Upper End of the War

[Unknown Smurf]

Who is this us?

 

Kaskus?

 

Shit guys, he's on to us. We better start fighting srsly lolz :awesome:

 

I mean thats what your members are saying; I was seriously asking though as this is OOC. 

 

 

To: Unknown Smurf    From: On3H34rT    Date: 2/3/2013 12:33:39 AM

Subject: RE: Wanna surrender? 

 

Message: naw, I'm canon fodder

[ChairmanHal]

Sure they've changed, doesn't take away from the overall initial analysis. And it's really not that hard to follow people that have AA switched, if you know what you're doing.

 

No, and in fact there are people on my side of the fence that are doing a very good job of tracking and sharing that information.

 

Alliance warfare isn't about who's got the best upper tier.  Wars are won or lost in the trenches in the mid to low ranges.  If it was about nothing but the upper tier, we'd be talking about the time Gramlins defeated IRON.

[Ivanelterrible]

No, and in fact there are people on my side of the fence that are doing a very good job of tracking and sharing that information.

 

Alliance warfare isn't about who's got the best upper tier.  Wars are won or lost in the trenches in the mid to low ranges.  If it was about nothing but the upper tier, we'd be talking about the time Gramlins defeated IRON.

 

Isn't it an old staple of cybernations that "wars are won and lost in the upper tiers?" 

 

EDIT: In regards to the Gramlins - IRON war, that was a particularly extreme case where GRE was vastly outnumbered and was undergoing massive internal problems due to the whole Ram thing. 

 

Quickly scanning the current stats, it seems that the war currently (across all battlefields, which of course isn't exactly how it is playing out in game) is tilted heavily in DH-CnGs favor on the uppermost tiers (150k and up) a more or less even fight at this point in the next range (150-100k, though DH still has a tech advantage in this area) and lower than that swings overwhelmingly in favor of the coalition. I'd say at this point its fairly obvious the next cycle of war will determine whether the coalition can drag enough nations down from the 100K+ range to the point where they can win a convincing victory, or whether DH-CnG can preserve enough of their upper tier strength to force something resembling a draw in the overall conflict. 

 

On the overall fronts, its beginning to look to a relatively passive observer that TOP and friends are losing the battle in their upper tier, DH may have secured an advantage on their front with the absolute slaughtering of Anarchy Inc's largest nations and on the CnG front CnG was at a disadvantage but the entry on Non Grata into this area hasn't really lasted long enough to make a conclusive deduction one way or another. 

Edited February 6, 2013 by Ivanelterrible

[ChairmanHal]

Isn't it an old staple of cybernations that "wars are won and lost in the upper tiers?" 

 

Cool story bro.  BTW, didn't you neglect a step before you signed on to the forums here?

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Wars are won when one side is tired of its situation. It doesn't matter if it's upper or lower tier. If your side's middle to lower grows tired of not being able to grow past 80k NS, we might win (not to mention a handful of your higher end nations in permanent PM). And the opposite holds true: if our side grows tired of getting beat down in the lower NS, you might win (not to mention many nations in PM). A stalemate could happen, where we slowly slip in a situation similar to IRON-Gräms, but coalition-wide. I think cooler heads will prevail and a peace will be reached that day. It makes no sense to keep the entire planet in a protracted war for a year.

[Ivanelterrible]

Cool story bro.  BTW, didn't you neglect a step before you signed on to the forums here?

 

Haven't the foggiest what you are referencing. 

[Micheal Malone]

Cool story bro.  BTW, didn't you neglect a step before you signed on to the forums here?

Whether he did or not doesn't negate the fact that you're an idiot and it HAS been the staple that wars are won/lost in the top tier.

 

The only thing that's going to negate the fact here is that DH/CnG are basically against the rest of the cyberverse. And even that has remained to be seen as confirmed..

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Haven't the foggiest what you are referencing. 

 

Perhaps he thinks you don't have this?

[Ivanelterrible]

Ah. Easy to see how he could have missed that, it is quite small after all. 

 

Now, my apologies for derailing this quite excellent thread, back to the main topic please.  

[Dochartaigh]

In my personal opinion, this war will end up in basically a stalemate. Enough damage will be done on both sides of the fence that whoever ends up "winning" will have a pyrrhic victory, though most likely this will end up as basically an armistice with white peace handed out all over the place. The only way this could change is if EQ manages to convince alliances like Alchemy, TSO, ToOTR, Deinos, and VE to leave the war before their other allies. Or if DH/CnG/Co convince many alliances on EQ's side to leave the war before their other allies.

 

Given that it is the third week, I doubt this is in anyone's mind right now. Give it another couple of weeks as we enter 1.5 months at war and see where we are at.

[ChairmanHal]

Words.

 

Ogygia...is that like some sort of skin condition?  It can't be good, that's for sure.   <_<

 

People like you amuse me.  Everyone I fought so far had the gonads to stay on their AA and face the enemy.  I run up against the #1 nation in TOP, and the #2 and #3 nations in MK and lived to tell about it.  Then poor Seerow from MK got his ass handed to him last round because he took on me and two other of the wrong AI nations at once, now he's get pounded on by RnR.  He lost 25 nukes in 4 days trying to nuke two people.  Did he complain?  Hell no, he reloaded.  I respect the man.  You, Mr. I Brag About My Nuking In My Bio", I've wiped better stuff off my shoe than you.  Get in the fight and stop hiding.

Edited February 6, 2013 by ChairmanHal

[ChairmanHal]

Ah. Easy to see how he could have missed that, it is quite small after all. 

 

Now, my apologies for derailing this quite excellent thread, back to the main topic please.  

 

Your nation did not come up on my initial check of in the nation listing.  I searched on nation name as well as ruler.  I blame Admin.  Everyone does.

 

You I'm going to disagree with respectfully and we'll see who's right at the end of this conflict.  The upper tier isn't everything and massive high tech nations can be chopped down when they lack mid and lower tier support.  Just take a good ax and there are plenty of those to go around on our side.

[Charles Stuart]

Wars are won in the upper tiers when the situation makes the upper tier front the deciding factor. The grams examples proves that and only that. The presence of an upper tier is in itself no indicator of victory.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Charles Stuart

[Micheal Malone]

Ogygia...is that like some sort of skin condition?  It can't be good, that's for sure.   <_<

 

People like you amuse me.  Everyone I fought so far had the gonads to stay on their AA and face the enemy.  I run up against the #1 nation in TOP, and the #2 and #3 nations in MK and lived to tell about it.  Then poor Seerow from MK got his ass handed to him last round because he took on me and two other of the wrong AI nations at once, now he's get pounded on by RnR.  He lost 25 nukes in 4 days trying to nuke two people.  Did he complain?  Hell no, he reloaded.  I respect the man.  You, Mr. I Brag About My Nuking In My Bio", I've wiped better stuff off my shoe than you.  Get in the fight and stop hiding.

Peace mode jokes. That's swell, my argument failed so I'm going to tell a failing joke that pretty much all of Planet Bob facepalms every time they are used. And don't get mad at a grunt following orders ;)

[D34th]

Let's imagine that things went perfectly to DH and they manage to decisively win the war in the upper tie and put all the Equilibrium nations bellow the 100k NS barrier, would Equilibrium be forced to surrender in this case? Or wouldn't they care? Afterall they still would have the massive advantage on mid/low tiers to keep DH side on peace mode or/and severely damage those who exit it. So, upper tie is really that crucial to decide a war despite all the other factors?

[CubaQuerida]

Let's imagine that things went perfectly to DH and they manage to decisively win the war in the upper tie and put all the Equilibrium nations bellow the 100k NS barrier, would Equilibrium be forced to surrender in this case? Or wouldn't they care? Afterall they still would have the massive advantage on mid/low tiers to keep DH side on peace mode or/and severely damage those who exit it. So, upper tie is really that crucial to decide a war despite all the other factors?

 

It's not even imagining at this point d34th, it's the way it has gone.  

 

It all depends on what EQ would consider victory.  If making most DH nations lose some ground against the neutrals/rest of bob at the cost of every EQ alliances nations over 100k being crushed is considered acceptable, then the war will go on for a long time.

 

However, if reason and rationality set in, and EQ starts to worry about how losing all those top nations makes it hard to stay relevant for the future, you may see fringe AA's peel off.  It's been a very ugly war, both from a coordination standpoint, and from sheer brutality of destruction.  There's a chance that not everyone signed up for that.

 

Obviously I have a DH bias, but there's only so many times you can see months unravel off your nation before you start to consider what you're fighting for.  

I hate ending sentences on a preposition.  Sorry CH

[D34th]

It's not even imagining at this point d34th, it's the way it has gone.  

 

Well after a quick look at the alliances that are fighting I must say that there's still a long way until DH decisively win the upper tie war, the EQ side still has more nations than yours. 

That said I agree with what you said after that. 

Edited February 6, 2013 by D34th

[JoshuaR]

My upper tier spreadsheet is all covered in grayed out nation targets, for what that's worth.

[rabonnobar]

My upper tier spreadsheet is all covered in grayed out nation targets, for what that's worth.

 

That's cool and all, but: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AljpRsRmfwjmdDUwbGo5LW1sam5uVmYzTmo0LW42UXc

 

Not to mention, GATO/NG/NoR are only semi-engaged.

 

Yes, your Timehh and oyababys (cue joke) will reign relatively unchecked, but that is not enough to give you victory.

Edited February 6, 2013 by rabonnobar

[CubaQuerida]

That's cool and all, but: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AljpRsRmfwjmdDUwbGo5LW1sam5uVmYzTmo0LW42UXc

 

Not to mention, GATO/NG/NoR are only semi-engaged.

 

Yes, your Timehh and oyababys (cue joke) will reign relatively unchecked, but that is not enough to give you victory.

 

A world where Timmehh runs unchecked is not a happy world for anyone.  Not sure anybody wins under that circumstance :)

[IYIyTh]

Who cares? How boring it would be to be that big.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Who cares? How boring it would be to be that big.

 

Haha, I don't think he's bored at the moment :D

[Kiss Goodbye]

QFT....

 

I actually don't recall a war where changing flags was used as extensively as this one. I am still not sure whether it really makes any difference.

I do.  2010 BiPolar.  It was the TOP signature strategy. 

 

It's also why AI and IRON are so good at tracking it.

 

 

What many of us making arguments about 'the top tier' are missing is the purpose of a top tier.  The purpose is to be able to drop 15m every ten days on smaller nations to turn them into large nations without any impact to the nation's growth.  This is consistently achieved around the 60k mark.  The game has gone on for so long without any substantial modification of the aid system that the difference in economic function of a 60k and a 160k nation is precisely zero.  Hal is correct but didn't make his point as well as he could have.

 

 

No, what will make the difference in this war is how many nations on each side have the warchest required to maintain war at a high level of infrastructure with no effective tax collections due to nuclear anarchy for more than 180 days.  And also how well nations on both sides are able to keep their peers from slipping in to peace mode to recover warchests and reload nuclear weapons.  That does tend to be more common among top-tier nations, of course. 

Edited February 6, 2013 by Kiss Goodbye

[Feanor Noldorin]

I run up against the #1 nation in TOP, and the #2 and #3 nations in MK and lived to tell about it.  .

We've yet to develop a way to make you delete your own nation. Until that time, of course you lived through it.

[Ardus]

Ogygia...is that like some sort of skin condition?  It can't be good, that's for sure.   <_<

 

People like you amuse me.  Everyone I fought so far had the gonads to stay on their AA and face the enemy.  I run up against the #1 nation in TOP, and the #2 and #3 nations in MK and lived to tell about it.  Then poor Seerow from MK got his ass handed to him last round because he took on me and two other of the wrong AI nations at once, now he's get pounded on by RnR.  He lost 25 nukes in 4 days trying to nuke two people.  Did he complain?  Hell no, he reloaded.  I respect the man.  You, Mr. I Brag About My Nuking In My Bio", I've wiped better stuff off my shoe than you.  Get in the fight and stop hiding.

First, I can't tell to whom you are responding because you edited their post out of yours and these forums are somewhat less helpful than before the crash.

 

Second, this is neither the time nor the place.  I packed away my signature hyper-condescending giga-smug act for this very enlightening analysis thread, as have many others with their respective aggression; I ask that you do the same with... whatever that was.