Overlord Wes Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Wired' timestamp='1320885204' post='2842425'] So I guess when you point out our superior builds and WCs when compared to Syn you're really saying TPC are better at the game than you are? You can't have your cake and eat it too - we're in a better position because we did a better job than you did, [b]not[/b] because we had less war than [b]you[/b]. It's the same reason why LE, PS, OP, TPC and others are doing better than you, it's really that simple.[/quote] I thought this was common knowledge already? Also, we were going to declare on TFK that day anyway. Edited November 10, 2011 by Overlord Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 StevieG - I think you mean second war, and attempt at a third war. You appear to not have sufficiently studied the wall of text. Anyway, let's set the record straight. DM came to government before the start of Round 18 and told us of his bet with Confusion, and hence that he would be taking a leave of absence. From that point onward, he did not participate in our decision making processes, and did not tell us anything about his nation. This lasted until day 51ish (maybe 52?) of the round. TPC concluded that there was nobody left who could provide a good matchup for a conventional war, whereas we had an excellent chance of trying to saturate the top ten by systematically attacking every flagrunner. At that point, it also became common knowledge who DM was, so he took up the TPC AA under the condition that all wars dating prior to his join time (day 53ish?) were none of our business, as were all wars that directly involved his bet with Confusion. In practice, our only interaction with DM's nation was that I declared on an Anon member (Impulsive, if I recall) around Day 56ish. Impulsive launched a spy attack on DM while DM was flying the TPC banner, and I decided that since they weren't actually at war, it constituted an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty. Besides, it was day 56 and I was looking for people to kill, and we both already had wars that were going to lead to daily nukings until the end of the round. Also for the record, I actually wasn't running until about 20 hours before the end of the round, and I wasn't seriously running until about 2 hours before the end. I expected to break the top 15ish, but I was shocked that only Cumi Pilek and DM were able to build past me. I expect to take a similar approach this round - I'll build, and if I end up in the top 3, so be it. Nation building won't stop me from declaring on Synergy's entire government, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320887842' post='2842450'] You left what you thought were less active members countering( at least that is what we took from it). [/quote] Dude, that's called [i]strategy[/i]. We've been fighting each other almost constantly for the past [i]year[/i]. It should surprise absolutely nobody that we have excellent intel on you, and that we know exactly who is dangerous and needs to be hit by our most experienced fighters. That's as much your own fault as anyone else's. For example, if Halushki and Mustard ever wanted to face the same opponents ever again, they shouldn't have talked about blitzing me while they were out at a bar together. Ditto for jmborwell and themadstork managing to hit ZI in every war we've ever fought, or Commander242 never coordinating with other OP or attacking at update, or untuochable collecting and buying infra each day, or Rumpledsmoothskin letting himself get drawn into childish one-upsmanship and draining his warchest to stay ahead of me and Wired in the NS rankings. What would be truly absurd is if you don't have portfolios for every one of our people, and on every other major alliance in TE that you're likely to be fighting. [quote name='the wompus'] It's painfully obvious to me that the first TPC war could not have been that difficult or there is NO WAY TPC could have mustered such an impressive sustained offensive against OP. We (OP) were 10 or 11 days out of war at the time and were still barely back on our feet from the Anon war. [/quote] You're absolutely right, of course. It normally should have taken us six days. I would tell you how, but, well. We [i]are[/i] at war at the moment. [quote name='the wompus'] One other thing - the NAP. For at least two rounds prior to this agreement, TPC and OP had repeated wars and prior to that round even beginning, it was decided that we would give each other a break for a round in part to let tempers cool due to some serious bad blood brewing, and also just to force us into getting some variety in our wars as an eternal repeated rubber match was getting boring and predictable. Some of the implications about this are a little inacurate and I wanted to clear it up. I suppose by strict definition it was an NAP, but simply stating that doesn't tell the whole tale. [/quote] Thank you for pointing this out. Tensions were indeed very high at that point, and I think the round off did help keep it from turning into some kind of blood feud. I'd like for people to recognize it for what it truly was, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1320893057' post='2842527'] It's painfully obvious to me that the first TPC war could not have been that difficult or there is [i]NO WAY[/i] TPC could have mustered such an impressive sustained offensive against OP. We (OP) were 10 or 11 days out of war at the time and were still barely back on our feet from the Anon war. Even though the Anon war went about as well as it possibly could have, our nations came out that war pretty beat up and broke. 5 days after it's first wars, TPC nations were loaded up pretty good (at least from my perspective) with plenty of size and money. A tougher war would certainly have strained these resources to make the 5 day turnaround unfeasable. One other thing - the NAP. For at least two rounds prior to this agreement, TPC and OP had repeated wars and prior to that round even beginning, it was decided that we would give each other a break for a round in part to let tempers cool due to some serious bad blood brewing, and also just to force us into getting some variety in our wars as an eternal repeated rubber match was getting boring and predictable. Some of the implications about this are a little inacurate and I wanted to clear it up. I suppose by strict definition it was an NAP, but simply stating that doesn't tell the whole tale. [/quote] I think I was clear that our first war was against the best possible targets available to us at the time and that this war did indeed tip in our favor fairly quickly. For this reason we didn't take additional time to get stronger, we went right back out on the battlefield. Both OP and TPC fought hard in that war, stats tracking showed both dealing out similar damage. I always expect OP to bounce back quickly from any war, that's what proper planning provides you. For this war we felt OP did take more damage but based upon the ANS, NS, nation count and relative days out of war it would be a good fight, and it was. With regards to the NAPs I didn't include the reasons behind either and felt it more appropriate to keep that part of the information private, we have no issue with it coming out but didn't feel it should be something we would reveal. My point was with both NAPs in place we had some laughs throughout the round as many suggested we do one thing or another without understanding the big picture due to lacking all the relevant info. This happens quite often, people jump on someone thinking they "know" what others should be doing when in fact they don't "know" near as much as they need to form a valid opinion about what is the best course of action. As far as revealing sources we have many, I'll leave it to others to figure out where we get our info, whether that is something posted here or thing we know and never post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King James XVIII Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320887842' post='2842450'] As to the turtling I am fighting one from tpc now (rock n rolla) it happens and I predicted it would. I know quote more than you give me credit for but I protect my sources. All that said, we can agree to disagree but we have a great fight going on. It is a shame to muddy it with words. [/quote] I agree that we have a great fight going on but I can assure you that Rock (one of our best members) is not out of that fight. [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1320893057' post='2842527'] Here's the one part of the 'story' that I find interesting. Following their first war, after a 5 day turnaround, TPC hit OP. - This is undisputed. It's painfully obvious to me that the first TPC war could not have been that difficult or there is [i]NO WAY[/i] TPC could have mustered such an impressive sustained offensive against OP. 5 days after it's first wars, TPC nations were loaded up pretty good (at least from my perspective) with plenty of size and money. A tougher war would certainly have strained these resources to make the 5 day turnaround unfeasable.[/quote] That war was unprecedented in the sense that once we actually attacked and put "boots on the ground" we discovered that they were woefully unprepared for war. That's not something you can readily figure out though. If we could, we would have just held. [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1320893057' post='2842527'] One other thing - the NAP. For at least two rounds prior to this agreement, TPC and OP had repeated wars and prior to that round even beginning, it was decided that we would give each other a break for a round in part to let tempers cool due to some serious bad blood brewing, and also just to force us into getting some variety in our wars as an eternal repeated rubber match was getting boring and predictable.[/quote] I agree with you completely there. I don't think either side regrets that, it made for a fun round and what I think was a mending of relations. [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320894506' post='2842546'] Anyway, let's set the record straight. DM came to government before the start of Round 18 and told us of his bet with Confusion, and hence that he would be taking a leave of absence. From that point onward, he did not participate in our decision making processes, and did not tell us anything about his nation. This lasted until day 51ish (maybe 52?) of the round. TPC concluded that there was nobody left who could provide a good matchup for a conventional war, whereas we had an excellent chance of trying to saturate the top ten by systematically attacking every flagrunner. At that point, it also became common knowledge who DM was, so he took up the TPC AA under the condition that all wars dating prior to his join time (day 53ish?) were none of our business, as were all wars that directly involved his bet with Confusion. In practice, our only interaction with DM's nation was that I declared on an Anon member (Impulsive, if I recall) around Day 56ish. Impulsive launched a spy attack on DM while DM was flying the TPC banner, and I decided that since they weren't actually at war, it constituted an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty. Besides, it was day 56 and I was looking for people to kill, and we both already had wars that were going to lead to daily nukings until the end of the round. Also for the record, I actually wasn't running until about 20 hours before the end of the round, and I wasn't seriously running until about 2 hours before the end. I expected to break the top 15ish, but I was shocked that only Cumi Pilek and DM were able to build past me. I expect to take a similar approach this round - I'll build, and if I end up in the top 3, so be it. Nation building won't stop me from declaring on Synergy's entire government, though. [/quote] I think that pretty much sums it up. Anyway, this is a good fight and I'm enjoying it very much. It's time to focus on the battlefield more and OWF less. o/ War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the wompus Posted November 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320896321' post='2842557'] For example, if Halushki and Mustard ever wanted to face the same opponents ever again, they shouldn't have talked about blitzing me while they were out at a bar together. [/quote] You're half right here - we were out drinking, but we weren't in a bar. I'm impressed that you remember that. If you guage things by who drinks with who, you may want to avoid OP in wars. I've been out drinking with several OP members besides Mustard. We encourage social interaction at OP... it's fun. Not a real strong counter-argument to the whole '5 day later' point though, probably because I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='King James XVIII' timestamp='1320897114' post='2842560'] That war was unprecedented in the sense that once we actually attacked and put "boots on the ground" we discovered that they were woefully unprepared for war. That's not something you can readily figure out though. If we could, we would have just held. [/quote] You mean you didn't know they were woefully unprepared despite all of those portfolios you guys have on all the AAs that Einer just mentioned? I am curious what your portfolio says about me. In all seriousness Einer, I completely understand the strategy part we often do the same. My point, however was that it appeared as though you guys went balls out to try and eliminate us from the round or at least that is the way we took it and now we are where we are. The attempt to prevent bad blood is in serious jeopardy of going down in flames. Edited November 10, 2011 by paul711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 The portfolios in question are more comprehensive now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarefootHillbilly Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1320898718' post='2842567'] If you guage things by who drinks with who, you may want to avoid OP in wars. I've been out drinking with several OP members besides Mustard. We encourage social interaction at OP... it's fun. [/quote] This may be geographically relevent to my interests. Edited November 10, 2011 by BarefootHillbilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320899300' post='2842572'] The portfolios in question are more comprehensive now. [/quote] Not sure whether I should be proud of you or sad for you that you put that much into a browser game and with all of those portfolios TPCers still put their pants on one leg at a time like OPers do. (Well generally speaking because I am sure both sides have their cooks ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Since Wired posted just a few lines of the war talks between Wes and myself I feel it pertinent to show our thinking on the subject. This is the entire convo and in it you can see that we knew it would be a very tough fight and planned for it, we did not shy away from it. 01[19:47] <%paul711> hey Wes [19:47] <|}Wes{|> yo [19:48] <|}Wes{|> o 01[19:48] <%paul711> How goes the preps for war? [19:48] <|}Wes{|> this alliance hasn't existed for like a round 01[19:48] <%paul711> I know [19:48] <|}Wes{|> i keep forgetting to leave [19:48] <|}Wes{|> lol 01[19:48] <%paul711> makes a good channel for our use [19:48] <|}Wes{|> +fine i think 01[19:48] <%paul711> same 01[19:49] <%paul711> Cowboy was looking at preliminary numbers and it will be tough 01[19:49] <%paul711> you guys have a definate number of nations that will blitz? [19:49] <|}Wes{|> no 01[19:50] <%paul711> you guys are still set to hit TPC with us right? [19:51] <|}Wes{|> yes 01[19:51] <%paul711> KK [19:51] <|}Wes{|> you can pretty much count on most of our nations that are 8k+ to make it at least within the first day of war 01[19:52] <%paul711> Sounds good 01[19:52] <%paul711> will it be ok for Cowboy to to do targetting 01[19:52] <%paul711> we plan to put 3 attackers on their top 12 01[19:53] <%paul711> have to nulify any potential counter [19:53] <|}Wes{|> sure, just don't put all of our guys to down-declare to make us look bad 01[19:53] <%paul711> no way lol 01[19:53] <%paul711> in fact quite the opposite 01[19:53] <%paul711> no matter what we do it will be a struggle [19:54] <|}Wes{|> put all of our guys at 200% to make sure we all get decimated ? lol 01[19:54] <%paul711> OP has 1 at 24k they have 9 01[19:54] <%paul711> we line everyone up by NS then assign targets 01[19:54] <%paul711> if you want I will have Cowboy contact you prior to anything 01[19:55] <%paul711> OP TPC 01[19:55] <%paul711> 25k+ 0 8 01[19:55] <%paul711> 20 to 25k 2 9 01[19:55] <%paul711> 10 to 20k 20 6 01[19:55] <%paul711> 5 to 10k 12 5 01[19:55] <%paul711> Under 5k 1 9 01[19:55] <%paul711> I have also compared individual nations and I don't see how, at our current NS levels, make a good attack on TPC. 01[19:55] <%paul711> Below are the paring of nation's NS, OP first and then TPC: 01[19:55] <%paul711> 1 - 24885.815 - 32404.515 01[19:55] <%paul711> 2 - 23248.472 - 32174.213 01[19:55] <%paul711> 3 - 19824.477 - 31788.321 01[19:55] <%paul711> 4 - 18601.238 - 29957.363 01[19:55] <%paul711> 5 - 17841.971 - 29722.672 01[19:55] <%paul711> 6 - 17447.553 - 29500.787 01[19:55] <%paul711> 7 - 15982.666 - 26558.214 01[19:55] <%paul711> 8 - 15553.339 - 25832.958 01[19:55] <%paul711> 9 - 15463.097 - 24511.125 01[19:55] <%paul711> 10 - 13787.522 - 24480.116 01[19:55] <%paul711> 11 - 13673.123 - 24437.907 01[19:55] <%paul711> 12 - 13373.442 - 22734.199 01[19:55] <%paul711> 13 - 13177.065 - 22168.181 01[19:55] <%paul711> 14 - 12949.868 - 21668.7 01[19:55] <%paul711> 15 - 12825.453 - 20417.68 01[19:55] <%paul711> 16 - 11947.836 - 20180.804 01[19:55] <%paul711> 17 - 11892.474 - 20007.234 01[19:55] <%paul711> 18 - 11652.693 - 19422.246 01[19:55] <%paul711> 19 - 11120.365 - 18521.438 01[19:55] <%paul711> 20 - 10916.278 - 14331.623 01[19:55] <%paul711> 21 - 10576.642 - 13747.661 01[19:55] <%paul711> 22 - 10103.041 - 13622.108 01[19:55] <%paul711> 23 - 9920.158 - 13507.305 01[19:55] <%paul711> 24 - 9611.834 - 9097.263 01[19:55] <%paul711> 25 - 9009.808 - 7274.509 01[19:55] <%paul711> 26 - 8762.207 - 6592.699 01[19:55] <%paul711> 27 - 8261.68 - 5283.891 01[19:55] <%paul711> 28 - 7919.44 - 5265.155 01[19:55] <%paul711> 29 - 7812.772 - 3841.644 01[19:55] <%paul711> 30 - 7771.357 - 3570.375 01[19:55] <%paul711> 31 - 7184.919 - 3416.322 01[19:55] <%paul711> 32 - 6588.535 - 3363 01[19:55] <%paul711> 33 - 5455.295 - 3291.44 01[19:55] <%paul711> 34 - 4008.056 - 3019.5 01[19:55] <%paul711> this is how we stack up solo [19:57] <|}Wes{|> doesn't seem fun 1on1 lol 01[19:57] <%paul711> yeah and even with you guys it will be a tough nutt to crack [19:57] <|}Wes{|> indeed 01[19:57] <%paul711> lol but wouldn't have it any other way 01[19:58] <%paul711> between us we 3 over 24k [19:58] <|}Wes{|> rather have a tough fight than easy one 01[19:58] <%paul711> yeah 01[19:58] <%paul711> we do have one thing going for us 01[19:59] <%paul711> they mostly have navies which inflate their NS 01[19:59] <%paul711> selling off land negates that advantage 01[19:59] <%paul711> most every OP nation has 2 or more war wonders Thanks for posting that btw because now we know where it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320899081' post='2842570'] My point, however was that it appeared as though you guys went balls out to try and eliminate us from the round or at least that is the way we took it and now we are where we are. The attempt to prevent bad blood is in serious jeopardy of going down in flames. [/quote] I honestly hope that is not the case Paul. I think we need to avoid having people that play the game well (both TPC and OP) getting frustrated by politics and thereby negatively influencing people's desire to play TE - we don't need flame wars or perceived in-game injustices getting people pissed off, it can lead to no good. Hopefully I can offer some evidence as to why we never intended to "eliminate" OP from the round. If this had been our goal the best way to achieve it would have been to prolong the war, when OP suggested all wars end when the first began to expire we readily agreed. The fact that we rebuilt quicker (shown in our mixed up war 3v2 target selection) was due to our larger WCs. We spied each other enough to know we had more money, this is no surprise as we had the extra 4 day collect - you went to war on day 7, we went on day 11. Also, we didn't have nukes as early as you did so our collections were better. So, we had the money to keep going, I think we can both agree on that. Continuing would have hurt OP and greatly reduced the amount of "fun" OP could have playing the rest of the round, hopefully we can agree on that. Taking OP (or any quality players) out of the round is in no one's best interest, this game needs more strong players, not less. I sincerely hope you'll accept my assurance TPC will never strive to "eliminate" OP or any others from playing the game, I hope others would do the same. I don;t think it's a realistic goal anyone could easily take on but it's not a goal any should pursue IMO. After our first war left us unsatisfied we were immediately looking for a good fight and with OP presenting a viable option is was an easy decision - we can always count on OP to give us a good fight. It was really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320901682' post='2842579'] 01[19:59] <%paul711> they mostly have navies which inflate their NS 01[19:59] <%paul711> selling off land negates that advantage [/quote] Interesting to see more of the log - assuming this is all of it, at least. Anyway, I'll agree with my excerpt. I came into this fight with something like 5000 NS worth of navy, and it hasn't been real useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernsters Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Look guys, I know you're all trying really [i]really[/i] hard, but it's just not possible. No one will ever top Wired's wall of text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Blah blah blah let's drop nukes and blow stuff up! First one to anarchy an entire opposing alliance gets a special prize! Only Aditya and anisho212 to go on the TPC side. 34/36, not too shabby. 29/35 for OP and 12/20 for Syn. <3 nukes Thanks for the fun fight so far, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedomfighter Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1320907767' post='2842608'] Blah blah blah let's drop nukes and blow stuff up! First one to anarchy an entire opposing alliance gets a special prize! Only Aditya and anisho212 to go on the TPC side. 34/36, not too shabby. 29/35 for OP and 12/20 for Syn. <3 nukes Thanks for the fun fight so far, gentlemen. [/quote] the first sensible statement I have seen in this thread, so far Edited November 10, 2011 by freedomfighter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Dog Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Awesome Dog' timestamp='1320802937' post='2841938'] Dang, the first page of this thread moved nice and slow. I thought it was going to be void of tit for tat banter. I'll be busy ignoring the next three pages. [/quote] I know, what a bunch of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dealmaster13 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1320887921' post='2842453'] Regarding DM. He flag chases every round, and does know how to build his nation. He usually uses a new name to hide, and he will generally always try to save his cash for the end. It wasnt just last round because of the bet with confusion. [/quote] This guy speaks the truth, but I was going for #1 last round to stop Confusion for getting a hatrick and gloating about it on IRC and the OWF. I will happily accept my 1k tech betting wins from Confusion and Laz however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Awesome Dog' timestamp='1320909973' post='2842614'] I know, what a bunch of crap. [/quote] Your posts are the worst of the thread, don't post unless you actually have something to say instead of just !@#$%*ing about people starting an actual OWF conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Wait, TPC waits until all the 'big' boys are at war and [b]then[/b] fights? Say it ain't so. Edit: Honestly, I love this thread... it was about time people actually talked during a war.. This calls for an interesting round next round, imo. It's unfortunate now we can't use [i]G[/i]'-'[i]6[/i] in the AA names. Edited November 10, 2011 by Confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dealmaster13 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) What's so special about G'-'6 apart from the fact that it looks like a smiley face with big ears Almost overlooked this: [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1320887842' post='2842450'] Does your gov allow its members (gov members) to leave and come back at will? I ask because in a reply to my post DM talks about helping his fellow gov members make better war decisions. That implies he is gov and would it be safe to assume he has been? Therefore tpc gov knew snd abetted his flag run, I must say I really don't care. [/quote] I think a couple previous posts concerning this by TPC gov might have been a bit misleading, which is fine - I was actually gov last round in the sense that I was guiding TPC through the base of its building process. So I made the guides, kept a tab on TPC nations, and KJ would be the one keeping sure everything is on track - acting in my role; which it must be said is not a vital one... of course I'm sure many of you know (from spying or being a past member) that I enforce an agressive development program that involves regular updates of varying situations through in-game messages, so KJ had to uphold a watered down version of that which he normally does alongside me anyway obviously. That's not in response to your first question, however. Your second comment relates to a sarcastic remark that I made, suggesting that you clearly know a lot more about choosing the 'right' war than I and others do. I took leave last round due to real life reasons because I was planning a lengthy trip that never occured in the end that would have limited my ability to govern TPC being my last proper holiday probably ever, so I decided to 'flagrun' instead using a technique that would allow such long periods of inactivity - long backcollects and lying low and out of war. TPC obviously knew of this and KJ was happy with the idea for just a round, and then the bet with Confusion came as I mentioned to him I'll be flagrunning - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102797 - then the bet with Laz came in within the last couple of weeks of the round; he seemed to be sure of something. ...and now I'm back with [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102797"]"some more quality nation building schemes"[/url] and TPC's doing pretty well relatively speaking, so I'm happy. So coming back to the first question, you probably already know this, but it's complicated and depends on the scenario. Any more interesting questions? Edited November 10, 2011 by dealmaster13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadstork Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320896321' post='2842557'] Ditto for jmborwell and themadstork managing to hit ZI in every war we've ever fought[/quote] Not sure why I'm being brought up, but I don't recall being ZI'd in TE.(I might have been close) You guys did whip me good last war though All crap aside, it's always fun fighting you guys. Let's have a nice, fun war without any stupid drama. These posts by both sides makes my head hurt, probably why I never post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Dog Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1320920518' post='2842639'] Your posts are the worst of the thread, don't post unless you actually have something to say instead of just !@#$%*ing about people starting an actual OWF conversation. [/quote] It's satire. Relax and take a deep breath. Herp in... hold it... derp out... ahhh. Edited November 10, 2011 by Awesome Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelios Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1320902894' post='2842586'] Interesting to see more of the log - assuming this is all of it, at least. Anyway, I'll agree with my excerpt. I came into this fight with something like 5000 NS worth of navy, and it hasn't been real useful. [/quote] When I was fighting LE my pretty small navy (especially compared to theirs) It saved me a bunch. Took out a bunch of their navy. So i blame the user and DM Con just likes weird names for things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Well, I won't argue that some navy can be useful. However, as was rightly pointed out in that excerpt of log, all you have to do is sell your land and then laugh at the other guy with 5000 useless NS. I'd basically say it goes like: Some > None (Lets you have carriers/subs at low total cost) None > Lots (You save money/NS) Lots > Some (You can concentrate your naval attacks and defeat them in detail) Non-transitive relations are what make strategy interesting... Edited November 10, 2011 by Einer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts