Upper End of the War

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Eq's upper tier are already losing years worth of building, imagine if they had just spent some of those years building decent amounts of tech.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Eq's upper tier are already losing years worth of building, imagine if they had just spent some of those years building decent amounts of tech.

No because then the fight *might* be fair.

[Commander shepard]

No because then the fight *might* be fair.

If the fight was in your favor, your side would not be hiding in peace mode and you would not be spending billions trying to escape the grind only to be pulled back down.

[ArneS]

If the fight was in your favor, your side would not be hiding in peace mode and you would not be spending billions trying to escape the grind only to be pulled back down.

what

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

what

I think he forgot that our 100k+ nations are winning currently.

[Icewolf]

He is referring to all those nations burning billions they do not have to waste (as in upwards of 70-80% of their savings) to stay in the top 100K after they have been knocked down to avoid the utter annihilation being rent upon the mid tier. Although "mid tier" is a past tense word. It is now something of a lower tier.

[Timmmehhh]

He is referring to all those nations burning billions they do not have to waste (as in upwards of 70-80% of their savings) to stay in the top 100K after they have been knocked down to avoid the utter annihilation being rent upon the mid tier. Although "mid tier" is a past tense word. It is now something of a lower tier.

Yeah both Anarchy Inc and Umbrella tried this. I don't think it can be succesfull though.

[Prodigal Moon]

Looking at rabonnobar's stats blog, I think we're seeing what most people expected, which is that the DH/C&G side had the advangtage in the upper tier and has been accordingly more successful in that range. But I don't think that advantage is nearly enough to swing the outcome of the war in their favor. We're approaching a point at which maybe 3-5 million NS worth of upper tier nations are out of reach of nearly all (or even all) of the EQ coalition. It's kind of an amazing situation to consider; that the among the entire coalition there won't be anyone to compete in that 150k+ range. But what do you even do with those nations, and what difference do they make? As Kiss Goodbye mentioned, their superior NS doesn't do anything to enhance their aid output potential, which becomes limited by slots rather than income very quickly. I doubt EQ will surrender solely because they don't want to have to deal with their largest nations getting attacked by a group of 25 or so super nations down the line. Meanwhile the rest of the DH coaltion that isn't out of reach is quickly getting whittled down to a size that lets EQ exercise its vastly superior numerical advantage.

 

I'm more curious about what people with 10-15k tech and enormous WC's do once they get pinned down at ZI, triple-teamed, and depleted on nukes. They can stay like that for months and months, but their damage output is going to be severely limited compared to when they were at full size.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Prodigal Moon

[Sephiroth]

Eq's upper tier are already losing years worth of building, imagine if they had just spent some of those years building decent amounts of tech.

 

Your side is also losing years worth of building, although all that building up is pointless if its not used for something such as stopping an alliance like Umbrella from building up to being out of everyone's range. Strength is relative, so as long as they are bringing Doom House down as they take that damage, its all worth it. Umbrella is half the NS it was and its Avg NS is down to 66,303 (although I'm not sure if everyone who considers themselves Umbrella is still on the AA). So the war has been successful so far, even if Doom House still has some nations which need to be brought down in size. Also even with a tech advantage, whoever has the infrastructure advantage tends to win ground battles (assuming both sides have similar military boosts). The tech advantage just does so higher damage can be done with each attack, although if one nation is around 1-5k infra and the other is 7-9k, the one with less infra is going to get beat up regardless of how much tech they have.

 

Also the difference in damage from the tech isn't huge.

Here is how much damage someone's cruise missiles does to me who has more than double my tech.

You lost 19 defending tanks, 3.89 technology, and 19.43 infrastructure.

 

Here is what mine do to him.

You lost 12 defending tanks, 2.46 technology, and 12.30 infrastructure.

 

So while there is some difference in damage between two nations with WRC when the tech of one person is more than double that of the other, winning some ground battles more than makes up for the difference. With nukes the damage increase from the tech becomes a little more pronounced, but since someone can only be nuked once a day regardless of how many wars they are in it doesn't make a huge difference. It seems Umbrella and the rest of Doom House are running low on Infra these days.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

You are also missing part of the point about having a huge tech advantage, because a lot of DH's NS is tied to tech, it is much harder to drag those nations down to EQs middle tier than a nation that has most of their ns tied up in infrastructure.  We all know its much easier to destroy infra than it is tech.

 

This is why for example the 3 AI guys I fought last round who had bad to mediocre tech to infra ratios started between 140-115k ns and are all currently sitting around 50k ns, because most of their NS was tied to infra, which we were successfully able to almost completely remove.

[Colin40]

Great thread. Well done!

Lets try to keep the bitching to other threads.

[Sephiroth]

You are also missing part of the point about having a huge tech advantage, because a lot of DH's NS is tied to tech, it is much harder to drag those nations down to EQs middle tier than a nation that has most of their ns tied up in infrastructure.  We all know its much easier to destroy infra than it is tech.

 

This is why for example the 3 AI guys I fought last round who had bad to mediocre tech to infra ratios started between 140-115k ns and are all currently sitting around 50k ns, because most of their NS was tied to infra, which we were successfully able to almost completely remove.

 

I realize with enough tech you can try hovering out of range of most nations, but as more top tier nations on your side get pulled down into range of most fighters, it frees up the top tier nations on our side to focus on whatever nations are still managing to keep their NS high enough to stay out of range of most. I don't know how long you guys will be able to last if for the most part you've given up on winning below 100k NS, as more and more of your nations able to keep their NS up at first slowly fall. Also for those nations with a huge amount of tech when more nations get into range of them they will probably have a huge infra advantage if they don't have around the same tech level.

 

Last round I fought a guy from Umbrella and while he did get one nuke in on me, he had zero infrastructure and zero land by the time our war was done, so all he had left was the remainder of his tech and he still had some money on hand. For someone like him, unless he spends all of his money to rebuild his infrastructure when he comes out of peace mode he will be unable to win any ground battles against others around the same NS range as him. So once someone has been knocked out of the really high tier and get their nation burnt up, there is no way they can try climbing out of range of everybody and as far as continued fighting goes the only way I can imagine him still fighting is just restocking nukes and rebuilding to 1k infra so he can keep building those until his warchest runs out and he has nothing to rebuild with after the war.

 

So for those of you who think you can keep the war out of range of most as your advantage, in the long run the majority of you will end up not being able to keep your NS up and once your NS falls there isn't much anyone on your side can do to help you.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Methrage

[jerdge]

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

To "stay relevant for the future" the side with less high-tech nations, less-teched nations and lower "warchests" will be interested to not allow the side with more high-tech nations, more-teched nations and higher "warchests" to retain their advantage.

It's possible to take bigger nations down one by one (or a few at a time) from below, forcing them to deplete their treasuries, if one side has a large pool of attackers that can rotate and suffer a smaller collective long-term damage. It's possible to prevent the high-tech nations from remaining ahead in the tech race, if one side can force them to use their slots for outgoing aid and/or it can successfully cut their tech supply lines - thus hampering their tech dealing (the more numerous side can at the same time restore an acceptable tech market). If the less top-heavy side has enough nations and time it will eventually necessarily win.
As you hinted, however, the tech-heavy nations may be numerous enough to render the whole affair bloody and long enough that divisions among their enemies can emerge, eventually forcing the situation to reach another kind of end. The less top-heavy side has still anyway an interest in going on as long as they can, to reduce their disadvantage as much as they can.

I don't know what's the morale and/or political unity in either side, but neither of you has the air of breaking up soon. It can be a really long affair before it comes to a close.

[Vasily Blyukher]

I swear I'm not leaving this behind, there will be an update tomorrow. I was pulled away from my gaming time due to some real life stuff (hooray paperwork!).

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Methrage are you admitting that you guys only went to war to stop Umbrella from being invincible and not because of some stupid political bs.

 

 

You may win my heart yet.

[Krashnaia]

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.

 

 

The problem here is that DH's policy, as shown repeatedly in the past 3 years, is to squash those alliance's +100k nations anyway, at regular intervals.

 

So, EQ is losing nothing. Better to burn those nations now and drag DH's top down below the 100k mark (were they will be mass-rolled), than just sit around and have those nations destroyed anyway in a few months when DH decides to mount another curbstomp.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

The problem here is that DH's policy, as shown repeatedly in the past 3 years, is to squash those alliance's +100k nations anyway, at regular intervals.

 

So, EQ is losing nothing. Better to burn those nations now and drag DH's top down below the 100k mark (were they will be mass-rolled), than just sit around and have those nations destroyed anyway in a few months when DH decides to mount another curbstomp.

 

If this was true don't you think Q would already be doing this? Then again I'm lucky to be on the compentent side of the war.

[Ardus]

The problem here is that DH's policy, as shown repeatedly in the past 3 years, is to squash those alliance's +100k nations anyway, at regular intervals.

 

So, EQ is losing nothing. Better to burn those nations now and drag DH's top down below the 100k mark (were they will be mass-rolled), than just sit around and have those nations destroyed anyway in a few months when DH decides to mount another curbstomp.

Yeah, but there's the uncomfortable reality of the tripartite world.  It's clear that DH will still have an upper-tier advantage at the end of this war, though it shouldn't be quite as far and away as it was before.  However, looking at the opposition, one half of the coalition arraigned against DH was already a scrap heap and the other half was reasonably well built.  That means one half will pick up a bigger tab than the other.  Keeping the war going for too long risks losses on the part of DR/NPO relative to SF/XX, and I do not believe they like one another enough to take that risk.

 

This isn't an absolute shield for DH, of course--the war is already here.  But eventually DR/NPO will hit the point where further losses relative outweigh the value of further damage to Doom & Company.  That is the moment the war will/should end.  A significant portion of DoomCo. is made up of alliances that NPO actually likes and would rather count as allies; that fact moves the endpoint to "sooner" rather than "later."

 

Finally, there's the unsettled matter of the "swimsuit competition", which definitely favors DoomCo.

[Daimos]

Sure DH can come out still having an upper tier advantage after this war but will that equate continued DH dominance of CN’s political landscape?  No.

 

Will we see DH pulling another Dave war? No. 

 

Will Umbrella act in a similar fashion to alliances such as Anarchy Inc that led to this war?  No.

 

DH will have to play on equal footing.

 

That in itself is Equilibrium on CN.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Lol what?

 

"DH WILL STILL HAVE AN ADVANTAGE BUT THEY WILL BE EQUAL"

 

You seriously don't think we're already making plans for post war building/strength/etc?

[Saladjoe]

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

Yeah nukes that do 1K infra damage are pretty lame, that's why we're trying to destroy our precious pixels so we can fight glorious 20K nations like yours.

[HHAYD]

Sometimes, I get this urge to attempt to program a CN war simulator. Throw in the "nations" with slightly randomized stats with standard deviation (Statistics class really helps), allow them to randomly pick targets then run the simulator repeatedly. It would probably settle the argument of infra vs. tech somewhat, but then it would probably turn into a debate over how accurate the simulator is...

 

EDIT: Anyone remember the Jarheads War? An extreme example, but if that alliance of zerglings had some coordination, it would've been interesting to see how it turned out.

Edited February 7, 2013 by HHAYD

[Krashnaia]

Yeah, but there's the uncomfortable reality of the tripartite world.  It's clear that DH will still have an upper-tier advantage at the end of this war, though it shouldn't be quite as far and away as it was before.  However, looking at the opposition, one half of the coalition arraigned against DH was already a scrap heap and the other half was reasonably well built.  That means one half will pick up a bigger tab than the other.  Keeping the war going for too long risks losses on the part of DR/NPO relative to SF/XX, and I do not believe they like one another enough to take that risk.

 

This isn't an absolute shield for DH, of course--the war is already here.  But eventually DR/NPO will hit the point where further losses relative outweigh the value of further damage to Doom & Company.  That is the moment the war will/should end.  A significant portion of DoomCo. is made up of alliances that NPO actually likes and would rather count as allies; that fact moves the endpoint to "sooner" rather than "later."

 

Finally, there's the unsettled matter of the "swimsuit competition", which definitely favors DoomCo.

 

That looks like a sound logic. The problem is that I don't remember to have read you using it when the suicide charge was aimed to bring down Hegemony back in Karma. Or when your block needed SF/XX to bring down TOP/DR. Or when you joined forces with NPO, DR and the like to smack down SF/XX. So, as long as it's your bloc and any of the other two blocs taking on the third, it's all logical to you. But when it's both the other blocs takin on yours, then you shuddently don't uderstand them at all. Uh?

 

If you really want to understand the actions of your enemies, you should begin with thinking from their point of view and from their interests, not yours. DR has been rolled by you lot before. SF/XX has been rolled by your lot before. NPO has been rolled by your lot before, the last time just because they where rebuilding too fast. Dire peace terms, be it in harsh reps or forced warfare, had been imposed with the clear objective of weakening their high tiers and slowing their reconstruction.

 

The trend is clear. What would come next? another curbstomp against SF/XX with absolute no CB? or another strike at NPO/DR just to keep their numbers under check? You say that SF/XX was scrapped and DR/NPO looked well-built. Given your past actions, the most reasonable prediction was another roll on NPO/DR. But it doesn't matter who would you attack first, because sooner or later both would be attacked and rolled, again. So, both blocs have joined forces to take down the bloc that has proven to be the main threat to their existence: Yours. You can't pretend to be able to go on playing the same trick, time and time again, forever. It's not so difficult to understand.

 

Anyway, I understand your point of view, and why you are defending it. In order to win this war, it's in the interests of your bloc to attemp to break the Equilibrium coalition. And, due to NPO's ties to some of your allies, you perceive them as the weaker echelon of the chain. Hence all the campaing in the forums targettied at spreading paranoia between NPO and the rest of Equilibrium. The main problem here is that actions speak louder than words, and DH's past actions are loud enough. If NPO bails out of this war, your side will roll them in the next, as they have proven to be a threat to your hegemony, and you are not the kind of people that let threats exist. They allied with your enemies and declared war on you. Your bloc destroyed SF/XX for less than that.

 

You can try to sweet-talk them all you want, but we all know what would happen in a few months.

 

In conclusion, leaving "moralism" aside (I leave that to the professionals - like our beloved Schattenmann), and under your own bloc "realpolitik" logic, NPO has four good reasons to keep the war against you:

 

1) Revenge from Karma

2) Revenge from DH-NPO war

3) Power grabbing

4) Just plain long-term survival

 

Any of the four is a perfectly valid reason to keep doing what they are doing. And they shouldn't worry about the next war, because your bloc has all the numbers to be the next target again.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Krashnaia

[shelrich]

Lots of NPO babble.

 

1) Revenge from Karma

2) Revenge from DH-NPO war

3) Power grabbing

4) Just plain long-term survival

 

That does explain the motivations of one alliance pretty well.

[HHAYD]

EDIT: Never mind

Edited February 8, 2013 by HHAYD