Zoomzoomzoom Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1311812612' post='2765662'] I don't think they "had to" ignore their treaties. Even if those nations were not in fighting condition, which at that size means depleted warchests, they could have fought more in the other tiers with the bulk of their alliance. "Didn't want to fight for their allies" is a more accurate description. [/quote] I was going for a sarcastic approach. I should have made it more obvious. I'm fully aware that FARK could have continued to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 A few giant nations joined in for what, a week or two? That made things closer to even in the top tiers. Over a protracted war superior tech will win out. FARK has that. I am also reasonably sure, as much as I love them, that NEW were the ones who surrendered that war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1311818759' post='2765807'] A few giant nations joined in for what, a week or two? That made things closer to even in the top tiers. Over a protracted war superior tech will win out. FARK has that. I am also reasonably sure, as much as I love them, that NEW were the ones who surrendered that war. [/quote] I'm not going to argue that TOP would win, cause I honestly don't believe it. There would be massive damage to both alliances. I would also venture a guess that those few nations that joined were some of the better military nations of Fark. With that said the sheer numbers would overwhelm us I think. Umbrella Vs. Fark one on one would be a slaughter. Umbrella would tear them up due to the military capabilities and number advantage by Umbrella. I think Umbrella is the one alliance that would win just about any war one on one. They are what we were before the last war. It took almost 30 alliances to do the damage that was done to us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1311818759' post='2765807'] A few giant nations joined in for what, a week or two? That made things closer to even in the top tiers. Over a protracted war superior tech will win out. FARK has that. I am also reasonably sure, as much as I love them, that NEW were the ones who surrendered that war. [/quote] Yes NEW surrendered, that's because their side was at a 30 million NS difference. The upper tier battle was what proved FARK was no giant on the field. FARK always held the upper tier advantage, but the help that NEW received put FARK on the edge where they threatened to activate more treaties and invited their own "ghosts" despite !@#$%*ing about NEW's set of ghosts. This is why I believe TOP would win. They're coordinated, experienced, and skilled. FARK have coordination, and of course they have a decent ammount of skill, but TOP have proven their worth. FARK have not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1311825346' post='2765903'] Yes NEW surrendered, that's because their side was at a 30 million NS difference. The upper tier battle was what proved FARK was no giant on the field. FARK always held the upper tier advantage, but the help that NEW received put FARK on the edge where they threatened to activate more treaties and invited their own "ghosts" despite !@#$%*ing about NEW's set of ghosts. This is why I believe TOP would win. They're coordinated, experienced, and skilled. FARK have coordination, and of course they have a decent ammount of skill, but TOP have proven their worth. FARK have not. [/quote] I find myself in agreement with Zoom here on this one. TOP is much more coordinated than Fark, and that's a tool every bit as critical in war as anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Ahhh, yes, coordination would be a factor. I just don't think TOP would dominate. As Chalaskan stated, both sides would be devastated from that war. FARK has a numerical advantage which can be useful. TOP has coordination and most likely far more military skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311728386' post='2764532'] Well, not sure about WCs, but just going from NS, it appears that Fark actually holds a fairly good edge. For example, Fark has a nation over 160k which TOP does not. Fark also has 12 nations over 120k NS whereas TOP only has 6. TOP has a total of 19 nations over 100k and Fark also has 34 over 100k NS. TOP has 7 nations between 90k NS and 99,999 NS. Fark has 13 in that same range. TOP has 17 nations between 80k and 89,999 NS. Fark has 24 in that same range. So overall, it appears FARK has a 2 to 1 odds in their favor at least for 80k NS and above. Not sure exactly how TOP is dominating that fight..... [/quote] Fark also has a tech advantage: Fark has 22 nations over 10K tech, TOP only has 12. The #1 TOP that was destroyed in Bipolar is ... gone. What TOP has left is still quite impressive, but Fark is a whole bunch bigger. [quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1311824431' post='2765892'] I'm not going to argue that TOP would win, cause I honestly don't believe it. There would be massive damage to both alliances. [/quote] This much is apparent: 34 nations over the 10K tech barrier, yes, damages will be ginormous. TOP is better coordinated, but they're no Molon Labe. And they would have to be to win against those odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1311882990' post='2766343']TOP is better coordinated, but they're no Molon Labe. And they would have to be to win against those odds. [/quote] Having fought both, TOP is the better of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1311882990' post='2766343'] TOP is better coordinated, but they're no [b]Molon Labe[/b]. And they would have to be to win against those odds. [/quote] HAHA yeah cuz Melon Lube put out so much damage this last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 The laws of the planet favor those with the big tech/WRC advantage too much. As has been pointed out, FARK has a big advantage there. Unless they just simply didn't fight the advantage they hold with the number of nations with 5 digit tech, then in the 6000-9000 tech range is too much for any individual alliance sans Umbrella to overcome in a 1 vs 1 setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1311882990' post='2766343'] Fark also has a tech advantage: Fark has 22 nations over 10K tech, TOP only has 12. The #1 TOP that was destroyed in Bipolar is ... gone. What TOP has left is still quite impressive, but Fark is a whole bunch bigger. This much is apparent: 34 nations over the 10K tech barrier, yes, damages will be ginormous. TOP is better coordinated, but they're no Molon Labe. And they would have to be to win against those odds. [/quote] Gonna echo flak. Having fought ML thrice, TOP is better. ML was a [i]really[/i] weird choice for this post by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1311882990' post='2766343'] The #1 TOP that was destroyed in Bipolar is ... gone.[/quote] I agree. Such a force will never be seen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 I wonder if the people making snarky remarks about rolling another alliance while not having the cajones to pull the trigger (after circling around like vultures for months, no less) realize that they sound like !@#$%bags? you'd think people would have realized that playing the bully on the forums has worked out absolutely 0% of the time in the past, and no you're not going to be the exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 People often mistakenly think that rolling is the only form of retribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) *double post * del pls. Edited July 30, 2011 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1311938110' post='2766886'] Gonna echo flak. Having fought ML thrice, TOP is better. ML was a [i]really[/i] weird choice for this post by the way. [/quote] I do wonder what they were like for BiPolar and Karma though, as I don't think their latest performance can really compare, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 I've fought against TOP, and fought alongside ML twice. TOP only coordinates at the very high end, their middle nations don't. (Kinda like MK, except some MK middle nations do coordinate, and MK works better with outside alliances than TOP does.) ML coordinates at every level. Also, Shah's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1312031317' post='2767615'] I've fought against TOP, and fought alongside ML twice. TOP only coordinates at the very high end, their middle nations don't. (Kinda like MK, except some MK middle nations do coordinate, and MK works better with outside alliances than TOP does.) ML coordinates at every level. Also, Shah's right. [/quote] "every level" They have 22 people. We have more than that coordinating on IRC during a war and we aren't TOP's size. If TOP coordinates at the upper end, they are already using more than 22 nations. Give me a break. I seem to remember TOP having 100 people on for BiPolar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1311380953' post='2761606'] I don't believe a single person in this thread has demanded that you post more. [/quote] This is a stupid comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Feanor, if you were really keen on having this information hit the OWF and not spark yet another NpO/TOP thread, you could have easily had someone from another alliance post it. I say this with what I assure you is an entirely straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1312089804' post='2768095'] "every level" They have 22 people. We have more than that coordinating on IRC during a war and we aren't TOP's size. [/quote] Yes. They have 22 people. All of the 22 coordinate attacks. That would be 100%. TOP's percentage is lower than that. This is not hard to understand. It's common for elite alliances (like ML and BAPS) to be smaller because not everyone can be that active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1312090620' post='2768103'] Feanor, if you were really keen on having this information hit the OWF and not spark yet another NpO/TOP thread, you could have easily had someone from another alliance post it. I say this with what I assure you is an entirely straight face. [/quote] For the most part this hasn't been a NpO/TOP thread infact the only ones who've mentioned that are people outside of our alliances. The people who've tried to make this thread into that were asked to stop and they were kind enough to do so. If I want to start a thread I'll start a thread rather than try and pass it off to someone else. What are people going to do to me? Troll me or turn the thread into a discussion that I don't want to be had? All you have to do is report it to the mods and they will steer the conversation back on course (that's part of their job). What exactly do you have to fear? I just don't understand why people are avoiding the OWF these days. Just the other day the GOD-SOS treaty was cancelled and there was no announcement. It seems not announcing events to Planet Bob is becoming a trend and its one that I find retarded. Edited July 31, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 It's pretty hilarious holding ML up as an example of an 'elite' alliance. Fark's numerical advantage is large enough that I think it would probably be a draw. Not announcing treaty changes to the public is indeed dumb. The whole point of a treaty is as a public affirmation of how inter-alliance affairs will be conducted, and not to post them makes them in a very real sense invalid – Fark of all alliances should know that after the débacle of GW2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladisvok Destino Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312121725' post='2768226'] The whole point of a treaty is as a public affirmation of how inter-alliance affairs will be conducted, and not to post them makes them in a very real sense invalid [/quote] I must have missed the part where the wiki was suddenly closed to the public.... Edit: Also, the Fark forums have all their treaties available for viewing without registering / logging in, so that's two places available to the public that the treaty was announced in. Edited July 31, 2011 by Vladisvok Destino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) OMG! An upgrade from a PIAT to an ODP!!! This pretty much just screwed the entire treaty web over. How do I plan for the next war now? I do agree treaty signings or cancelations should be posted though. It's pretty dumb not to. Edited July 31, 2011 by Omniscient1 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.