Locke Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1307247612' post='2724204'] BJ? [/quote] That would be babyjesus, a.k.a. Sandwich Controversy, a.k.a. Soviet Canuckistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307251068' post='2724238'] See: TOP. It could be done then. You are also forgetting that 1) both sides have warchests and 2) warchests are depleted very quickly if the two sides are evenly matched (again, see TOP). [/quote] Yes, but it took an entire coalition to throw their big nations down to take TOP down, whereas outside of a handful of NoR/Val people, they couldn't touch Umb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) I think the Asgaard side vs Pillowfort would be a closer fight. In theory. OMFG - 23 - 1,843,306 - 482 Gremlins - 40 - 2,843,970 - 716 TOP - 136 - 7,847,549 - 2289 Argent - 57 - 3,195,981 - 975 Total - 256 - 15,721,806 - 4462 Avg 61,413 EDIT: Added Gre to even out the sides. Edited June 5, 2011 by KagetheSecond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The alliances who stayed out of the fighter would be the real winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1307259250' post='2724282'] Yes, but it took an entire coalition to throw their big nations down to take TOP down, whereas outside of a handful of NoR/Val people, they couldn't touch Umb. [/quote] Well, we didn't [i]really[/i] throw the entire coalition at TOP specifically. All we did really was just enlist any and all alliances we could find that had a top tier nation or two, and just used those top tier nations and nothing else. The rest of the memberships of those alliances didn't really do anything beyond loan us their top tier dudes here and there (and maybe mid tier for staggers, but not as much considering TOP's mid tier wasn't numerous). C&G/Sparta/MHA/Fark did most of the heavy lifting on TOP and IRON, and since our top tier was engaged Umbrella and Asgaard handled the bigger guys from TOOL/Legion/OMFG for us. That was back when Umb/PC just went front to front shutting everyone down for a few weeks. For a time there was a race to see how many fronts they could close in one war. Ahhhhh good times. edit: After reading your post again...ya, you're right. It took an entire coalition throwing their big nations down Edited June 5, 2011 by Hyperion321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KagetheSecond' timestamp='1307260700' post='2724287'] I think the Asgaard side vs Pillowfort would be a closer fight. In theory. OMFG - 23 - 1,843,306 Gremlins - 40 - 2,843,970 TOP - 136 - 7,847,549 Argent - 57 - 3,195,981 Total - 256 - 15,721,806 Avg 61,413 EDIT: Added Gre to even out the sides. [/quote] Oooooh that also would be a good one. I think modern DH at the peak of their power vs 1V at the peak of their power would be great as well. Even if 1V had numbers superiority, modern stat inflation from Umbrella and MK would definitely make up for that. It would be like GW1 except in reverse. Even if in all likeliness Umb/MK would just slaughter endless waves of people with modern tech ratios, it would still be fun as hell to watch 20 mil strength take on 50-60 mil. Edited June 5, 2011 by Hyperion321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='KagetheSecond' timestamp='1307260700' post='2724287'] I think the Asgaard side vs Pillowfort would be a closer fight. In theory. OMFG - 23 - 1,843,306 Gremlins - 40 - 2,843,970 TOP - 136 - 7,847,549 Argent - 57 - 3,195,981 Total - 256 - 15,721,806 Avg 61,413 EDIT: Added Gre to even out the sides. [/quote] Adding Grämlins to Pillowfort? Now that is logic I can get behind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1307248629' post='2724217'] Everyone would win. [/quote] Everything.Must.Win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 You'd need a larger coalition than that to take us down. As it is it wouldn't be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307222494' post='2723903'] Just a question, how long can Umbrella maintain more than 15 or 20 members if all of their brand-new low NS recruits are constantly triple-teamed? [/quote] [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307225031' post='2723938'] How do you replace your members that left due to joining other alliances, boredom, RL, or were quietly put to sleep by the Admin (permanently)? [/quote] [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307226099' post='2723953'] Every alliance experiences members leaving due to: 1. The members are bored of CN. 2. The members want to join another alliance (during peace time hopefully). 3. The members are too busy with RL to even check their nation. 4. They got in trouble with the Admin. Unless if all of your members are actually computer-controlled, you're bound to lose at least a one member per year. [/quote] You don't think much before opening your mouth, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durabo Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307222494' post='2723903'] Just a question, how long can Umbrella maintain more than 15 or 20 members if all of their brand-new low NS recruits are constantly triple-teamed? [/quote] 2 reasons 1. Massive Aid windfalls, ala GOONS 2. The big nations WISH they could get triple teamed, being pummelled into dust is more interesting than growing into irrelevancy [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307226099' post='2723953'] Unless if all of your members are actually computer-controlled, you're bound to lose at least a one member per year. [/quote] 01010111010101STORM0101010110101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1307281502' post='2724342'] Everything.Must.Win [/quote] New slogan? Voted Umbrella. They could probably take on every other alliance in the scenario and win, and should. Anyway, I think this is the first thread in months where I actually read every single post before posting. Thank you for starting an interesting discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Nikanor Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 This isn't the war that would interest me. It would be the attack and subsequent annihilation of the winning parties by opportunistic Alliances either holding grudges or seizing the opportunity to virtually destroy what likely used to be a great Alliance. I firmly believe that would happen, and it would be great to see one of the Orders be the committing aggressor. In any case, I don't see anyone winning this war. Both sides would be slaughtered, and whomever did win would....well....read the first paragraph. PS: I don't see PC and NoR going to war anytime soon. Viel Glück Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 I can't quite say who'd win this war, but one thing I can say for sure is: it'd be [u]epic.[/u] [u] [/u] Thanks to the OP for actually sparking an interesting discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307222494' post='2723903'] Just a question, how long can Umbrella maintain more than 15 or 20 members if all of their brand-new low NS recruits are constantly triple-teamed? [/quote] Being one such nation in that scenario, my morale held up pretty well despite being triple teamed and taking damage, losing infra and tech and land to ML and NPO. Perhaps I'm just a different breed of nation ruler than your "normal" recruits. I wanted to be in Umbrella, I stuck out the application process and knew that I was joining a war in which I would likely get smashed. I was ok with that. I can't speak for every Umbrella nation that got knocked to the lower tiers but I can say that morale was high. Perhaps other alliances have less than dedicated members who leave after seeing their infra get destroyed, but not us. Regarding the question at hand, I would think it would be similar to this last war. Umbrella/MK/PC would win after knocking the opposite upper tiers down. Umbrella/MK/PC would have the upper tier advantage eventually, and knock down the opposing upper tier out of range, putting them in full range of Umbrella/MK/PC's middle tiers, where the Asgaard coalition would have the advantage. At this point it would result in a test of wills to see who would break first, if Asgaards coalition could live with not having an upper tier or if Umbrella's coalition could live with not having a middle or lower tier. Given that billion dollar aid bombs every 10 days were a reality this past war I think that Umbrella's side would eventually win, but after taking substantial damage in the mid/lower tiers, and more damage to their upper tiers than they had taken this past war. Over all, lots of destruction, but I'm going to have give the Umbrella side the win after a long war in which nobody goes unscathed. Edit: Of course after the war both sides would be beaten down and not in a good position to go after anyone else's upper tiers in some time. This is a "what if" scenario, but I don't see it actually happening, there just isn't enough dislike or even the present of a rivalry between the sides involved that would force the 2 to willingly engage in full scale warfare against each other. Edited June 5, 2011 by Caliph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1307207423' post='2723783'] This same kind of analysis would have probably had people saying Rok should have beaten down PC, or that at worst it would be an even fight. But you cant statistically measure someone's resolve, activity, or skill. By those measures, your 'balanced fight' above would be a massacre, although NoR seem to be decently competent. [/quote] You truly live in a bubble if what you just said accurately reflects your thoughts...your implication that Valhalla/NoR/DT/Asgaard arent active and have no resolve or skill is ridiculous. Please feel free to make any war plans involving yourself to reflect your erroneous thoughts though, I like when people bite off more then they can chew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1307217581' post='2723861'] No one. [/quote] This sentiment on the other hand I agree with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1307217581' post='2723861'] No one. [/quote] Initially I was going to disagree and point out neutral parties as a beneficiary, but then I remembered GRL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Umbrella has more tech, nukes, ns, upper tiers, and probably activity as well. No contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CzarBomba Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='threefingeredguy' timestamp='1307249723' post='2724226'] Yeah, I could be totally wrong. But I know if we lost all our infra and land, we'd still be fairly big from tech alone. Plus warchests [/quote] I found this to be an amusing statistic. Take away EVERYTHING (infra, land, nukes, etc.) except for tech from Umbrella, and there ANS would still be 45k. Also, I'm certain every alliance mentioned here has warchest requirements, not just Umbrella (yes I'm aware that the bigger the nation, the bigger the warchest, in theory). Umbrella's side obviously owns the top tier. To those mentioning aid dumps, I would argue that in war like this it wouldn't make much of a difference. Aid dumps work much more effectively when small nations are the ones receiving it. See: GOONS. $15 - $18 million every 10 days can go a long way when you're a small nation. It should be able to fund your war if you're savvy enough. This war, however, would mostly be fought in the middle tiers. For moderately sized nations, it would likely only prolong the inevitable. I'm not saying it makes no difference, I'm saying you better have a warchest and shouldn't count on aid to impact much of anything. There is only one thing I am certain would happen in this war scenario. On the average, any middle tier nation not involved in this war would see their nation rank jump 15%. Edited June 5, 2011 by CzarBomba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1307222494' post='2723903'] Just a question, how long can Umbrella maintain more than 15 or 20 members if all of their brand-new low NS recruits are constantly triple-teamed? [/quote] Hey it meant we at least had an abundance of targets, I don't think anybody complained about being dogpiled in the lower tiers as we all had a pretty killer time with it. I do wish I had that 5.5K tech back though, all in due time I guess. Edited June 5, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrux Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Wait so another war without bringing home any tiger rugs.... sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='acrux' timestamp='1307312263' post='2724565'] Wait so another war without bringing home any tiger rugs.... sigh... [/quote] I, for one, would like some tiger skin for the toilet. Comfort is #1 while I'm in the #2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialCubanacan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 I wish Xiphosis would be man enough one of these days to take Nordreich 1v1 without his little buddies to help. Things would be different after that. As for the topic: everyone wins. War. The game dies even faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307260727' post='2724288'] The alliances who stayed out of the fighter would be the real winners. [/quote] Saved for later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.