Confusion Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 [quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1315857015' post='2799328'] I wouldn't say it's a huge down declare, but it's not the updeclare I'm used to seeing. PS/Anon actually would've been an interesting target for them, but probably a bit too much of an updeclare. Maybe bringing along Synergy and also hitting THP? /shrug Wars are getting harder to make "even" these days. [/quote] I only said PS since it'd be interesting for 'traditional' foes to get a chance to work together, but yeah, I agree... Confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cellardoor Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) Whoa, totally missed the entire second page before my post. Agreed with Schad. If LE/OP hit us, cest la vie. We enjoy our wars with them. edit: yeah I knew what you meant confusion. Just saw strictly those four alliances as probably a bit too much of an updeclare. Especially this early on. Edited September 12, 2011 by Cellardoor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1315855246' post='2799319'] Schad, I know this. This war itself doesn't bother me. Continuously fighting the same people does...Not even that, It's the way it was done.... I mean, was it really necessary for it to also be a down declare? (Anyone who states otherwise is hallucinating) This is a long round though, and many things will happen. Next round, many things will happen too. Unfortunately, we've already begun a cycle which will last an eternity, of that, I'm sure. Confusion. [/quote] [b][size="4"]I mean, was it really necessary for it to also be a down declare?[/size][/b] Uhhhhh yeah right. Confusion, Confusion, Confusion I do believe that you are confused. The prewar stats: Here are the stats.... Nations NS Avg NS Nukes Anon 43 180,261 4,192 17 SUN 34 115,516 3,398 1 Total 77 295,777 3,841 18 LE 28 130,158 4,649 29 OP 33 154,598 4,685 3 Total 61 284,756 4,668 32 As of 5:00pm server time It is a heck of a lot more fair than the war you did to us last round, a war in which we did not cry on the OWF about. We are doing the exact same thing that you guys did to us last round. [b][size="4"]This is a long round though, and many things will happen. Next round, many things will happen too.[/size][/b] Know idea what you are babbling about with this statement as this is a continuation from round 16, 17, 18; trust me we will fight as long as you want to, your resolve will weaken before ours, kid's attention always wanes. In all seriousness on behalf of OP we do not care about your threats, we do not care about you, and we are not afraid. As far as proposing a joint hit with Anon, it is true and those are my words. Actions speak louder than words and yours from last round made any attempt at reconciliation impossible. Don't fault me for stringing you along and using deception you are the master of such things. See you on the battlefield now and in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaazzam Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 so know that we know where you two have drawn the lines, can we keep the incessant bickering to a minimum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) [quote]<paul711> hey we are exploring new possibilities and are looking at the possibiltiy of hitting ps/le/ and tpc together with anon...what do you think? of course everything is preliminary[/quote] Confusion, if I recall, that convo you had with Paul was before the round even started and it was far from a [b]firm proposal[/b] that you turned down. It was nothing more than a pre-round abstract conversation with exactly zero specifics. Nothing specific was proposed and nor was anything "turned down" or agreed to. I am sure that many AA leaders talk in the abstract with other AA leaders about possibilities. And I find it bizarre that anyone could call this war a down declare. You can see by the stats that LE/OP were lower in just about every stat. And that is just a week into the round. It is getting old, that every time anyone hits Anon, the "DOWN DECLARE" crying and whining flies. It is now getting to be a joke. My goodness. There are no lines in the sand being drawn. No huge secret plots. [b][size="4"]It is the first week of a 90 day round, IN TE!!![/size][/b] Edited September 12, 2011 by Thomasj_tx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaazzam Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 meh, i detest confusion as much has anyone pummel him to your hearts content i'm just tired of the ever present confusion v. paul jabberfest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillerCruiser Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 I need to quote you on this part right here... [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315859111' post='2799343'] You can see by the stats that LE/OP were lower in just about every stat. And that is just a week into the round. [/quote] This isn't true unless you meant to say "LE/OP were higher in just about every stat." The only thing LE/OP had that was lower on the stats is over all NS, which was still really close... Every thing else they had more, they almost have a 2/1 on nukes, 1K higher on avg NS. I'm also almost sure that they even had more infra and tech. Not 100% sure about the infra and tech thing, didn't check the stats for those before the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Good luck guys and have fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315859111' post='2799343'] Confusion, if I recall, that convo you had with Paul was before the round even started and it was far from a [b]firm proposal[/b] that you turned down. It was nothing more than a pre-round abstract conversation with exactly zero specifics. Nothing specific was proposed and nor was anything "turned down" or agreed to. I am sure that many AA leaders talk in the abstract with other AA leaders about possibilities. And I find it bizarre that anyone could call this war a down declare. You can see by the stats that LE/OP were lower in just about every stat. And that is just a week into the round. It is getting old, that every time anyone hits Anon, the "DOWN DECLARE" crying and whining flies. It is now getting to be a joke. My goodness. There are no lines in the sand being drawn. No huge secret plots. [b][size="4"]It is the first week of a 90 day round, IN TE!!![/size][/b] [/quote] Thing is, you're so lost that conversation wasn't even between paul & I. And it took place this round. Also, paul posted stats at 5PM EST, What no build up? LE/OP's stats were twice as much in every category except over-all NS which was 10k~ less. As said before by KillerCruiser, over 1k ANS, twice as many nukes, etc. As I said, I don't exactly care since things have a way of working out in the end, but if you call this an up-declare or even a 'close' war, you're delusional, at best. Confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1315857990' post='2799336'] [b][size="4"]I mean, was it really necessary for it to also be a down declare?[/size][/b] Uhhhhh yeah right. Confusion, Confusion, Confusion I do believe that you are confused. The prewar stats: Here are the stats.... Nations NS Avg NS Nukes Anon 43 180,261 4,192 17 SUN 34 115,516 3,398 1 Total 77 295,777 3,841 18 LE 28 130,158 4,649 29 OP 33 154,598 4,685 3 Total 61 284,756 4,668 32 As of 5:00pm server time It is a heck of a lot more fair than the war you did to us last round, a war in which we did not cry on the OWF about. We are doing the exact same thing that you guys did to us last round. [b][size="4"]This is a long round though, and many things will happen. Next round, many things will happen too.[/size][/b] Know idea what you are babbling about with this statement as this is a continuation from round 16, 17, 18; trust me we will fight as long as you want to, your resolve will weaken before ours, kid's attention always wanes. In all seriousness on behalf of OP we do not care about your threats, we do not care about you, and we are not afraid. As far as proposing a joint hit with Anon, it is true and those are my words. Actions speak louder than words and yours from last round made any attempt at reconciliation impossible. Don't fault me for stringing you along and using deception you are the master of such things. See you on the battlefield now and in the future. [/quote] Oh paul, mighty paul, you seem to be under the impression I'm worried about OP. I made a simple statement, which of course, stated my opinion on events You've started this, and we will end this. Did you honestly believe we'd let you get away with conspiring against us & lying to us just about every single day last round? Confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAstro34 Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Good job on the blitz. Regardless of stats or who said what this is TE and the meaning of it is to destroy all that precious infra and tech and go to war. o/ War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 With that, I bid this thread adieu. Confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Good luck in the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the wompus Posted September 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 [quote name='bibliophile' timestamp='1315841520' post='2799244'] Whitsun (= Whit[e] Sunday) is also known as Pentecost, and by definition occurs 7 weeks after Easter. Having the two occur on the same day is an impossibility, hence the idiom. We now return you to the regularly scheduled war. [/quote] I'm impressed! Now if you can just figure out the whole Polish cactus thing! [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1315857990' post='2799336'] It is a heck of a lot more fair than the war you did to us last round, a war in which we did not cry on the OWF about. We are doing the exact same thing that you guys did to us last round. [/quote] A very large notable difference being that we [i]ACTUALLY ATTACKED [/i] SUN. The war numbers and Anarchies show it. A bit more impressive than the war Paul has referenced here. [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1315868221' post='2799410'] As I said, I don't exactly care since things have a way of working out in the end, but if you call this an up-declare or even a 'close' war, you're delusional, at best. [/quote] I don't think anyone is claiming this to be some sort of monstrous 'up-declare'. Call me delusional if you must, but this war is about as even statistically as they'll come. It's certainly not a curbstomp, and complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. As far as the whole 'plotting' argument, I would think that all AA's are kicking around war options....if you aren't, you should be or you'll likely soon know how it feels to get your AA rocked by a solid blitz. Great Job thus far LE and OP, your efforts have been noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1315870433' post='2799433'] I don't think anyone is claiming this to be some sort of monstrous 'up-declare'. Call me delusional if you must, but this war is about as even statistically as they'll come. It's certainly not a curbstomp, and complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. [/quote] I will try to keep this as my only post in this thread, I want to single out one thing in your post. [quote]about as even statistically as they'll come.[/quote] To put it simply no, I'm not saying this is a heinous down declare, [u]but[/u] when the attacking AA (With the blitz, very good BTW) has an entire 1K of average NS [u]OVER[/u] your opponents it is kind of hard to claim that this is "as even statistically as they'll come". Not quite as bad as the 5K you had over RE last round (that was fun) but it is still quite a gap to compete with. I have said it in the past and I will keep saying it. ANS wins wars, saying things like overall NS and nation counts are a huge factor, well to put it bluntly they don't amount to $%#$ when you are facing a blitz and a 1k gap in average NS. Anyways, I don't want to get yelled at by Stelios ( ) so back to lurking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 And will ANS win a war where you are out numbered by 1.5 or 2 to one in nation count? Of course not. It is called counter attacks. ANS is not the win all and be all. And no, I am not claiming that there was a 1.5 or 2 to one outnumbering in this war. Fact remains that it is REALLY tought to have an advantage this early in a round when the stats are equal. ANd yes, blitz's are a !@#$%*. And that is TE. We all started out at the same point, JUST A WEEK AGO!!!! Should any AA, LE/OP be included or excluded, from that basic TE concept? Since when is a great blitz considered a bad thing in TE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315882709' post='2799564'] And will ANS win a war where you are out numbered by 1.5 or 2 to one in nation count? Of course not. It is called counter attacks. ANS is not the win all and be all.[/quote] I got into this with Atomicdog in a query once (Good Guy, lasted like 2 hours.), but my answer is yes, counter attacks can't do a whole lot against an active opponent (like OP/LE) if they are smaller, even if they do an update strike. I think this explains what I am trying to say well. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104032&view=findpost&p=2768823 (Yes I know the stats aren't the same but the principal is the same) [quote] ANd yes, blitz's are a !@#$%*. And that is TE. We all started out at the same point, JUST A WEEK AGO!!!! Should any AA, LE/OP be included or excluded, from that basic TE concept? Since when is a great blitz considered a bad thing in TE? [/quote] You are trying to twist what I said, I never tried to claim that blitz's are unfair or anything of the sort, they are a necessity. What I said was you guys had the blitz with the ANS advantage, [u]there is no way[/u] you can deny that fighting against a blitz (like the one you guys pulled off) with an ANS disadvantage makes for an even fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmonarch Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) I just noticed that Anonymous has a lot of nations (13 to be exact) that are under 1K NS. Now these are the nations that have barely built up their nations, 9 of them are still at 3NS. I noticed that some of them are pending members but some of these nations are already full members. I'm too lazy to actually do the calculations but i'm pretty sure these nations are skewing Anonymous's ANS down, meanwhile I don't believe OP has anyone under 1K NS at the moment. Maybe the ANS difference isn't as bad as everyone thinks? I could be wrong but this might be worth looking into. edit: Alright, my curiosity was killing me so I actually did this, Anon's ANS could be boosted right now (keep in mind this is post blitz stats) from 3687 to 4337. Pre blitz the difference might be even greater. Edited September 13, 2011 by grandmonarch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernsters Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1315883710' post='2799572'] You are trying to twist what I said, I never tried to claim that blitz's are unfair or anything of the sort, they are a necessity. What I said was you guys had the blitz with the ANS advantage, [u]there is no way[/u] you can deny that fighting against a blitz (like the one you guys pulled off) with an ANS disadvantage makes for an even fight. [/quote] eh, but that's why it's called a blitz [i]advantage[/i]. and to be honest.. LE usually keeps itself on standby, as we tend to attract rogues (like most AA's) that NEVER want to peace-out. I know OP has the same issue, this is what could lead to a slight ANS advantage as well. However in the long run, it hinders growth. I know Anon can typically grow their nations pretty big, and yes, we did use their growth pattern to [I]our[/i] advantage. You snooze you lose? Either way, it's a fun war for me, I won't say anything about Anon and SUN not countering yet, as update hasn't even happened and they could be planning a counter-blitz o/ my side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='grandmonarch' timestamp='1315884889' post='2799583'] I just noticed that Anonymous has a lot of nations (13 to be exact) that are under 1K NS. Now these are the nations that have barely built up their nations, 9 of them are still at 3NS. I noticed that some of them are pending members but some of these nations are already full members. I'm too lazy to actually do the calculations but i'm pretty sure these nations are skewing Anonymous's ANS down, meanwhile I don't believe OP has anyone under 1K NS at the moment. Maybe the ANS difference isn't as bad as everyone thinks? I could be wrong but this might be worth looking into. [/quote] Very odd, but I would say that it is someone getting lazy and not kicking them, I say that because a lot don't even have the basics correct.. Also that doesn't take away from the ANS factor because if they don't even have the basics right they wouldn't have been able to compete with a lot of OP/LE nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='King Ernie' timestamp='1315885754' post='2799599'] eh, but that's why it's called a blitz [i]advantage[/i]. [/quote] Like I told Thomas, the blitz is a necessity and there is no denying that. It wasn't what I was focusing on in my previous posts though, the only "Issue" I have (I don't even care that much TBH) is the ANS advantage which makes it hard to call it an even fight or "about as even statistically as they'll come.". Really though, hope you guys have a good war and all, I'm just trying to point something out. Not against it or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernsters Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 I getcha ADude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1315868221' post='2799410'] Thing is, you're so lost that conversation wasn't even between paul & I. And it took place this round. Also, paul posted stats at 5PM EST, What no build up? LE/OP's stats were twice as much in every category except over-all NS which was 10k~ less. As said before by KillerCruiser, over 1k ANS, twice as many nukes, etc. [/quote] Doesn't it seem to make more sense to take stats while none of the AA's have built up than of one side built up and one side not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockingscheduled Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 any AA complaining about ANS at this point only has themselves to look at. its only been a week with no AA wars, any short comings from your ANS is a result of being inferior builders or holding back your NS by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmonarch Posted September 13, 2011 Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1315885772' post='2799600'] Very odd, but I would say that it is someone getting lazy and not kicking them, I say that because a lot don't even have the basics correct.. Also that doesn't take away from the ANS factor because if they don't even have the basics right they wouldn't have been able to compete with a lot of OP/LE nations. [/quote] I'm trying to argue that these nations are dead weight bringing Anon's ANS down, I'm not saying they should compete with OP/LE nations. OP could just as easily recruit 13 ghosts at 3NS which would bring our ANS down to Anon's level, thus making the war fair. Its unreasonable to look at Anon's actual ANS with all of their 3NS members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts