A Joint OP/LE Announcement

[Owney OSullivan]

Wow, I was expecting some sort of counter at update.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1315890419' post='2799642']
Wow, I was expecting some sort of counter at update.
[/quote]


I got one. Albeit nuked. LOL!!!!

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='grandmonarch' timestamp='1315889871' post='2799637']
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.
[/quote]

You are 100% right. Hiding behind several nations that are duds lowers the ANS. But having 100% active nations is some how demeaned?

If you dump the inactive 3 NS'ish nations, their ANS was at least as high as LE/OP.

[Stelios]

I was expecting a counter too :v

[Merovingian]

Dumping the 3 NS nations will lower Anon's total member count, so that changes the stats. OP and LE had FAR more nukes than Anon, and SUN had zero. There's a big difference. Then, the ANS makes a difference. The blitz is just another boon for you guys on top of those factors. Not all of us are on at update. Being anarchired certainly takes away any ability to retaliate. Top OP and LE nations chose easy targets without nukes. Finally, only the top members really determine the outcome of a war. Anon's top 10 are nowhere near OP and LE's. Less nukes, less infra, less tech.

I personally could make both updates, and I shot up from seventh in Anon to first. I've coordinated well with Unknown to win all of my GAs thus far, and I've tried to keep a decent WC. But not everyone can do that. Timezones and school are hassles. Being blitzed severely incapacitated our ability to hit back. I am not saying that a blitz is a bad thing, but on top of all of OP and LE's other advantages this makes this a clear down-declare. Anon and PS would have been way fairer IMHO.

I'm not really complaining about war. It's TE after all. I look forward to the casualty race. But when such an argument arises about the legitimacy of the evenness of a war, I'm always inclined to pitch in. Anyways, that's all for now, have a good fight

[jmborwell]

For the Nuke count, If I am not Mistaken, LE had 26, OP had 1, SUN 0 and Anon had 19

So 27-19 Isn't too bad of a Nuke differential IMO since the only thing protecting them are spies, but I guess since its so early I can see where you are coming from. Though at update a few seemed to have disappear and the number dwindle to 11

Its too bad that many of the denfending nations kept no warchest and some of the Anon/SUN nations are inactive. Many of us still did not recieve counters at all. Im sitting in a war and have 13,417 Attacking + 0 Defending = 13,417 Casualties (0 defending is what I am getting at like a few of my comrads) Though through the blitz my targets were short 350 infra from where they were at and 2 didnt bother buying GCs when they woke up and saw the devastation.

And if you want to talk about NS, by 5pm much of OP (cant speak for LE because I didnt look until closer to update) were already built up with our Airforce, soldiers, tanks, and tech. Anon and SUN were not. It is not hard to build up 1k NS for a war, so the 1k ANS is not much of a difference since we were pretty close to maxed out minus a couple extra planes and missiles.

And we attacked on Anni, why would any nation not improv/defcon swap after collections to GCs and DECON 1 after anni collections? It would have helped tremendously with reducing the Anarchy Count at update. And did I mention we attacked on Anni where everyone should have collected, and had atleast a mil or two saved from the current days collection? This goes for any poor soul that gets anarchied during an update when they didnt keep GCs

You wont be able to blame a number mismatch (based on the first week of building) for the outcome of this war. Its poor nation maintenance if anything. As for the counter.. its been discussed.


JM

[Merovingian]

Before the DoW I remember exactly that on the stats screen it said OP had 7 nukes, Anon 20ish, and LE was definitely over 30. I understand that a blitz naturally is an advantage, but then it's a bit more fair when the defending alliances didn't start off weaker in other (important) aspects like nukes and activity. I know that several strong Anon members could not be on at update during your blitz because of time zone issues and at least one person was taking an exam at that time. It was OP and LE's update-active nations vs. everyone in Anon and SUN. From some of the wars I see, SUN stands even less of a chance - almost all anarchied with Scott and mustard taking on two weak nukeless nations.

All I'm saying is that we had a severe disadvantage. I've managed to stay afloat because I'm on at updates, but other people are simply getting stompted because they're not.

[Cellardoor]

We're going to quantifying activity into how fair wars are?

I don't think I like the idea of someone making it our problem because we're active.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1315925819' post='2799754']
We're going to quantifying activity into how fair wars are?

I don't think I like the idea of someone making it our problem because we're active.
[/quote]

I'm only pointing out that the war was pretty unfair. As you can see from the alliance stats now, Anon and SUN have been stomped pretty badly while top LE and OP nations have only grown in strength from basically raiding their targets. Anyways, I'm not whining about anything, I just wish the war would be more interesting Getting owned badly isn't really fun for us and beating down on such weak opponents isn't a challenge for you guys.

[grandmonarch]

Alot of people are throwing the "OP/LE have twice as many nukes" stat around, I personally think its misleading. You have to look at the absolute difference too, its only about 15 nukes more. Its like everyone forgot the PLOW war, when G6 had like 300 nukes and PLOW only had about 50. Thats 6 times more nukes but look at the absolute difference, thats about 250 more nukes! I mean holy c%@#, I would rather face 15 more nukes than 250 more. Also I'm pretty sure I've disproved the ANS argument, SUN of course has less ANS but Anon's could have been much higher, possibly higher than OP/LE's prewar ANS.

[Mark8240]

Anon gov cant complain a bit after declare on OP and DF last round. You "Declared" on both of us but you only sent 4 to 6 wars DF way for the first 4ish days of the war. Activity has no place in determine a up or down declare. Manage your alliance correctly and dont keep dead weight around. And just a piece of info before the war was declared Anon had 23 nukes.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Mark8240

[the wompus]

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1315925819' post='2799754']
We're going to quantifying activity into how fair wars are?

I don't think I like the idea of someone making it our problem because we're active.
[/quote]

I agree with this comment.

There's often mention on the OWF of 'elite alliances' and such who somehow have a different set of 'rules' and are more highly scrutenized at every turn.

I think that all alliances should strive to be elite....not that organized, active alliances should compromise their position.

I'm not sure how some alliances have double the ANS that others do after 7 days on equal footing. Nor should I have to worry about it.

If your AA is plagued with ghosts and inactives....do something about it! Don't hold others in contempt.








[quote name='Merovingian' timestamp='1315927895' post='2799763']
I'm only pointing out that the war was pretty unfair. As you can see from the alliance stats now, Anon and SUN have been stomped pretty badly while top LE and OP nations have only grown in strength from basically raiding their targets. Anyways, I'm not whining about anything, I just wish the war would be more interesting Getting owned badly isn't really fun for us and beating down on such weak opponents isn't a challenge for you guys.
[/quote]


Anon is hardly a helpless 'victim' here. It hasn't really been pointed out that most of their nuke owning nations had purchased the HNMS wonder. Numerous nations had GC's and several had GC's and barracks. They were gearing up for war in some regards as well. They got hit by a good blitz, and besides the aformentioned nukes have not coordinated that impressive of a counter YET. This isn't OP or LE's responsibility to help them fight or feel bad for them. To the contrary, I expect the war effort to continue as best we can.



I, for one, am glad to see them knocked off their perch / soapbox.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

It's not a down declare when it benefits your side. Good to know. I bet OP/LE didn't know that SUN was a war ready alliance either?

Regardless, its still war. Go $%&@ some !@#$ guys.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='grandmonarch' timestamp='1315929116' post='2799767']
Alot of people are throwing the "OP/LE have twice as many nukes" stat around, I personally think its misleading. You have to look at the absolute difference too, its only about 15 nukes more. Its like everyone forgot the PLOW war, when G6 had like 300 nukes and PLOW only had about 50. Thats 6 times more nukes but look at the absolute difference, thats about 250 more nukes! I mean holy c%@#, I would rather face 15 more nukes than 250 more. Also I'm pretty sure I've disproved the ANS argument, SUN of course has less ANS but Anon's could have been much higher, possibly higher than OP/LE's prewar ANS.
[/quote]

If you took out Anon's 3 NS members then Anon would have way less total members in comparison. Either way, Anon is significantly weaker in one stat or the other. As far as the nukes are concerned, it's actually the multiplicative difference that matters more. Your example is bad because 6 times is far more than than 2 times, just as 250 is more than 15. Either way that's bad. Anyways, even as you put it "only 15 nukes" more is a HUGE difference when you factor in the fact that you got the blitz and the higher ANS than both Anon and SUN. Your upper tier nations are also much stronger. This is basically a one-sided fight.

[Thomasj_tx]

Another overlooked fact is that at the start of the war, Anon/SUN had 5 nations with HNMS's protecting 10 nukes. LE/OP had none.

And Anon added about 6 nukes between the 5:00pm stats posted and the start of the war.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Thomasj_tx

[ericg95]

Just here to point out, as the MoD for SUN, that at no time during this war have any SUN nations owned nukes, an entire nuke-less AA has been nuked by LE. This greatly tarnishes their honor.

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='ericg95' timestamp='1315935916' post='2799814']
Just here to point out, as the MoD for SUN, that at no time during this war have any SUN nations owned nukes, an entire nuke-less AA has been nuked by LE. This greatly tarnishes their honor.
[/quote]

Actually, that is not true.

From the Nuclear News Reports....

New Rhodesia (Harvester of Sorrow) of the Yellow team of the alliance State of Unified Nations purchased a nuclear weapon on 9/9/2011 3:24:05 AM. The nation of New Rhodesia now has 0 nuclear weapons.

[Merovingian]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315934899' post='2799801']
Another overlooked fact is that at the start of the war, Anon/SUN had 5 nations with HNMS's protecting 10 nukes. LE/OP had none.

And Anon added about 6 nukes between the 5:00pm stats posted and the start of the war.
[/quote]

This is not true. Unless you're trying to say that LE/OP bought HNMS's for the sole purpose for the war at the beginning of the war, I can see several nations with HNMS's (one of my opponents has an HNMS protecting 3 nukes right now). OP has 1 HNMS and LE has 3. While Anon has 5 HNMS and SUN 0, the difference in 1 HNMS does not make up for the disparity in the number of nukes (after a couple days, we'll run out of nukes; having an HNMS without nukes is pointless).

[quote name='ericg95' timestamp='1315935916' post='2799814']
Just here to point out, as the MoD for SUN, that at no time during this war have any SUN nations owned nukes, an entire nuke-less AA has been nuked by LE. This greatly tarnishes their honor.
[/quote]


[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1315936195' post='2799817']
Actually, that is not true.

From the Nuclear News Reports....

New Rhodesia (Harvester of Sorrow) of the Yellow team of the alliance State of Unified Nations purchased a nuclear weapon on 9/9/2011 3:24:05 AM. The nation of New Rhodesia now has 0 nuclear weapons.
[/quote]

SUN had one nuke. Basically no difference, considering how easily it was spied away.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Merovingian

[Merovingian]

I am currently ranked first in Anon NS-wise by a substantial amount. There are currently 10 OP nations above me and 10 LE nations above me. I am also stronger than any of the SUN nations. That shows how one-sided this war is.

[Confusion]

[quote name='Mark8240' timestamp='1315932087' post='2799785']
Anon gov cant complain a bit after declare on OP and DF last round. You "Declared" on both of us but you only sent 4 to 6 wars DF way for the first 4ish days of the war. Activity has no place in determine a up or down declare. Manage your alliance correctly and dont keep dead weight around. And just a piece of info before the war was declared Anon had 23 nukes.
[/quote]

You can't possibly compare the two wars. Especially since we can take on OP 1v1 Any Day, Any time. You know you can't take us 1v1, though. We hit DF to even up the membership numbers, and statistics. You guys brought in LE because you accept, acknowledge, and fully recognize you can't take us on alone. And if you tried, you know we'd both wreck each other. Before the war was declared Anon had 23, LE had over 30, and OP had about 5 nukes. Sun had zero. Your point? And I'm pretty happy with Anonymous- No one in there right mind can expect Anon to prevail against a Nuke disadvantage & all statistics against her, it's unrealistic.... Especially since SUN is a training AA, and I applaud them for their efforts in trying to get better.


tl;dr You guys brought in LE to assure we got kicked & you receive little to no damages, Anon hit DF to give you guys a chance since we had 10-17~ more members than you. Oh wait, you wanted us to commit suicide and attack two AAs our size so we can please OP? Son, please.


Edit: What?



Confusion.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Confusion

[Mark8240]

Con the point is your brought in DF but dint do a damn thing to them. If you would have brought in DF and actually hit them it would have been different but you "declared" on them but only attacked us (with the exception of about 4 wars) that's why it was bull. Oh and even tho you barely put any assets in to DF we were still hurting you as badly as you hurt us. With the advantage of the blitz and the massive NS and nukes you had on us you should of destroyed us but we held our own. Did we win the war? No. Did you win? Certainly not. But with the massive advantage you should have won.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Mark8240

[Confusion]

[quote name='Mark8240' timestamp='1315942263' post='2799882']
Con the point is your brought in DF but dint do a damn thing to them. If you would have brought in DF and actually hit them it would have been different but you "declared" on them but only attacked us (with the exception of about 4 wars) that's why it was bull. Oh and even tho you barely put any assets in to DF we were still hurting you as badly as you hurt us. With the advantage of the blitz and the massive NS and nukes you had on us you should of destroyed us but we held our own. Did we win the war? No. Did you win? Certainly not. But with the massive advantage you should have won.
[/quote]

We declared wars on DF's top nations, about 15 wars were declared- We focused the rest on OP which was where the ANS was.... The only difference between OP and Anon was Membership, and it wasn't a very broad difference. Also, no- 'You' didn't hurt us as much as you think or wish you did, Apart from OP, we were fighting DF, Rogues from Tropic Thunder, Rogues from Plutonian Nyborg, Rogues from SUN, and Rogues from TE as a whole. Also, we did win. We stomped OP, and could have easily continued to fight, even after we were quite literally fighting half of TE. You will believe what you want to believe, and that is fine. Don't let facts get in the way, though.



Confusion.

[Cellardoor]

The real travesty is that PS lost 3 solid targets in this war.

Where's the crying for that?

[Merovingian]

[quote name='Mark8240' timestamp='1315932087' post='2799785']
Anon gov cant complain a bit after declare on OP and DF last round. You "Declared" on both of us but you only sent 4 to 6 wars DF way for the first 4ish days of the war. Activity has no place in determine a up or down declare. Manage your alliance correctly and dont keep dead weight around. And just a piece of info before the war was declared Anon had 23 nukes.
[/quote]

I'm not Anon gov. This is my first round in Anon and I'm just here for fun. I'm not flagrunning, I don't really care about my rank, and I like war in TE. But I can't bear to see people to say that this is a fair war when OP and LE have a clear advantage. TBH, we had a slim chance at the beginning and now with what's already happened Anon and SUN are nowhere close to you guys.

I also didn't play last round. I don't know about anything that happened, but last round [i]doesn't matter[/i]. TE politics should work on a round-by-round basis. From how you're putting it I'm inclined to feel that this OP/LE declaration was in revenge for last round.

[Therm]

I really don't want to debate this, so I'll try to keep this my only post in this thread. Yell at me on IRC if you really want to argue.

Some reoccurring points, and what I think of them.

[quote]1) Activity has no place in determine a up or down declare.[/quote]

Activity, perhaps not. Coordination, yes.

[quote]2) 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]

Indeed not. In my opinion, infra and money win wars. Especially this early. Once you knock off 200-300 infra off someone this early in the round (Easily achieved with a blitz + planes), there isn't too much a defending nation can do. Personally, I lost 1000 infra in the first 24 hours and 10 minutes of the war. Bold I may be, but I'm not going to waste money when its that onesided.

[quote]3) 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. [/quote]

Last round, I built near perfectly. Every collection done with 3BR AP/FF+Wheat, every point of infrastructure bought with construction+steel+rubber, as well as a donation. Someone who builds with a 3BR can build as perfectly as they want, but they'd always be behind me.

[quote]4) I'm not sure how some alliances have double the ANS that others do after 7 days on equal footing. Nor should I have to worry about it.[/quote]

I've been around for a bit less than ten rounds now. I'm sure that some of you (paul711, bcortell, jmborwell, stelios, etc [names taken off the top of my head aka i talked to them on IRC yesterday night, dont feel bad if you werent mentioned]) have been around further. SUN has been around for a grand total of two rounds. Sure, not everyone takes ten rounds to learn how to build, but some of the finer points just take time and experience to learn. Personally, it took me five rounds to reach top 5% for the very first time, and nearly eight whole rounds to learn to carry a warchest. Point is, you guys bring significant amounts of experience that some of your opponents (no offense SUN) do not have.

True, its not your job to worry about how other people fail at building, but you could at least be consider it when choosing targets. I'm sure no member of a longtime alliance such as PS would ever be caught with a 18k warchest.

[quote]5) Con the point is your brought in DF but dint do a damn thing to them. If you would have brought in DF and actually hit them it would have been different but you "declared" on them but only attacked us (with the exception of about 4 wars) that's why it was bull. Oh and even tho you barely put any assets in to DF we were still hurting you as badly as you hurt us. With the advantage of the blitz and the massive NS and nukes you had on us you should of destroyed us but we held our own. Did we win the war? No. Did you win? Certainly not. But with the massive advantage you should have won. [/quote]

There are two specific parts of that I would like to address.

The first, is to address the nuke count. A certain number (while perhaps not large enough to have a huge influence on the war, certainly influenced me) of our nukes could not actually be launched. All of my nation's nukes during that war I would not have been willing under any circumstance to launch, [size="1"]except for one that I used by accident against a 100 infra nation[/size], needing the NS for potential flagrun (which I failed miserably at)

The second, is to address the lack of our 'assets' devoted to DF. While you cannot see Anon's target lists, approximately 70% of our alliance were given three targets. The 30% that did not receive targets had either claimed unable to participate during the war, or were under 5k NS. In addition, our target lists were organized by NS. All 'medium-sized' and above nations (10k NS or more) from OP/DF had at least two nations hitting them. If DF had more nations above 20k NS, by all means we would have hit them.

ps: stop fighting like 5 year olds. the amount of namecalling in these threads is lame.


edit: [quote]Therm admitted last night in our public channel that DF was added to pad stats. He was also shocked when he went back through the targetting at how many of them were huge down declares. [/quote]

I would not say shocked. Surprised maybe, but not outright shocked. In addition, 20k ns against 30k ns isnt always unfair. If the 30k NS guy has4k infra, 500 tech, and the rest in 20 nukes + 100+navy, and the 20k guy has 4k infra, 500 tech, 10 nukes and !@#$ for navy, its not like the 20k guy is going to get OMGWTFBBQ stomped.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Therm