for 9 days. So there was plenty of time then to hit G-6. Hell for that matter, you could have gained quite a coalition to do so.
[/quote]

We also had nearly half of our nations reroll, and bizarre a concept though it might be, NS lost is not the sole measure of damage sustained. GR fought hard, and by the end of that war we were relatively short on cash and had just 3-4 nations in the top 5% or with nukes. By the end of the RE/Synergy war, I believe that we were down to just one nuclear-capable nation, and having been fighting for 13 days bill-lock was prevalent, with even more nations were rerolling. To suggest that PS and OP were in any position to spearhead a coalition a couple days later against an alliance that had a couple hundred nukes and an average NS twice ours by that point is laughable in the extreme.

[quote]
I am happy to entertain but no, i do not use half-brained arguments.[/quote]


On this I will agree; there's nothing within your arguments that would rise past the workload of one neuron, let alone a full hemisphere.

[paul711]

Fail, in that post I said he helped with the targetting and planning, no where did I say he ordered it. We showed you the logs where Confusion admits to it but that just isn't good enough for you.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301333603' post='2679171']
Fail, in that post I said he helped with the targetting and planning, no where did I say he ordered it. We showed you the logs where Confusion admits to it but that just isn't good enough for you.
[/quote]

"Bold faced lie, Confusion and other in G6 leadership, mainly Confusion, did help plan [b]or actively encouraged others to fight the various members of this war[/b] aginst G6 to keep us from interfering with their flag run and for revenge. I can prove everything."


Bold faced lie and fail from paul. Care to try again? also, still waiting on the prove about Confusion "actively encouraging" others to fight ya'll. You stated specifically that you can prove [b]everything[/b]. In fact, please provide proof that he planned anything. The only thing those logs proved was Confusion created a spreadsheet not planned and not actively encouraged anything.

You are 0 for 2 fail711.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301334533' post='2679180']
In fact, please provide proof that he planned anything. The only thing [b]those logs proved was Confusion created a spreadsheet[/b] not planned and not actively encouraged anything.


[/quote]

What was contained in the spreadsheet, the war plan? Or was it just Confusion's arithmetic homework?

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1301335459' post='2679189']
What was contained in the spreadsheet, the war plan? Or was it just Confusion's arithmetic homework?
[/quote]

Many people aren't professionals in organizing spreadsheets. He simply made them a Google document and let them add in there targets. If you want to make something out of it we can rol... oh wait.

[paul711]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301334533' post='2679180']
"Bold faced lie, Confusion and other in G6 leadership, mainly Confusion, did help plan [b]or actively encouraged others to fight the various members of this war[/b] aginst G6 to keep us from interfering with their flag run and for revenge. I can prove everything."


Bold faced lie and fail from paul. Care to try again? also, still waiting on the prove about Confusion "actively encouraging" others to fight ya'll. You stated specifically that you can prove [b]everything[/b]. In fact, please provide proof that he planned anything. The only thing those logs proved was Confusion created a spreadsheet not planned and not actively encouraged anything.

You are 0 for 2 fail711.
[/quote]
Where in that does it say order, I can link you to an online dictionary if you'd like. It says "help plan" "actively encouraged", I don't know where you come from but I do not take any of that to mean ORDER.

[paul711]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301336037' post='2679198']
Many people aren't professionals in organizing spreadsheets. He simply made them a Google document and let them add in there targets. If you want to make something out of it we can rol... oh wait.
[/quote]
How do you know? I mean his own words say he helped with the targetting, how much clearer do I have to be.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301336366' post='2679202']
How do you know? I mean his own words say he helped with the targetting, how much clearer do I have to be.
[/quote]

A lot more :3 propaganda does not affect us because we have already received a lot

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301333385' post='2679169']
We also had nearly half of our nations reroll, and bizarre a concept though it might be, NS lost is not the sole measure of damage sustained. GR fought hard, and by the end of that war we were relatively short on cash and had just 3-4 nations in the top 5% or with nukes. By the end of the RE/Synergy war, I believe that we were down to just one nuclear-capable nation, and having been fighting for 13 days bill-lock was prevalent, with even more nations were rerolling. To suggest that PS and OP were in any position to spearhead a coalition a couple days later against an alliance that had a couple hundred nukes and an average NS twice ours by that point is laughable in the extreme.




On this I will agree; there's nothing within your arguments that would rise past the workload of one neuron, let alone a full hemisphere.
[/quote]

lawlz okay mate. You lost some NS throughout the war but still ended up 40k NS higher than when you began. so unless you gained nations during the war, your ANS would have to be higher leaving the war than when ya'll got declared on. It is physically impossible to end up with a higher total NS and have the same nations and not end up with a higher ANS, which according to you is the end all, be all of warring.

from what i found in the Amazing sanction race on Feb 27th ya'll had 42 members and an average ANS of 3660 and ended the war with 50 members and 3910 ANS. While i get that only gaining 250 ANS in 10 days is not good and would knock many of ya'lls nations out of the top 5%, i am unclear of how if your nations were rerolling like they were and the fact that GR apparently went mostly inactive (from reading the DoW thread of GR on PS, it looks as if most of both alliances started in the top 5% and that GR only declared 3 wars in the second round of war from what dockingscheduled claims and PS had 43 declared wars in the second round) how did ya'll lose that much WC? I mean, if i am wrong about GR being mostly inactive, i will correct myself but from the fact that GR only declared 3 wars and PS declared 43, it gives a fairly clear indication that either GR was mostly in anarchy, while PS was not or GR went inactive for the most part, and given the graph in the PS dec of victory thread, the small loss to NS on the 2nd and 4th, is completely offset by the substantial gains on the 5th, 6th, and 7th. Something that would not really happen if ya'll were fighting an active opponent during this time.

So, what exactly did ya'll spend your WCs on after the first? Apparently only a handful of GR nations were actually attacking by that point otherwise, your losses would have been much more consistent with the first round of war instead of the opposite. I mean if your nations were so short of cash, how did ya'll manage to gain 40k NS in 3 days? That contradicts what you are stating. Cuz unless that 40k NS was gained in just a handful of nations, in which case you would have more than just 3-4 nations in the top 5% unless those 3-4 managed to gain around 10k NS each, that would mean that ya'll would have had at least a decent amount of cash on hand to grow enough and not risk bill-locking yourself. n

I can actually understand the RE/Syn war since ya'll did lose a good amount of NS in that war.

Again, my point has always been that considering the amount of wars going in, G-6 would have been called out if we DoWed on any alliance that was currently at war or any number of alliances that were at war or we would have been called out for hitting the alliances outside of war, even if we hit all of them most likely, for various reasons. So we did not hit anyone due to the fact that the wars would be far more lopsided than you state this one is. At the same point, no alliances declared war on G-6, again for various reasons.

Yet, ya'll !@#$%* that G-6 only had a single war as if that is somehow our fault. We could have easily warred throughout this round and chosen to hit either alliances at war or alliances not at war but who combined would have presented little difficulty in defeating. Those were the choices G-6 had when choosing to attack. Those who had the option of attacking us either chose not to, were at war, or just getting out of war. So no one declared on G-6.

Which means how can you sit there and claim that G-6 is oh so damn evil for only being in a single war when there was no war G-6 could declare that would not have caused it to be a huge curbstomp? So yes, i got tired of this pathetic argument used against G-6 since it is not even remotely close to using half a brain or even that close to using a single neuron.

So since ya'll kept stating G-6 should have warred more, i came back at ya'll with ya'll should have declared on G-6 and brought a ton of alliances with you. basically it makes as much if not more sense than ya'lls argument does.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301336269' post='2679200']
Where in that does it say order, I can link you to an online dictionary if you'd like. It says "help plan" "actively encouraged", I don't know where you come from but I do not take any of that to mean ORDER.
[/quote]

do you not know what actively encourage implies?

encouragement - The act of encouraging; incitement to action or to (from wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

and considering the context with which you are using encourage, the definition would be to incite. now lets define incite:

# motivate: give an incentive for action;
# provoke or stir up;
# prod: urge on; cause to act; (also from the same as encourage)

So, maybe you need to realize what your words mean in the context you place them. to actively encourage, basically can be defined as order, provoke, prod, motivate (aka give an incentive for doing it which is asking them and rewarding them). This is where i come from. learn what your words imply particularly in the context in which you place them. If you did not mean what you implied, then you definitely need to fix your own !@#$. If you are simply trying to avoid the fact that you have been proven wrong time and time again, well then all i can do is just laugh at you.

[thaisport]

[i][b]Wow... I haven't seen this much activity on one thread in a long time![/b][/i]

Personally, IMHO (and speaking for myself) I rather enjoy the fighting. This is great practice for waring skills. The greater the odds against you, the smarter you have to play. Conversely, if you have great odds, you also have to play smart to take advantage of your status. I think G-6 played well with their given hand this round. In this war, I think PLOW was smart to find needed resources to fight this war.

Honestly, both sides have done well up to this point in time. In hindsight, anyone of us can go back and look at the past to play "Monday morning quarterback" and spin anything one way or another. I also think both sides have a lot of things to improve on as well.

I am enjoying this war even after being nuked twice and fighting nations twice my starting NS and it took a nuke to anarchy me. I'm sure there are G-6 nations who can say the same.

[u]My advice to both sides is simple. Play with what you got and have fun. Don't brag like bully, p0ut like children, or whine like an id10t.[/u]

[i][b]It's a war game. Don't get mad! Have fun and get even![/b][/i]

[Cellardoor]

I don't want to quote the entire post, so I'll just explain how PS might not have been in a good position to do much.

First, GR caught us in a bad spot. With the new rules in TE regarding resources and start-up cash we miscalculated on a few things and basically had no nuclear nations. When GR blitzed we had variously sized WCs, no nukes, various troop levels and few AFs. Our NS increased immediately because everyone started buying airforces, maxing troops and buying tanks. In the process we gained NS. Enough to offset the nukes we ate. But calculating everything out including buying troops, paying bills,buying planes, etc, we were broke. Jack posted the DoV thread and most of us were in NA, Anarchy, bill lock or a combination of. 36 minutes later I got declared on by a pair nations. I fought them and a few other opponents as well. When the war ended we'd almost all eaten nukes, and the vast majority were in a position where it made more sense to re-roll than to continue with our current nations. For a reference point, G-6 had been out of their undeniably less bloody wars for something like 14 days before our wars expired.

The notion that we were in any position to declare on G-6 is completely wrong, and OP was in a similar situation. I don't really know what LE has been doing this round as I've had no contact with them. Truth be told, I wanted a rematch of our round 9 war against them.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301337198' post='2679213']
lawlz okay mate. You lost some NS throughout the war but still ended up 40k NS higher than when you began. so unless you gained nations during the war, your ANS would have to be higher leaving the war than when ya'll got declared on. It is physically impossible to end up with a higher total NS and have the same nations and not end up with a higher ANS, which according to you is the end all, be all of warring. [/quote]

Having access to nukes where your opponents do not is often a determining factor, indeed.

[quote]

from what i found in the Amazing sanction race on Feb 27th ya'll had 42 members and an average ANS of 3660 and ended the war with 50 members and 3910 ANS. While i get that only gaining 250 ANS in 10 days is not good and would knock many of ya'lls nations out of the top 5%, i am unclear of how if your nations were rerolling like they were and the fact that GR apparently went mostly inactive (from reading the DoW thread of GR on PS, it looks as if most of both alliances started in the top 5% and that GR only declared 3 wars in the second round of war from what dockingscheduled claims and PS had 43 declared wars in the second round) how did ya'll lose that much WC? I mean, if i am wrong about GR being mostly inactive, i will correct myself but from the fact that GR only declared 3 wars and PS declared 43, it gives a fairly clear indication that either GR was mostly in anarchy, while PS was not or GR went inactive for the most part, and given the graph in the PS dec of victory thread, the small loss to NS on the 2nd and 4th, is completely offset by the substantial gains on the 5th, 6th, and 7th. Something that would not really happen if ya'll were fighting an active opponent during this time.

So, what exactly did ya'll spend your WCs on after the first? Apparently only a handful of GR nations were actually attacking by that point otherwise, your losses would have been much more consistent with the first round of war instead of the opposite. I mean if your nations were so short of cash, how did ya'll manage to gain 40k NS in 3 days? That contradicts what you are stating. Cuz unless that 40k NS was gained in just a handful of nations, in which case you would have more than just 3-4 nations in the top 5% unless those 3-4 managed to gain around 10k NS each, that would mean that ya'll would have had at least a decent amount of cash on hand to grow enough and not risk bill-locking yourself. n
[/quote]

It's remarkably easy to see where our nations rerolled. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002051]13 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002039]13 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001992]14 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001991]14 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002031]14 days ago[/url]. And on and on. In fact, if you look down the list, 60% of our top-20 nations at this point have rerolled...most immediately following the RE/Synergy war in large part because we didn't have the opportunity to reroll after the GR war (though [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001790]a[/url] [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001892]few[/url] [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001899]did[/url].

As for GR, as we said at the time: their [i]leadership[/i] was inactive, and the alliance was rather uncoordinated, but they sure as hell weren't inactive. Go back to the dec thread and you'll see a post from me lauding the fact that a number of GR nations fought 'til the bitter end.

On the matter of warchests, I lost 800 infra in the process and spent five days in nuke anarchy, and I was hardly an exception to the rule; that tends to have a pretty significant effect on one's warchest, as does being engaged in another war 30 minutes after that one ended. My warchest at the time that RE/Synergy declared was five figures...while I managed to get in a collection and then fight the entirety of that war with less than $200k on hand, it didn't exactly lend itself to an easy rebuild thereafter. The reason that we won that war in the fashion that we did is that, as we usually do, we went balls-out: you don't win defensive wars against equally-sized opponents by carefully guarding your cash, you do it by using every means available, and that's a costly proposition.

[quote]
Again, my point has always been that considering the amount of wars going in, G-6 would have been called out if we DoWed on any alliance that was currently at war or any number of alliances that were at war or we would have been called out for hitting the alliances outside of war, even if we hit all of them most likely, for various reasons. So we did not hit anyone due to the fact that the wars would be far more lopsided than you state this one is. At the same point, no alliances declared war on G-6, again for various reasons.

Yet, ya'll !@#$%* that G-6 only had a single war as if that is somehow our fault. We could have easily warred throughout this round and chosen to hit either alliances at war or alliances not at war but who combined would have presented little difficulty in defeating. Those were the choices G-6 had when choosing to attack. Those who had the option of attacking us either chose not to, were at war, or just getting out of war. So no one declared on G-6. [/quote]

Or, rather than having alliances take us down a peg before swooping in later to sweep up the pieces, you could have done some of the heavy lifting yourselves.

[quote]
Which means how can you sit there and claim that G-6 is oh so damn evil for only being in a single war when there was no war G-6 could declare that would not have caused it to be a huge curbstomp? So yes, i got tired of this pathetic argument used against G-6 since it is not even remotely close to using half a brain or even that close to using a single neuron. [/quote]

I don't think that you're evil. I think that you're too incompetent to have fought and won without waiting until PS/OP/LE had been worn down by successive conflicts. Something of a difference, that.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301338785' post='2679238']
I don't think that you're evil. I think that you're too incompetent to have fought and won without waiting until PS/OP/LE had been worn down by successive conflicts. Something of a difference, that.
[/quote]

Perhaps because you were spying us muahaha

[Cellardoor]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301339200' post='2679248']
Perhaps because you were spying us muahaha
[/quote]

Are you accusing PS of spying you, or one of the alliances you lumped us in with (again) of doing so?

Because, to be completely honest, I don't think we coulda cared less about G-6 this round's onset, and we haven't spied you guys. Or anyone else for that matter.

[paul711]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301339200' post='2679248']
Perhaps because you were spying us muahaha
[/quote]
Rediculous, G6 was caught twice spying on us red handed this round, go look at the exposed spy ops from earlier in the round...I'll wait.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301338785' post='2679238']
Having access to nukes where your opponents do not is often a determining factor, indeed.



It's remarkably easy to see where our nations rerolled. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002051]13 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002039]13 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001992]14 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001991]14 days ago[/url]. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1002031]14 days ago[/url]. And on and on. In fact, if you look down the list, 60% of our top-20 nations at this point have rerolled...most immediately following the RE/Synergy war in large part because we didn't have the opportunity to reroll after the GR war (though [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001790]a[/url] [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001892]few[/url] [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001899]did[/url].

As for GR, as we said at the time: their [i]leadership[/i] was inactive, and the alliance was rather uncoordinated, but they sure as hell weren't inactive. Go back to the dec thread and you'll see a post from me lauding the fact that a number of GR nations fought 'til the bitter end.

On the matter of warchests, I lost 800 infra in the process and spent five days in nuke anarchy, and I was hardly an exception to the rule; that tends to have a pretty significant effect on one's warchest, as does being engaged in another war 30 minutes after that one ended. My warchest at the time that RE/Synergy declared was five figures...while I managed to get in a collection and then fight the entirety of that war with less than $200k on hand, it didn't exactly lend itself to an easy rebuild thereafter. The reason that we won that war in the fashion that we did is that, as we usually do, we went balls-out: you don't win defensive wars against equally-sized opponents by carefully guarding your cash, you do it by using every means available, and that's a costly proposition.



Or, rather than having alliances take us down a peg before swooping in later to sweep up the pieces, you could have done some of the heavy lifting yourselves.



I don't think that you're evil. I think that you're too incompetent to have fought and won without waiting until PS/OP/LE had been worn down by successive conflicts. Something of a difference, that.
[/quote]

Again, this does not explain the simple fact that even according to PS, ya'll gained around 40k NS during the last 3 days of war. If, as you state Schad, GR nations were active, this would be damn near impossible. If, as you continue to claim, the majority of PS did not have WCs then how could you gain 40k NS in the last three days. I get all about how the war was well fought and am fine with that. What you have not explained is how PS gained 40k NS in the last 3 days since that defies all that you have stated. It is a glaring fact that seems to counter your argument. While i get that the RE/Syn war $%&@ed ya'll up considering ya'll had not even an hour after your war with GR ended, I am honestly curious about how ya'll managed to build up 40k NS in a war that apparently was hard fought by GR? i am not stating ya'll were in the position to do anything after the war with RE/Syn, i am now just curious about what i see as an oddity.

Also, glad to see you buy into the tinfoil hat conspiracy that Confusion ordered RE/Syn/GR to hit ya'll.

As for us being incompetent, i get the difference. you buy into the conspiracy theory instead of realizing that RE/Syn actually did something of their own accord or even GR did something of their own accord. Hey, ya know what. next time PS ends up at war with an alliance, i will be sure to use whatever power i hold within the alliance to have G-6/whatever incarnation hit PS while ya'll at war, this way you can't state we are waiting on !@#$. Though then, you would be out here crying about how G-6 hit you while you were at war. Hell, you would probably cry if G-6 hit you within the first week of the round when both alliances were still fresh. frankly, given the amount of crying you do, you would cry no matter what G-6 does or does not do.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1301335459' post='2679189']
What was contained in the spreadsheet, the war plan? Or was it just Confusion's arithmetic homework?
[/quote]

the spreadsheet could easily have been empty waiting to be filled by RE/Syn..... or it could have been filled in with PS/OP nations but nothing about RE/Syn so that RE/Syn can actually plan the war..... oh well will you look at that. 2 things that it could easily be. go !@#$@#$ figure. seriously, stop. you are just getting pathetic in your tinfoil hat. should take that off, it is obviously baking the !@#$ out of that thing in your head you call a brain.

[paul711]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301337646' post='2679220']
do you not know what actively encourage implies?

encouragement - The act of encouraging; incitement to action or to (from wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

and considering the context with which you are using encourage, the definition would be to incite. now lets define incite:

# motivate: give an incentive for action;
# provoke or stir up;
# prod: urge on; cause to act; (also from the same as encourage)

So, maybe you need to realize what your words mean in the context you place them. to actively encourage, basically can be defined as order, provoke, prod, motivate (aka give an incentive for doing it which is asking them and rewarding them). This is where i come from. learn what your words imply particularly in the context in which you place them. If you did not mean what you implied, then you definitely need to fix your own !@#$. If you are simply trying to avoid the fact that you have been proven wrong time and time again, well then all i can do is just laugh at you.
[/quote]

What are you smoking? Motivating, provoking and prodding are nowhere near an ORDER.

This is a definition from WWW.Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order

1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
(doesn't match anything that you posted)

I clearly said that he helped with the targetting.

If we are going to go on about encouraging people (your word not mine) Confusion did encourage the GR hit on PS earlier and he did encourage TPC to hit us if we had jumped G6 for hitting LE earlier. That was encouraging, prodding and motivating.

One more thing before I go, who are you? Are you in G6 Government because you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. I've forgotten more about Confusion's manipulations than you will ever know.

Edited March 28, 2011 by paul711

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301339823' post='2679258']
Again, this does not explain the simple fact that even according to PS, ya'll gained around 40k NS during the last 3 days of war. If, as you state Schad, GR nations were active, this would be damn near impossible. If, as you continue to claim, the majority of PS did not have WCs then how could you gain 40k NS in the last three days. I get all about how the war was well fought and am fine with that. What you have not explained is how PS gained 40k NS in the last 3 days since that defies all that you have stated. [/quote]

No, it really doesn't. Again:

COORDINATION =/= ACTIVITY.

GR lacked coordination, and as a result we were able to put them on the back foot when we launched a counter-blitz on the second night, and pick our spots from there. Lacking activity they weren't, and as a result we were fighting a good many of them straight through 'til peace was declared.

As for gaining NS, that's pretty simple. A handful of our nations did go somewhat untouched, and they were able to build up as the war progressed; they represented our 'top tier' of 6-7k nations at the time that RE/Synergy hit. Beyond them, we had 3-4 people join us, as you noted, which added another 14k or thereabouts. And even I ended up gaining NS over the last three days...not because GR wasn't fighting back, but because by that time I was considerably larger than my opponents, and I was stealing quite a bit of tech and land, such that I finished up 90 tech and up 260 miles of land. However, because I was at something like -8 improvements (as were many others) and had a choice between either collecting with GCs or not being able to get those GCs back at the end, I opted for the former; I'd intended to reroll anyway, though that opportunity wasn't forthcoming because RE/Synergy hit us.


[quote]
As for us being incompetent, i get the difference. you buy into the conspiracy theory instead of realizing that RE/Syn actually did something of their own accord or even GR did something of their own accord. Hey, ya know what. next time PS ends up at war with an alliance, i will be sure to use whatever power i hold within the alliance to have G-6/whatever incarnation hit PS while ya'll at war, this way you can't state we are waiting on !@#$. Though then, you would be out here crying about how G-6 hit you while you were at war. Hell, you would probably cry if G-6 hit you within the first week of the round when both alliances were still fresh. frankly, given the amount of crying you do, you would cry no matter what G-6 does or does not do.
[/quote]

I don't care whether RE and Synergy did it on their own. We know that Confusion was well-aware that they were planning to hit, and we certainly know that he was active in the peace talks thereafter. As such, you can't exactly say that events just kinda unfolded in such a way that you had no option but to sit back, gathering cash and nukes, and then hit us thereafter. You waited just long enough after the RE war that it wouldn't be grossly apparent that you were hitting worn-down opposition, but not long enough that we could actually rebuild sufficiently to make a go of it. Thus why we're calling you muppets.

On crying: !@#$%^&*. Look at the GR thread again. They were the same size as us, hit us when neither of us had been at war, and our reaction was...to say that it looked like it would be a fun fight. Stop playing martyr; you're taking heat because you've behaved in a rather pathetic fashion, not because you'd have taken heat no matter what you did.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Schad

[Thomasj_tx]

Dochartaigh, are you a member of G-6 government? If so, what is your position. If not, do you have ESP?

[Awesome Dog]

Confused has been uncharacteristically quiet regarding what he did or did not do with the spreadsheet, hasn't he?

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Awesome Dog' timestamp='1301341370' post='2679272']
Confused has been uncharacteristically quiet regarding what he did or did not do with the spreadsheet, hasn't he?
[/quote]

That's just your sides propaganda. He has already dealt with it in all other threads (since he is brought up in practically all of them). He has probably dealt with it already in this thread.

And dochartaighs our official OWF speaker and propaganda killer.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301340689' post='2679265']
No, it really doesn't. Again:

COORDINATION =/= ACTIVITY.

GR lacked coordination, and as a result we were able to put them on the back foot when we launched a counter-blitz on the second night, and pick our spots from there. Lacking activity they weren't, and as a result we were fighting a good many of them straight through 'til peace was declared.

As for gaining NS, that's pretty simple. A handful of our nations did go somewhat untouched, and they were able to build up as the war progressed; they represented our 'top tier' of 6-7k nations at the time that RE/Synergy hit. Beyond them, we had 3-4 people join us, as you noted, which added another 14k or thereabouts. And even I ended up gaining NS over the last three days...not because GR wasn't fighting back, but because by that time I was considerably larger than my opponents, and I was stealing quite a bit of tech and land, such that I finished up 90 tech and up 260 miles of land. However, because I was at something like -8 improvements (as were many others) and had a choice between either collecting with GCs or not being able to get those GCs back at the end, I opted for the former; I'd intended to reroll anyway, though that opportunity wasn't forthcoming because RE/Synergy hit us.




I don't care whether RE and Synergy did it on their own. We know that Confusion was well-aware that they were planning to hit, and we certainly know that he was active in the peace talks thereafter. As such, you can't exactly say that events just kinda unfolded in such a way that you had no option but to sit back, gathering cash and nukes, and then hit us thereafter. You waited just long enough after the RE war that it wouldn't be grossly apparent that you were hitting worn-down opposition, but not long enough that we could actually rebuild sufficiently to make a go of it. Thus why we're calling you muppets.

On crying: !@#$%^&*. Look at the GR thread again. They were the same size as us, hit us when neither of us had been at war, and our reaction was...to say that it looked like it would be a fun fight. Stop playing martyr; you're taking heat because you've behaved in a rather pathetic fashion, not because you'd have taken heat no matter what you did.
[/quote]

Thank you for explaining how you gained NS finally. Had you explained that when I first asked, we could have avoided much of this argument as now I do understand how you were able to gain NS despite what you were stating about the war.

So, Confusion knew ya'll were going to be hit and instead of jumping in right after ya'll got out of a war, we did not attack ya'll? and somehow we are wrong for doing that? I have stated for a long time that G-6 had no options for war that would not end up in a grossly mismatched curbstomp, at least someone finally agrees with me. So we had nothing better to do but gather cash and nukes. Next time we can't find a war unless we make it a grossly mismatched curbstomp, we will cease building up period. Would that make ya'll stop crying? How about if we just all reroll at that point? Maybe that would stop ya'll from crying?

As for crying, i never stated ya'll cried everywhere, just at every G-6 thread.

As for us acting in a "pathetic" fashion, you just stated we could only sit back since ya'll were at war with RE/Syn? not to mention OP was at war as were several other alliances. What exactly would you have G-6 do when there are no wars to be had? As for hitting you now versus hitting you in the future, you would have still cried since that would have been what- 2-3-4 more weeks that G-6 would have had to build up as well.... not to mention, ya'll could very well fight other wars during that time. So basically it is and most likely will always be a "damned if we do, damned if we don't."

I can honestly foresee that unless G-6 declares on an alliance(s) that has(ve) at least 3k more ANS, 500 more nukes, and 1,000 more nations ya'll would cry about it.

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301340216' post='2679264']
What are you smoking? Motivating, provoking and prodding are nowhere near an ORDER.

This is a definition from WWW.Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order

1. an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
(doesn't match anything that you posted)

I clearly said that he helped with the targetting.

If we are going to go on about encouraging people (your word not mine) Confusion did encourage the GR hit on PS earlier and he did encourage TPC to hit us if we had jumped G6 for hitting LE earlier. That was encouraging, prodding and motivating.

One more thing before I go, who are you? Are you in G6 Government because you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. I've forgotten more about Confusion's manipulations than you will ever know.
[/quote]

Provoke: provide the needed stimulus for
Prod: urge on; cause to act

well prodding would be causing them to act. provoking would also basically cause them to act. Confusion did nothing to cause them to act. You really need to learn what context is. Also, where is your proof of your claims that Confusion encouraged GR or TPC?

I know enough about Confusion and his manipulations don't you worry none about that. As for who I am. I am me. who are you? As for knowing what i am talking about, prove that i don't know. You continue to claim and claim and claim but have not backed up anything you have claimed. Creating a spreadsheet is not the same as managing the war, directing the war, or even helping with targetting. The act of creating a spreadsheet typically entails putting enemy nation links in a table. That is it. That is not helping with targets as it would be RE/Syn who would have decided that. It is manual labor, basically !@#$%* work.

So, as i have continued to ask, please provide proof to back up your many claims since you have yet to provide a single shred of proof whatsoever. Your claim of OPSEC will not save you since anyone can use that very thing. So that does not proof you have any of the evidence you claim to have. So bring it out. Show everyone that i in fact have no clue what i speak of. Hell, if you finally do bring out the proof, i will gladly admit to being wrong. but until then, i can only state that you are talking out your ass completely and since you have yet to share any of this proof you have, it is either faked, non-existent, or will also proof that OP has spies in either G-6, RE, Syn or all three. Hell, it may even prove that OP has spies in GR.

So please either bring out the proof or cease you baseless accusations.


[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1301341040' post='2679267']
Dochartaigh, are you a member of G-6 government? If so, what is your position. If not, do you have ESP?
[/quote]

I would ask if you, paul, mark, and Schad are members of G-6 let alone members of G-6 gov considering how much you guys are trying to claim Confusion has done. If you aren't, then how the $%&@ do you know !@#$ unless ya'll got some spies in G-6? That is basically the only way for ya'll to know a damn thing is with spies in G-6. If that is true, then this war with OP/PS is fully justified regardless of any disparities in ANS.

As for my position on this war, i actually don't much like it. I had gathered a laundry list of alliances at one point that included RD (because they had a higher ANS than us), Thundercats (at the time they had a similar if not slightly higher ANS), WAPA (i believe, can't find my list though...), The Fellowship, The Cult of Skaro, Catharsis, Blackwater, Fark, OP, PS, TFK, DF, GR, LEFT, GDA, and MI6. At least i think this was the list. I did this like 2 weeks ago so not sure if any of those alliances has been in a war recently. iirc Skaro had at least 12 nukes when i included them but i could be wrong. I was looking for not only number of High nations but also mid and lower tier as well as ANS and nuke count. I had around 12-15 alliances basically included. the total number of nations significantly outnumbered the total members of G-6 though. Though the ANS i believe was still lower but nothing could be done about that considering the fact that prior to this war, to gain enough opposing nations I needed to include alliances with lower ANS which decreased the ANS of the opposing coalition to below G-6s.

I would love if many of those alliances declared on G-6 to be frank. I may be getting stomped on by my OP opponents but more nations would still be quite fun and having a real war (from the nuke count now, if all those alliances joined it would be 288 for G-6 and 228 for ya'll). Plus several more upper tier nations. Not sure exactly how many as i am too lazy to count but at least 1 19k, 1 18k, and several 10-15k NS nations.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301344236' post='2679302']
Thank you for explaining how you gained NS finally. Had you explained that when I first asked, we could have avoided much of this argument as now I do understand how you were able to gain NS despite what you were stating about the war. [/quote]

I thought it to be something of a rhetorical question, given the obviousness of the answer.

[quote]

So, Confusion knew ya'll were going to be hit and instead of jumping in right after ya'll got out of a war, we did not attack ya'll?[/quote]

...for a week.

[quote] I have stated for a long time that G-6 had no options for war that would not end up in a grossly mismatched curbstomp, at least someone finally agrees with me. So we had nothing better to do but gather cash and nukes. Next time we can't find a war unless we make it a grossly mismatched curbstomp, we will cease building up period.[/quote]

Or, y'know, seek out wars that wouldn't be grossly mismatched curbstomps. The option existed here, but you didn't take it. As a result, and given Confusion's statements about teaching OP a lesson for something or other, it's hard not to conclude that you waited until you held all the cards, and then made your move.


[quote]
As for us acting in a "pathetic" fashion, you just stated we could only sit back since ya'll were at war with RE/Syn?[/quote]

You could only sit back and wait if your ultimate goal was to hit OP, PS or LE, or some combination thereof. It's fairly clear that we weren't exactly drawn out of a hat here.

[quote]
not to mention OP was at war as were several other alliances. What exactly would you have G-6 do when there are no wars to be had? As for hitting you now versus hitting you in the future, you would have still cried since that would have been what- 2-3-4 more weeks that G-6 would have had to build up as well.... not to mention, ya'll could very well fight other wars during that time. So basically it is and most likely will always be a "damned if we do, damned if we don't." [/quote]

While I appreciate the Calvinist strain that apparently governs G-6 military doctrine, the notion that you had no option but to wait until we'd spent the bulk of the last month fighting before swooping in a week later is silly.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Schad