Upper End of the War

[o ya baby]

and you got VE. 

You can't honestly think the two are close to comparable.  The past two TIO nations I've fought that have had 23k infrastructure had 400 million and 500 million on hand.  And I've heard of even worse from other people.  They're a gigantic joke.

We don't even need to get started on how hilariously awful they are at the warring side of things. 

Edited February 19, 2013 by o ya baby

[shahenshah]

Most alliances in our coalition can hold up for another 7 months. 

A huge assumption being made is everyone on dQ can hold on for 7 months. ;)

As for oyababy and Timmehh going off aa and hit people on our side, lets just say most people on our side can obviously in return go off aa and hit your side. Two can play this game.

Oyababy, there are plenty of examples of people having poor warchests and not fighting back etc on both sides. I wasnt implying VE sucks, but rather the amount of damage they've taken. I thought that's what you implied. Edited February 19, 2013 by shahenshah

[o ya baby]

A huge assumption being made is everyone on dQ can hold on for 7 months. ;)

As for oyababy and Timmehh going off aa and hit people on our side, lets just say most people on our side can obviously in return go off aa and hit your side. Two can play this game.

Oyababy, there are plenty of examples of people having poor warchests and not fighting back etc on both sides. I wasnt implying VE sucks, but rather the amount of damage they've taken. I thought that's what you implied.

Going off AA and hitting someone and coming back after is one thing and leaving the alliance and going rogue is another.  I would do the latter if I chose to do that.  You see, the difference between the two is if we did it, no one could stop us from completely trashing whatever nations we did it to.  If your alliances did it to ours, whatever nation you sent would get completely destroyed and sent back with its tail between its legs.  But that doesn't matter.  I'm not arguing about whether or not you can do it  and survive or if we can yadda yadda. (Note: I'm not saying I'm going to go around roguing on your top tier, I just want to see this guy's idea)

That guy said he could stop us from doing it and I want to know how he would do it.  He seemed pretty confident.

And sure, there are a few on both sides who have lackluster warchests, that's always going to happen.  But TIO is a shining example of an alliance that is completely ill-prepared for a war, very bad at nation building and all around incompetence.  

Edited February 19, 2013 by o ya baby

[Fireprincess59]

While this thread has had some good debate and lots of trash talk, it was started for, and continues to deliver, meaningless statistics and propaganda.

 

Also, don't be so harsh on him...though his fascination with the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts does seem a bit...disturbing.  :v:

 

;~; No one ever pays attention to the name. . .

 

:P I was a girl scout once. We're very good at coming prepared. ^^

 

And if I took every disgruntled player seriously, I'd be a very sad panda. :( Especially when their opinion means so very little to me. ;3

 

 

And there seems to be an unhealthy opinion that players from the non-EQ side haven't been able to slip into PM. O.o I just left it. In a range where there should be ample players to target me.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

 
And sure, there are a few on both sides who have lackluster warchests, that's always going to happen.  But TIO is a shining example of an alliance that is completely ill-prepared for a war, very bad at nation building and all around incompetence.  

 

Are you telling me there isn't any merit in recruiting every nation that gets raided by alliances like GOONs and NG? 

[o ya baby]

Are you telling me there isn't any merit in recruiting every nation that gets raided by alliances like GOONs and NG? 

Well, I guess you get nice stats for a little while................

[Sardonic]

Are you telling me there isn't any merit in recruiting every nation that gets raided by alliances like GOONs and NG? 

 

See also: NPL

[Aeternos Astramora]

I'm fine with the war finishing at 50-50 damage.  You guys had less to start with, so you're losing a larger percentage of pre-war NS. 

[hormones74]

 
 
It hasn't even been a month yet. I guarantee things will begin to look bleaker for TOP as time goes by. 
 
 
And aside from the fact that most wars do end up being 3v1, you'll find that not a single stagger has been blown on our part. Taking that into account as well as the fact that there are many TOP/TOOTR/TSO/Alchemy nations that just sit and take it, I'd say we're in a pretty good position. But by all means, please do continue with your 'predictions'. 

I don't believe I've taken anything. All of my opponents have taken more damage than I have. Look at the war stats son.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Incredibly funny to see people talk casually about this war lasting for another "seven months" as if it's something easily doable or even politically viable. Luckily, I'm not seeing many commanders among those making that kind of foolish comments. 

 

Here is a recap of the number of days the big wars lasted and a few notable exceptions or well known wars.

Great War I: 18 days.

Holy War of Farkistan: 155 days.

Great War II: 27 days. (League + LUE have surrendered, Fark is still in. See above.)

Great War III: 27 days.

VietFAN: 99 days.

UjW: 15 days.

GOONland: 269 days.

NoV-LSF war: 255 days.

VietFAN II: 515 days.

Woodstock Massacre: 31 days.

GATO-1V War: 87 days.

Q-NoV War: 98 days.

WotC: 32 days.

NPO-Jarheads: 75 days.

Karma War: 91 days.

BiPolar War: 67 days.

The Revenge/Grudge War: 85 days.

Dave War: 54 days.

DH-NPO War: 125 days.

 

Now, two things are visible. The first one is that longer wars are done against isolated opponents: Farkistan, GOONS, FAN, LSF being prime examples. More recently, the NPO. The second is that global conflicts tend to last longer and longer but are, by no means, getting close to their "resistance style" counterparts.

 

People thinking you can keep an entire coalition at war for eight or nine consecutive months, against another organized coalition, are simply deluding themselves. Especially when the latter coalition has the advantage in warchests.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Prodigal Moon]

I think Yevgeni is absolutely right on the timeframe, much as I wish this would drag out. We already have multiple AA's that have lost over half their NS - I just don't see most alliances fighting beyond a trip to alliance-wide ZI without going into mass PM or looking for a way out.

[Brehon]

Umbrella leadership truly has nothing against the body republic of the order. It's just unfortunate you are led by a liar.

Oh Natan you dear you.  Shall I drop the log of you and I talking where I told you I would like to punch you and  your alliance in the face to which you responded you would do the same to me and Pacifica?  How about the logs of me telling your allies if you all didn't stop shit would roll?  Or how about me talking with NG, TLR, and GATO talking about having to re-eval due to the continued tension.  You are such a special case.

 

If you didn't want war you would have tripped over yourself to make things right with Ai.  Just like they could have with you.  Don't play victim it doesn't suit Umbrella.

[Jacapo Saladin]

Oh Natan you dear you.  Shall I drop the log of you and I talking where I told you I would like to punch you and  your alliance in the face to which you responded you would do the same to me and Pacifica?  How about the logs of me telling your allies if you all didn't stop shit would roll?  Or how about me talking with NG, TLR, and GATO talking about having to re-eval due to the continued tension.  You are such a special case.

 

If you didn't want war you would have tripped over yourself to make things right with Ai.  Just like they could have with you.  Don't play victim it doesn't suit Umbrella.

 

 

Be the bigger dog and end this feud brehon! 

[Caliph]

Oh Natan you dear you.  Shall I drop the log of you and I talking where I told you I would like to punch you and  your alliance in the face to which you responded you would do the same to me and Pacifica?  How about the logs of me telling your allies if you all didn't stop shit would roll?  Or how about me talking with NG, TLR, and GATO talking about having to re-eval due to the continued tension.  You are such a special case.

 

If you didn't want war you would have tripped over yourself to make things right with Ai.  Just like they could have with you.  Don't play victim it doesn't suit Umbrella.

Your the only one owning up to wanting this war on your side.  The others try to claim we started it. 

 

But lets be honest, your in it to get back at Natan for the DH-NPO war.

[Commander shepard]

None of the nations on TOP's front page that are currently in PM have slipped in there from war. 

 

Did you only glance at this guy and think it was him (In PM since 11/30/2012; could easily be seen as 1/30 if not looking close enough)?

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=149402

Yeah my bad, I thought it was the 1/30.

[Lusitan]

I'm living the dream fighting 7k infra nations with 3k tech and no WRC. Just sayin.

[ChairmanHal]

;~; No one ever pays attention to the name. . .

 

:P I was a girl scout once. We're very good at coming prepared. ^^

 

And if I took every disgruntled player seriously, I'd be a very sad panda. :( Especially when their opinion means so very little to me. ;3

 

 

And there seems to be an unhealthy opinion that players from the non-EQ side haven't been able to slip into PM. O.o I just left it. In a range where there should be ample players to target me.

 

OOC: We have so many boys playing girls and girls playing boys and people who roleplay their ruler as though they aren't even human if I occasionally slip into the generic 'he' by mistake, I think that it can be forgiven....   ;)  

 

I can't vouch for everyone else, but I can say that AI has settled into a nice wartime routine at this point and our more experienced people have been able to hit hard and fade back without too much issue and even when they get caught out and unable to retreat help is usually quick in arriving.  Our newer members like newer members elsewhere are learning the ropes quickly and running up some nice casualty numbers.  We at AI see casualties as a reward for hard work and we try to earn them whenever possible.

[Commander shepard]

Commander Shepard, you aren't very bright. And do tell, how would you stop Timmehh, myself and whoever else up here that completely outclasses your "top tier" from doing whatever we wanted to do? Genuinely curious.

 

You and DH would probably find this comical right now, but with time they will change their tune.

But I would simply use your real alliance as leverage against you, which could be done in multiple ways.

 

Given how you're even entertaining yourself with the idea of doing that, I believe firm stances need to be taken when we cross that bridge.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Commander shepard

[Farnsworth]

I'm living the dream fighting 7k infra nations with 3k tech and no WRC. Just sayin.

Me too. Well, some of them have had WRCs, but meh. 

[Icewolf]

I love how DH are wondering what the end game for our side is. I wonder what their's is. They are sat there openly proclaiming that only a handful of their nations matter. For some on their side this actually translates to none of their members matter provided that a few large nations of another alliance matter. How many people do you really think are going to stick with let alone join an alliance that not only has such a policy but openly proclaims it to the OWF? How many subsidury allies do you really see going through this again?

[Rush Sykes]

There's two things to take in consideration. How much damage one can do, and how much damage they can absorb. EQ has the numbers to absorb the damage.

 

...

 

Hmm, now there's five targets for him to nuke, and three of them are dealing a similar amount of damage he dealt them. And all of them are guarntee to win GA attacks.

 

He seems to hate me though. I'm always the first one to get nuked. :mellow:

After going back and checking the wars in question (I assume you are referring to flak attack)... what you fail to take into account is that spread out over his 5 opponents.... they also have other opponents, so your assertion that he has to find a way to nuke 5 guys with 2 nukes a day is inaccurate at best, ignorant at worst.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Rush Sykes

[lebubu]

You and DH would probably find this comical right now, but with time they will change their tune.
But I would simply use your real alliance as leverage against you, which could be done in multiple ways.
 
Given how you're even entertaining yourself with the idea of doing that, I believe firm stances need to be taken when we cross that bridge.

It's comical because your coalition can't even roll us properly but clowns like you are still trying to act tough for some reason.

[Commander shepard]

It's comical because your coalition can't even roll us properly but clowns like you are still trying to act tough for some reason.

You're getting rolled, probably the best we could have hoped for.

[lebubu]

You're getting rolled, probably the best we could have hoped for.

The damage you're doing is of little consequence in the long run. You, on the other hand, have sacrificed any chance of ever having a competitive top tier again. Doesn't sound like something to hope for to me but to each his own.

[shahenshah]

Going off AA and hitting someone and coming back after is one thing and leaving the alliance and going rogue is another.  I would do the latter if I chose to do that.  

 
Two can play this game and we can play it on a much much larger scale. Ultimately you have to decide between damaging a few dozen of our nations and risking damaging a few hundred of yours in return. Point being, there are plenty of creative solutions.

Lebubu, we'll see about that. Edited February 19, 2013 by shahenshah