Mutual Aggression and Hate on Legion and Invicta Pact

[potato]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1309504114' post='2745780']
quite a few deletions.
[/quote]

I don't remember that many, to be fair. Not saying there wasn't but heh.

I don't think anyone thought you could win this (except maybe Learz and LeonidasRexII, iirc). If I understand NSO correctly, it's more of Legion's half arsed effort that causes them trouble. If you're going to lose a war, make it painful for the other side to win it. See MK vs NPO in noCB, for example. Dragging a war for ages against a coalition that loves war and brought it to your doorstep, as you so eloquently put it, isn't really fruitful. Especially so if some part of your coalition isn't doing anything. Or close to very little.

[TheManWithoutAPlan]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1309507559' post='2745802']
I don't remember that many, to be fair. Not saying there wasn't but heh.

I don't think anyone thought you could win this (except maybe Learz and LeonidasRexII, iirc). If I understand NSO correctly, it's more of Legion's half arsed effort that causes them trouble. If you're going to lose a war, make it painful for the other side to win it. See MK vs NPO in noCB, for example. Dragging a war for ages against a coalition that loves war and brought it to your doorstep, as you so eloquently put it, isn't really fruitful. Especially so if some part of your coalition isn't doing anything. Or close to very little.
[/quote]

this war lasted almost 100 days, I think it was very painful for the other side to win it, the reps they are receiving are far less then the damage we dealt to them.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='TheManWithoutAPlan' timestamp='1309507733' post='2745804']
this war lasted almost 100 days, I think it was very painful for the other side to win it, the reps they are receiving are far less then the damage we dealt to them.
[/quote]
Yet they won the war comprehensively in both tactical and strategic terms, and are rebuilding at a rate exponentially superior to that of the alliances who were defeated. I would contend that war is always painful but it is the post-war situation that really shows whether such a victory is pyrrhic or not.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1309511376' post='2745823']
Yet they won the war comprehensively in both tactical and strategic terms, and are rebuilding at a rate exponentially superior to that of the alliances who were defeated. I would contend that war is always painful but it is the post-war situation that really shows whether such a victory is pyrrhic or not.
[/quote]

They won. There's no equivocation possible. To say that the victory cost them more than they thought it would is pointless because they will of course deny that, that's for others to make their minds up about. The only problem I have as I've previously said is the whining of NSO who ultimately did a runner.

I'll put it another way, I fought in the war, my nation was all but destroyed (except I had the Legion recommended WC so I rebuilt, the recommended WC that Varianz said we're not ever told about*). While this was going on there were upper tier Legion nations in PM. This according to NSO means we're terrible, that they were doing nothing more than saving themselves and sacrificing nations such as mine. I'm still in Legion though and I intend to remain here because I understand what was going on, and that neither I or anyone else was not hung out to dry by my leadership.

* Here's the log. Varianz has a conversation with a now non existent inactive and concludes we don't have warchest requirements or that we keep them secret. Not sure how, what he really concluded was that our WC requirements were too high, strange in his words. Maybe he and the rest of the siths would have stuck around if they had proper war chests.
[spoiler]<Tiberius12> someone your size should probably have at least 50 million on hand'
<RyanCameron> jesus
<Tiberius12> Current Marks Available: $91,162,954.52 (Surplus)
<Tiberius12> that's how much I have.
<Tiberius12> and it's not really enough
<RyanCameron> i only make during the good times i only even made 650,000.00 per day
<RyanCameron> thats 76 days worth!
<Tiberius12> mhm
<RyanCameron> +
<Tiberius12> yeah, but it's key to fighting wars
<RyanCameron> right well this has been a learning curve i will ahve to manage things differently from now on
<RyanCameron> ahve=have
<Tiberius12> I'm really surprised Legion didn't get on you about keeping a bigger warchest...especially given that we all knew a war was coming
<Tiberius12> or that they didn't PM you about it after a sign in
<RyanCameron> not directly.. plus i must have been confused because i swear i read somewhere on the websie that 3 million was the figure to aim for..... maybe that was when i was a smaller nation
<Tiberius12> I'd check, see what their recommendation for someone your size is'
<RyanCameron> i am now
<RyanCameron> wholy $%&@! my warchest requirement is 117,885,555.00 i would have to not spend anything for over 6 months to get that!
<Tiberius12> warchest prep takes a while
<RyanCameron> well im screwed
<Tiberius12> but that's probably abnormally high, because I'm guessing its bill based right/
<Tiberius12> ?*
<Tiberius12> your bills are super high right now due to your military buildup
<RyanCameron> bill? its based on infra level
<Tiberius12> ?
<Tiberius12> based on infra?
<RyanCameron> oh no... how long it takes me to make that kind of money you mean?
<Tiberius12> no I mean the amount it wants you to keep
<Tiberius12> it's based on infra?
<RyanCameron> it asks for your infra level
<RyanCameron> then you press enter
<RyanCameron> and it gives the amount
<Tiberius12> strange [/spoiler]

[Banedon]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1309504114' post='2745780']
The biggest fallacy in any of this is saying or thinking that it would have made one whit of difference if Legion had all came out and fought at the same time. Or if everyone on this side had all came out and fought at the same time. The DH/PB/CnG/TOP conglomeration had this one well dominated before the first shot was fired. Otherwise it would have never been fired at all.

As it is it was a protracted guerrilla type war. GOONs was wiped out from a NS perspective essentially from top to bottom, pretty much pounded into dust. MK's bottom 100 or so nations were beaten pretty badly to the point of wide spread PM, turtling if they couldn't get to PM and quite a few deletions.

That's really about all we were capable of from a coalition stand point. 2 of the 3 initial aggressors took beatings that were likely far worse than they initially thought they would have to face. We were extremely overmatched in the upper tier as this side has never been able to recover the tech that was lost over the past 3-4 wars in comparison to the alliances who have mostly avoided major war losses or gotten massive tech reparations over the past 2+ years.
[/quote]

This is pretty much my thinking as well, no one wanted to tangle with Umbrella. I'm not sure that anyone in our coalition actually could with a realistic chance of victory. Until that changes we were already defeated from day 1, it was just a amtter of how badly did we hurt our opponents on the way down.

GOONS and MK took heavy hits, but I'm sure several other alliances in the DH/PB side got a good beating as well. Legion, NPO, and the rest of our allies all got wrecked pretty good, but it wasn't a completely one-sided slaughter. However, you are quite correct that our generally lower tech levels and years of being on the losing side aren't helping.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Banedon

[Banedon]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1309511376' post='2745823']
Yet they won the war comprehensively in both tactical and strategic terms, and are rebuilding at a rate exponentially superior to that of the alliances who were defeated. I would contend that war is always painful but it is the post-war situation that really shows whether such a victory is pyrrhic or not.
[/quote]

Is there a rebuilding summary in the Sanction Race thread that I've missed? I know lots of people are rebuilding, and I thought Legion was coming along rather nicely. I don't have time to jot down numbers and compare them regularly, I have to rely on a cursory glace and the every so imperfect grey matter.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1309517721' post='2745856']
Is there a rebuilding summary in the Sanction Race thread that I've missed? I know lots of people are rebuilding, and I thought Legion was coming along rather nicely. I don't have time to jot down numbers and compare them regularly, I have to rely on a cursory glace and the every so imperfect grey matter.
[/quote]
Not that I know of, I suppose I should have clarified that I was assuming that the victors (free of the constraints of reps and so on) would be rebuilding that much quicker. That said I concede that I could be very wrong

[Letum]

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1309517721' post='2745856']
Is there a rebuilding summary in the Sanction Race thread that I've missed? I know lots of people are rebuilding, and I thought Legion was coming along rather nicely. I don't have time to jot down numbers and compare them regularly, I have to rely on a cursory glace and the every so imperfect grey matter.
[/quote]

Going off the Sanction Race, for the 1st Month after each alliance left the conflict (which means different starting points for each):

NPO: 22.04 -> 30.74 (+8.70)
Nordreich: 19.14 -> 21.94 (+2.80)
MK: 18.81 -> 21.57 (+2.76)
Legion: 16.66 -> 19.30 (+2.64)
Umbrella: 28.78 -> 30.84 (+2.06)
VE: 25.33 -> 26.39 (+1.06)
FAN: 14.95 -> 15.88 (+0.93)
FOK: 22.79 -> 23.20 (+0.41)
ODN: 38.70 -> 38.99 (+0.29)
TOP: 29.38 -> 28.52 (-0.86)

This only counts people in the race when their wars ended of course, so a lot of smaller alliances aren't on it.

[Domingo the Honored]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1309487870' post='2745527']
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoJD-FIuyoB0dGlWeUlaNDluUzZ3NXhub1ZPV1M0LVE&authkey=CMmrnf4C&hl=en_US#gid=0

That was posted a few pages back. Just under 97% of your alliances strength was in PM. Of course, now I'm going to assume you aren't going to believe these stats. Am I right?
[/quote]

The critics use that like it's some damning evidence that we didn't fight. Sorry to burst their bubble, but it's not. It's one point in the war when we were still mainly PM, waiting to come in like we did later...

Our lowers are getting hit hard so their numbers are depleting, making the percent in PM higher and higher. It's not rocket science to understand that if an alliance lowers are getting lower and highers in PM are staying the same or gaining the PM numbers in NS are going to be pretty drastic like that. It has no bearing on the part of the war our critics choose to ignore completely when our highers are in, fighting like mad for all that rest of the time when our critic NSO has already surrendered.

And to just clarify... No, NSO, I'm not bashing you for having surrendered when you did. You did what you had to do. I'm just saying that we didn't !@#$% out later. You guys were gone and we could've simply decided to save our upper tier completely, but still came in to fight, which according to the critics didn't happen at all. I simply shake my head at that assertion.

It just seems a little unfair that while you guys were dolphin diving for peace, nations like mine, Sabcat's, TheManWithoutAPlan's, and many more were being hit unbelievably, but still going knowing our might was coming later to support us, which it did. You guys didn't stick it out with us, and I agree that it was a matter of inadequate warchests. That's on you, not us.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Domingo the Honored

[Bob]

[quote name='TheManWithoutAPlan' timestamp='1309507733' post='2745804']
this war lasted almost 100 days, I think it was very painful for the other side to win it, the reps they are receiving are far less then the damage we dealt to them.
[/quote]
I hope you realize the damage dealt is almost always more than the reps (trying to think of an example where it isn't, and can't).

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1309507559' post='2745802']
I don't remember that many, to be fair. Not saying there wasn't but heh.

[/quote]

I only know that MK went from 200+ to about 140 members during the course of the war. So MK was losing nations and I know of several who deleted while fighting TPF nations. What I couldn't understand were the people from MK who just rolled over and turtled in 1 vs 1 wars with billion dollar plus war chests. One of your guys fought one day of conventional attacks and fired one nuke at me. Then just sank on down to ZI. I spied him thinking he might be broke and he had 1.7 billion or something like that. It was a shocking change from MK during Karma for the entire course of the war.

[Daimos]

Considering what we were up against. I thought NPO and its allies performed admirably during the NPO-DH war. It is a shame to see alliances that fought on the same side calling each other out.

[Banedon]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1309519240' post='2745870']
Going off the Sanction Race, for the 1st Month after each alliance left the conflict (which means different starting points for each):

NPO: 22.04 -> 30.74 (+8.70)
Nordreich: 19.14 -> 21.94 (+2.80)
MK: 18.81 -> 21.57 (+2.76)
Legion: 16.66 -> 19.30 (+2.64)
Umbrella: 28.78 -> 30.84 (+2.06)
VE: 25.33 -> 26.39 (+1.06)
FAN: 14.95 -> 15.88 (+0.93)
FOK: 22.79 -> 23.20 (+0.41)
ODN: 38.70 -> 38.99 (+0.29)
TOP: 29.38 -> 28.52 (-0.86)

This only counts people in the race when their wars ended of course, so a lot of smaller alliances aren't on it.
[/quote]

Thanks for posting this. Useful and interesting stats.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1309524093' post='2745898']
It is a shame to see alliances that fought on the same side calling each other out.
[/quote]

It's a shame why?

(I'm not just calling you out here, but also Methrage as well as others that have at one point or another opined similarly.)

NSO should agree with the opposing viewpoint(s), or publicly put on airs, simply because you all fought on the same side the last war?

As for the ongoing surrender discussion, when a far larger number of your nations (and nation strength) is in war mode and actively engaging the enemy you [i]are[/i] going to run out of warchests quicker (a further case in point: GOONS; many of us had solid warchests going into the war, but, unable to hit PM and with war slots constantly filled, aid increasingly became a necessity, aid which, if I've read correctly, NSO was deprived of), which perhaps necessitated NSO's earlier surrender.

[Daimos]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1309530645' post='2745943']
It's a shame why?

(I'm not just calling you out here, but also Methrage as well as others that have at one point or another opined similarly.)

NSO should agree with the opposing viewpoint(s), or publicly put on airs, simply because you all fought on the same side the last war?

As for the ongoing surrender discussion, when a far larger number of your nations (and nation strength) is in war mode and actively engaging the enemy you [i]are[/i] going to run out of warchests quicker (a further case in point: GOONS; many of us had solid warchests going into the war, but, unable to hit PM and with war slots constantly filled, aid increasingly became a necessity, aid which, if I've read correctly, NSO was deprived of), which perhaps necessitated NSO's earlier surrender.
[/quote]

It’s a shame because this thread was design to rile up our allies and some took the bait.

[mattski133]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1309504114' post='2745780']
The biggest fallacy in any of this is saying or thinking that it would have made one whit of difference if Legion had all came out and fought at the same time. Or if everyone on this side had all came out and fought at the same time. The DH/PB/CnG/TOP conglomeration had this one well dominated before the first shot was fired. Otherwise it would have never been fired at all.

As it is it was a protracted guerrilla type war. GOONs was wiped out from a NS perspective essentially from top to bottom, pretty much pounded into dust. MK's bottom 100 or so nations were beaten pretty badly to the point of wide spread PM, turtling if they couldn't get to PM and quite a few deletions.

That's really about all we were capable of from a coalition stand point. 2 of the 3 initial aggressors took beatings that were likely far worse than they initially thought they would have to face. We were extremely overmatched in the upper tier as this side has never been able to recover the tech that was lost over the past 3-4 wars in comparison to the alliances who have mostly avoided major war losses or gotten massive tech reparations over the past 2+ years.
[/quote]

It sounds to me, based on conversations seen in this thread, that this strategy of not fighting in the important ranks was one made by Legion, adopted by everyone else, except NSO and a few others, who were interested in fighting an actual war. I imagine if Legion had shown up early and used their superior warchests to their advantage, others would have followed suit before C&G and PB became available when the other front ended.

That's an important part of this. Legion is talking about getting hit by C&G but that was MONTHS after their DoW, if I'm recalling this war correctly.

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1309516703' post='2745850']
This is pretty much my thinking as well, no one wanted to tangle with Umbrella. I'm not sure that anyone in our coalition actually could with a realistic chance of victory. Until that changes we were already defeated from day 1, it was just a amtter of how badly did we hurt our opponents on the way down.

GOONS and MK took heavy hits, but I'm sure several other alliances in the DH/PB side got a good beating as well. Legion, NPO, and the rest of our allies all got wrecked pretty good, but it wasn't a completely one-sided slaughter. However, you are quite correct that our generally lower tech levels and years of being on the losing side aren't helping.
[/quote]

To continue my thoughts above, I can't classify a heavy hit as working over 5k NS nations that can rebuild their lost infra in a month or two. We're nearing the halfway point of our prewar strength already, after less than a month of reps.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1309530645' post='2745943']
It's a shame why?

(I'm not just calling you out here, but also Methrage as well as others that have at one point or another opined similarly.)

NSO should agree with the opposing viewpoint(s), or publicly put on airs, simply because you all fought on the same side the last war?

As for the ongoing surrender discussion, when a far larger number of your nations (and nation strength) is in war mode and actively engaging the enemy you [i]are[/i] going to run out of warchests quicker (a further case in point: GOONS; many of us had solid warchests going into the war, but, unable to hit PM and with war slots constantly filled, aid increasingly became a necessity, aid which, if I've read correctly, NSO was deprived of), which perhaps necessitated NSO's earlier surrender.
[/quote]


Our catalyst for exit was securing peace for ASU, CD and PhR, not to mention that VE/FOK were about to hit them too. There was simply little reason for us to continue fighting, as we had been fighting our hearts out. GOONS are good opponents. For myself in the last round of wars, Sardonic + co. were able to whittle down my warchest from 70m to 35m, so while I could've continued to fight against GOONS and dish out a ton of damage, i'd give myself 2 weeks at that point before running out of money?

[Master Holton]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1309530645' post='2745943']
It's a shame why?

(I'm not just calling you out here, but also Methrage as well as others that have at one point or another opined similarly.)

NSO should agree with the opposing viewpoint(s), or publicly put on airs, simply because you all fought on the same side the last war?

As for the ongoing surrender discussion, when a far larger number of your nations (and nation strength) is in war mode and actively engaging the enemy you [i]are[/i] going to run out of warchests quicker (a further case in point: GOONS; many of us had solid warchests going into the war, but, unable to hit PM and with war slots constantly filled, aid increasingly became a necessity, aid which, if I've read correctly, NSO was deprived of), which perhaps necessitated NSO's earlier surrender.
[/quote]

It's a shame because even as long time anti-Legion fans make threads like this, our "allies" come in and post things agreeing with the sentiment. Everyone has the right to a personal opinion, but stating such under an official flag in public is an entirely different issue.

But it's all come into the light with recent events exactly why some people have chose to scorn their own war effort instead of defend it.

One thing it seems our side will learn (should have learned?) the hard way is that blaming and flaming people will not win wars, [i]in fact it may encourage some to not commit to future wars.[/i] Unity wins wars.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Master Holton

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Master Holton' timestamp='1309542454' post='2746061']
Unity wins wars.
[/quote]

Actually fighting after declaring also helps.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Master Holton' timestamp='1309542454' post='2746061']
[/i] Unity wins wars.
[/quote]

Erm, how did that work out for you?

[Domingo the Honored]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1309543966' post='2746077']
Erm, how did that work out for you?
[/quote]

We're not sure, we haven't tried it out yet. We'll get back to you?

[Stefano Palmieri]

[quote name='Master Holton' timestamp='1309542454' post='2746061']
Unity wins wars.
[/quote]
Not having the majority of your NS in peacemode then slowly trickling out of it one by one generally helps as well.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Master Holton' timestamp='1309542454' post='2746061']
It's a shame because even as long time anti-Legion fans make threads like this, our "allies" come in and post things agreeing with the sentiment. Everyone has the right to a personal opinion, but stating such under an official flag in public is an entirely different issue.

But it's all come into the light with recent events exactly why some people have chose to scorn their own war effort instead of defend it.

One thing it seems our side will learn (should have learned?) the hard way is that blaming and flaming people will not win wars, [i]in fact it may encourage some to not commit to future wars.[/i] Unity wins wars.
[/quote]

Getting a head start on saying you'll remain neutral in the next war?

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1309343265' post='2744108']
NSO checked out early because they're worthless and they're trying to blame us for it. Pathetic.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]NSO is a worthless alliance? I'd like to hear more about this. I can understand your dislike of us, but considering that NSO while it was fighting declared the most wars on GOONS (TPF and Invicta were close behind, and even the other much smaller alliances like ASU declared more wars than Legion), and prevented many key GOONS nations from entering peace mode.

Legion on the other hand just sat there. Most of the Legion wars were declared by GOONS, who on all accounts have been saying that most of these nations just sat and didn't fight back. Legion was as much a bank for GOONS as Umbrella and MK.

But most importantly, let us not forget me. The traitor. I won't lie. I did enjoy attacking Legion, and I would have hit more than just that one nation had not so many of you been in peace mode.[/color]

[KainIIIC]

Yes, and RV had dual-membership access to our forums and IRC the entire time, with a Prophet mask. We had zero qualms with him declaring war on Legion nations under the surrender terms (lower reps) requirement to follow GOONS military orders. In fact, I hope both of you had a little bit of fun there. It's strange that a little 6k NS nation stung Legion so hard?