tamerlane Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1340314125' post='2992121'] I was thinking more like this [/quote] Yeah? well, nobody is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='o ya baby' timestamp='1340313961' post='2992116'] thank you for your selective reading, mr dahl but the fact that he has less than 33% of the tech of his opponents and is keeping up with them in daily damages is quite pathetic for your front and makes us look amazing [/quote] so far every one of my 5 opponents has lost more NS than I have and I haven't done my attacks today or rebought (after someone nuked me with 100% of troops at home). these guys are useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1340314313' post='2992125'] Yeah? well, nobody is perfect. [/quote] except us [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340314358' post='2992127'] so far every one of my 5 opponents has lost more NS than I have and I haven't done my attacks today or rebought (after someone nuked me with 100% of troops at home). these guys are useless. [/quote] wow those guys are definitely going to make us FEEL THE PAIN Edited June 21, 2012 by o ya baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340314238' post='2992123'] Yeah, that's entirely possible. I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean you're coalition won't still bawwwwww, though. And I think you are just considering pixel loss, not political loss. MK and friends have a substantial amount of political capital to lose, that SF really....doesnt. That's more what I was really factoring, I guess. But now that I think about it, SF does have less pixels to lose as well. [/quote] mk has declared a war with no traditional cb for the last three wars in a row, clearly either this 'political capital' is limitless or it doesn't matter. sf does have fewer stats to lose, but all that means is that post-war you will be even more of a statistical irrelevancy than you are now. i'm sure next time everyone over 50k NS will go into PM and you'll be bragging about how you will dominate us in the 10-20k NS range, "which is the only one that really matters anyway." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDRocks Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 All 3 of the guys that attacked me have taken 2+x the damage I have taken and this is in the tier they plan on winning. XFD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feardaram Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340314238' post='2992123'] Yeah, that's entirely possible. I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean you're coalition won't still bawwwwww, though. And I think you are just considering pixel loss, not political loss. MK and friends have a substantial amount of political capital to lose, that SF really....doesnt. That's more what I was really factoring, I guess. But now that I think about it, SF does have less pixels to lose as well. I could have sworn there was some adage about if you don't have much, you can't lose much. If there is one, I think it fits here. That scenario would certainly be interesting in a not fun kind of way. Why are we talking about this lol? Back on topic: Woo Sparta! [/quote] so SF can't lose because they are already horrible? i like that, a positive perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Banana Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='BDRocks' timestamp='1340314668' post='2992133'] All 3 of the guys that attacked me have taken 2+x the damage I have taken and this is in the tier they plan on winning. XFD [/quote] suuure, considering how we have 6 guys on each of us that is definitely a win for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340314625' post='2992132'] mk has declared a war with no traditional cb for the last three wars in a row, clearly either this 'political capital' is limitless or it doesn't matter. sf does have fewer stats to lose, but all that means is that post-war you will be even more of a statistical irrelevancy than you are now. i'm sure next time everyone over 50k NS will go into PM and you'll be bragging about how you will dominate us in the 10-20k NS range, "which is the only one that really matters anyway." [/quote] You guys already know you won't last forever. Your leaders have already admitted that. I don't really need to say more, but good try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Darth Banana' timestamp='1340314965' post='2992137'] suuure, considering how we have 6 guys on each of us that is definitely a win for you [/quote] I think it's a crisis of coordination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340314991' post='2992138'] You guys already know you won't last forever. Your leaders have already admitted that. I don't really need to say more, but good try. [/quote] no you do need to say more because you haven't addressed any of the points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Bad mistake Sparta, look at the 12 pages of nonsense you caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Darth Banana' timestamp='1340314965' post='2992137'] suuure, considering how we have 6 guys on each of us that is definitely a win for you [/quote] i don't know why you're misusing the smug emoticon this IS a win for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='smurthwaite' timestamp='1340304107' post='2991993'] Jaiar, your inability to not speak when you are not in the know is why you are in your current situation. [/quote][quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1340305472' post='2992004'] And what exactly, pray tell, is his current situation? From where most of us are sitting, he's in a better spot currently than NPL and the rest of SF are. [/quote] My situation: In MK surrender terms topic I said, "Go $%&@ Yourselves". Smurthwaite punished me for that post with a 24 hour OWF ban. I disagreed with his application of NPL posting rules and informed him that I would not abide by the ban. Kem even said the post was not bad and was willing to overturn it if I admitted wrongdoing. I'm stubborn obviously and won't admit wrong doing where there is none. I was booted from NPL. It's fine; they can do what they want with their OWF posting rules and I don't have to accept. That is my situation. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340310536' post='2992064'] Oh I was just linked to this post. While it does show initiative, it wouldn't actually have worked out the way you think because of a few misconceptions you've made (I don't know if you've had a large nation before so this properly isn't your fault). When large nations get knocked down to ~4k infra they have tiny bills compared to where they used to and their 1B+ warchests can last for months. The people they will be fighting will be 20-30k NS nations who have tiny warchests comparatively. Because of the tech difference, they get slaughtered and tend to turtle, nuking and sending CMs. In the end, the people 'winning' have a worse time of it because they actually have to be active etc. Besides, tearing down MK nations to 500 tech, while it would take well over half a year on some (we have a large number of 10k+ tech nations), wouldn't be that effective. As we've been hearing [i]ad nauseum[/i] on these boards, "mk is a terrible alliance at war who have been propped up by their allies." While it's obviously not true, it does highlight the fact that we do have some rather excellent allies. If you're not attacking them (and remember, you can't because they've hugely dominant right now) then at the end of this war, we'll still be allied to them. In addition to this, we have no incentive to go for peace with your guys. Going "VietSF" or whatever is all very well before the war starts, but it's a two way deal and you have to match us. We've consistently proven that we are probably the most active alliance on the planet (we still regularly have over half the alliance on irc at the same time during war, ~70 which I doubt anyone else could beat by numbers and almost no one could beat by percentage) and we are in a far better position to deal with an extended war than you are because we've had two of them post-karma. So really, any VietSF attempt is futile and fundamentally flawed because you forget that you're dealing with mk who are rather good at this war and politics thing and you clearly aren't (because it appears that no one wants you in their coalition channels). [/quote] I do know 10 digit war chests make fighting easy for large nations once they get knocked down so the war in regards to my plan would be difficult but it is at least different than what is currently happening. The goal would be to shred MK tech levels as much as possible. Perhaps I assumed too much from what was my coalition, but I think it could be done if it was coordinated properly. How much tech would a 10k tech nation lose per day fighting 3 enemies? Conservatively...100 tech/day loss? 700 tech/week? 2800 tech/month? 4 months wipes out that 10k tech. YES, I know those are very rosy hopes and expectations. I would rather try this plan rather than continue the conventional plan that led in the past war to defeat and is leading to another defeat. The VietSF is the term I used to describe their plan when I heard it; it is not my plan (Banksy, you said I forget. No. [i]They[/i] forget). My plan would inflict more real damage to at least one AA compared to very little damage being inflicted to several AAs. Their plan is to destroy the lower tiers with nations that get knocked down and out of range of higher tier enemy nations and force attrition and war fatigue to the point that enemy nations 20k and below will be begging or demanding that their leadership bring the war to an end. Those smaller 20k and below nations may be easy to destroy but just as easy as they are to destroy, they will just as easily be rebuilt. Meaning that the long VietSF war they plan to fight will be pointless. There point is not to win the war, however, they do believe all they have to do is not lose and they think they can accomplish not losing with this, as I call it, VietSF war plan. I still like my plan better. The 20k nations their plan destroys will be rebuilt in 3-4 months, destroying MK tech levels if done with "zeal" (hey Heft ) could take much more time to rebuild perhaps as long as a year or more. Banksy, I don't care if they don't want me in their coalition channels. They don't listen anyway. Proof is in this conventional war they are rolling out. NATO and Sparta join the war to do what? I assume they joined the war on MK to do damage. How can damage be done on an alliance using good peace mode tactics and that has many slots full already making declaring wars difficult. I surely would have advised against NATO and Sparta going in. This is where wars are lost. Piss poor planning. It would be similar if ODN and International declared on CSN. What would be the point? This is why your coalition wins because you roll out to war properly and your opposition fails because they roll out just to roll out and have no clear objective. I may not be as respected or whatever regarding military tactics and war planning, but I think I have more of a clue than those leading this failed coalition. Edited June 21, 2012 by Jaiar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDRocks Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Darth Banana' timestamp='1340314965' post='2992137'] suuure, considering how we have 6 guys on each of us that is definitely a win for you [/quote] Seeing as how you three declared on me...maybe you guys should have thought this through more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1340315536' post='2992145'] Smurthwaite punished me for that post with a 24 hour OWF ban. [/quote] hahahahaaha what? alliances still do this? Edited June 21, 2012 by Leet Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1340315536' post='2992145'] My situation: In MK surrender terms topic I said, "Go $%&@ Yourselves". Smurthwaite punished me for that post with a 24 hour OWF ban. I disagreed with his application of NPL posting rules and informed him that I would not abide by the ban. Kem even said the post was not bad and was willing to overturn it if I admitted wrongdoing. I'm stubborn obviously and won't admit wrong doing where there is none. I was booted from NPL. It's fine; they can do what they want with their OWF posting rules and I don't have to accept. That is my situation. I do know 10 digit war chests make fighting easy for large nations once they get knocked down so the war in regards to my plan would be difficult but it is at least different than what is currently happening. The goal would be to shred MK tech levels as much as possible. Perhaps I assumed too much from what was my coalition, but I think it could be done if it was coordinated properly. How much tech would a 10k tech nation lose per day fighting 3 enemies? Conservatively...100 tech/day loss? 700 tech/week? 2800 tech/month? 4 months wipes out that 10k tech. YES, I know those are very rosy hopes and expectations. I would rather try this plan rather than continue the conventional plan that led in the past war to defeat and is leading to another defeat. The VietSF is the term I used to describe their plan when I heard it; it is not my plan (Banksy, you said I forget. No. [i]They[/i] forget). My plan would inflict more real damage to at least one AA compared to very little damage being inflicted to several AAs. Their plan is to destroy the lower tiers with nations that get knocked down and out of range of higher tier enemy nations and force attrition and war fatigue to the point that enemy nations 20k and below will be begging or demanding that their leadership bring the war to an end. Those smaller 20k and below nations may be easy to destroy but just as easy as they are to destroy, they will just as easily be rebuilt. Meaning that the long VietSF war they plan to fight will be pointless. There point is not to win the war, however, they do believe all they have to do is not lose and they think they can accomplish not losing with this, as I call it, VietSF war plan. I still like my plan better 20k nations their plan destroys will be rebuilt in 3-4 months, destroying MK tech levels if done with "zeal" (hey Heft ) could take much more time to rebuild perhaps as long as a year or more. Banksy, I don't care if they don't want me in their coalition channels. They don't listen anyway. Proof is in this conventional war they are rolling out. NATO and Sparta join the war to do what? I assume they joined the war on MK to do damage. How can damage be done on an alliance using good peace mode tactics and that has many slots full already making declaring wars difficult. I surely would have advised against NATO and Sparta going in. This is where wars are lost. Piss poor planning. It would be similar if ODN and International declared on CSN. What would be the point? This is why your coalition wins because you roll out to war properly and your opposition fails because they roll out just to roll out and have no clear objective. I may not be as respected or whatever regarding military tactics and war planning, but I think I have more of a clue than those leading this failed coalition. [/quote] you really think you have 4 months worth of nations to attack every single member of MK and ... win majority of their attacks... not get countered and pooped on... ok, you're delusional Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340315761' post='2992147'] hahahahaaha what? alliances still do this? [/quote] MK's forums would be empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340315288' post='2992141'] no you do need to say more because you haven't addressed any of the points. [/quote] I addressed the point of political capital mattering. If you want to keep pretending that it doesn't matter than go right ahead. I have no reason to try and convince you otherwise, and I don't expect you to consider what I have to say anyway, because you won't. Realize, you are responding to me, but it's the people who are lurking in the shadows I'm trying to reach in my writing, not MKer's. Feel free to keep responding though, it gives me reason to come out of my hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1340315536' post='2992145'] I do know 10 digit war chests make fighting easy for large nations once they get knocked down so the war in regards to my plan would be difficult but it is at least different than what is currently happening. The goal would be to shred MK tech levels as much as possible. Perhaps I assumed too much from what was my coalition, but I think it could be done if it was coordinated properly. How much tech would a 10k tech nation lose per day fighting 3 enemies? Conservatively...100 tech/day loss? 700 tech/week? 2800 tech/month? 4 months wipes out that 10k tech. YES, I know those are very rosy hopes and expectations. I would rather try this plan rather than continue the conventional plan that led in the past war to defeat and is leading to another defeat. The VietSF is the term I used to describe their plan when I heard it; it is not my plan (Banksy, you said I forget. No. [i]They[/i] forget). My plan would inflict more real damage to at least one AA compared to very little damage being inflicted to several AAs. Their plan is to destroy the lower tiers with nations that get knocked down and out of range of higher tier enemy nations and force attrition and war fatigue to the point that enemy nations 20k and below will be begging or demanding that their leadership bring the war to an end. Those smaller 20k and below nations may be easy to destroy but just as easy as they are to destroy, they will just as easily be rebuilt. Meaning that the long VietSF war they plan to fight will be pointless. There point is not to win the war, however, they do believe all they have to do is not lose and they think they can accomplish not losing with this, as I call it, VietSF war plan. I still like my plan better. The 20k nations their plan destroys will be rebuilt in 3-4 months, destroying MK tech levels if done with "zeal" (hey Heft ) could take much more time to rebuild perhaps as long as a year or more. Banksy, I don't care if they don't want me in their coalition channels. They don't listen anyway. Proof is in this conventional war they are rolling out. NATO and Sparta join the war to do what? I assume they joined the war on MK to do damage. How can damage be done on an alliance using good peace mode tactics and that has many slots full already making declaring wars difficult. I surely would have advised against NATO and Sparta going in. This is where wars are lost. Piss poor planning. It would be similar if ODN and International declared on CSN. What would be the point? This is why your coalition wins because you roll out to war properly and your opposition fails because they roll out just to roll out and have no clear objective. I may not be as respected or whatever regarding military tactics and war planning, but I think I have more of a clue than those leading this failed coalition. [/quote] lol it takes far longer than 4 months to strip 10k tech. when the infra goes, the only nations who can attack these 10k tech nations have 2-3 themselves. you really have no experience in war planning and i can see why no one listened to you. [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340315907' post='2992151'] I addressed the point of political capital mattering. If you want to keep pretending that it doesn't matter than go right ahead. I have no reason to try and convince you otherwise, and I don't expect you to consider what I have to say anyway, because you won't. Realize, you are responding to me, but it's the people who are lurking in the shadows I'm trying to reach in my writing, not MKer's. Feel free to keep responding though, it gives me reason to come out of my hole. [/quote] the people lurking in the shadows are really going to listen to the guy in no wars about how to fight wars and listen to the guy in the alliance which is a global joke about 'political capital' rather than the one who is in an alliance who has oyababy in it. [img]http://1000words1000days.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/GOB-ComeOn.jpg[/img] Edited June 21, 2012 by Banksy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340316313' post='2992154'] the people lurking in the shadows are really going to listen to the guy in no wars about how to fight wars and listen to the guy in the alliance which is a global joke about 'political capital' rather than the one who is in an alliance who has oyababy in it. [/quote] Apparently what I have to say is important enough for you and 1337 to respond in an attempt to discredit my statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340316815' post='2992158'] Apparently what I have to say is important enough for you and 1337 to respond in an attempt to discredit my statements. [/quote] they'd respond to a brick of !@#$ if it managed to babble enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1340317599' post='2992173'] they'd respond to a brick of !@#$ if it managed to babble enough [/quote] This explains many of MK's recent decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='FlogYou' timestamp='1340313212' post='2992101'] you were in NPL, right? lol, nice dodge of the war just like HELLAS, and just like SPARTA, and MHA. And let me guess this was coming for months, right? You leaving to spread your wings, BAWWWWW, lol!!! BURN BABY BURN! [/quote] War dodge? No. Want me to prove it? I'll fight on my own made up AA tonight and declare wars on MK or MK allies (where I can find a slot or two) with the caveat that when the war is over, I get my own white peace. No reps imposed on me or anything. Nations I'm fighting send or accept peace with me when the war is over and that is it. Archon, Leet, MK Gov, MK allies/coalition...deal? I'm no war deserter, FlogYou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Banana Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='BDRocks' timestamp='1340315731' post='2992146'] Seeing as how you three declared on me...maybe you guys should have thought this through more? [/quote] you should try harder on your spy attempts, they really aren't that well done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340316313' post='2992154'] lol it takes far longer than 4 months to strip 10k tech. when the infra goes, the only nations who can attack these 10k tech nations have 2-3 themselves. you really have no experience in war planning and i can see why no one listened to you. [/quote] You're right if a war is fought conventionally the way it is being done now. Their goal is to destroy MK. The conventional way will not get it done. Perhaps you are right that I am suggesting a perfect coalition deployment of nations. My suggestion is rosy and delusional as someone just said. I would send all nuke capable coalition nations into peace mode. Only leaving those in war mode that would blitz MK. After the first wars expire, only enough nations would be brought out throughout the coalition to keep MK nations staggered and nuked. Rinse repeat. Yes, I know that as these nations come out they would be countered by MK allies. I don't care. No risk, no reward. I don't care if coalition wide nations would be in peace mode for months waiting there turn to strike, at least there would be no Non Grata like pre-empts. There would be plenty of nations in a coalition to do this, not just SF nations. This would be my plan. You're right Banksy, it's deployment and execution would be impossible because there is no resolve to do it from your enemies. So, the curb stomps will continue until they actually form a larger coalition, if they ever do. 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.