Jump to content

Upper Tier Tracking Thread


OverlordShinnra

Recommended Posts

Nobody wants that, but I think both coalitions are prepared for it. Maybe you're underestimating how upset people are with DH.

 

That's true, you can rebuild the low tiers quickly with aid, but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that we can't rebuild our upper tier, or that you're going to "secure your upper tier safety for 3+ years". From my current NS, I could probably rebuy up to 12K infra and 8K tech twice over. There are nations on both sides of the fence with better wc's than me.

 

To address your last statement, eventually, you'll want to bow out for the sake of your allies, simply put. You can stay in the war, but you may not have any allies worth anything once the war's over. Or, worse, they'll want to roll you as much as everyone else for dragging them through the dirt. I should be explicit that my desire to roll you again in 6 months is my own, and not reflections of Sparta's or the coalitions intentions. We can all dream, can't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So; in other words, unless EQ and its members agrees to a longer-term Armistice with CC, nothing is going to change for either party.

 

Have a 8-month NAP written into a WP treaty and you might just be able to end the war. How hard is that?

 

And seriously; expecting DH to bow out for its allies? Either A: They are as "bad" as you purport them to be and they don't care, B: their allies are happy enough to take hits all day until 100k nations start clearing everything EQ has above 80k or C: they do the same by redirecting their force onto the smallest members of the opposing bloc. None of these outcomes will resolve the conflict; only for both sides to decide they want to negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

That's true, you can rebuild the low tiers quickly with aid, but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that we can't rebuild our upper tier, or that you're going to "secure your upper tier safety for 3+ years". From my current NS, I could probably rebuy up to 12K infra and 8K tech twice over. There are nations on both sides of the fence with better wc's than me.

 

...

 

Soooo... how exactly do you propose being able to touch the DH/CnG upper tier in the next 3 years?  Seriously.  With what alliances?  With what nations?

 

You guys had a fair shot at contesting the upper tier when this conflict kicked off - you had the manpower, and you had a handful of high-tech nations that could go blow-to-blow with the best.  Yet despite this, every single upper-tier nation in your entire coalition got melted, and sustained years (plural) of tech damage.  

 

Far from contesting the upper tier, the high-tier tech gap increased.  Short of a treaty/bloc shakeup, 3 years might be generous.

 

That's an interesting statistic. I saw you fought tronix. I'm not worried though. CnG and smaller members in your alliance will be ground to a pulp, while the 100 members of your coalition's upper tier are "securing your own safety".

 

I've been popping into the OWF every couple of weeks, and this number continues to grow and grow.

 

Originally, it was 4-5 "super-tier nations" that EQ had no plan to deal with.

A few weeks ago, it was 30-50.  

Now according to you, we're pushing 100.  

 

I, for one, am rather content with this pattern.  

Edited by hapapants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been popping into the OWF every couple of weeks, and this number continues to grow and grow.

 

Originally, it was 4-5 "super-tier nations" that EQ had no plan to deal with.

A few weeks ago, it was 30-50.  

Now according to you, we're pushing 100.  

 

I, for one, am rather content with this pattern.  

Great, another gonos nub. Read this very stats thread. There's between 50 and 100 above 100k. I'm not keeping count of the numbers myself. Frankly I don't care about the details. I just find it funny and unsurprising that Umb is talking about saving such few nations at the expense of their entire coalition.

 

Don't worry CnG, Umb will send you rebuilding money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, another gonos nub. Read this very stats thread. There's between 50 and 100 above 100k. I'm not keeping count of the numbers myself. Frankly I don't care about the details. I just find it funny and unsurprising that Umb is talking about saving such few nations at the expense of their entire coalition.

 

Don't worry CnG, Umb will send you rebuilding money!

 

Firstly, let's not stoop to the whole "You're in <xxxx> alliance therefore you're automatically wrong."  I can do a "LOL SPARTY" thing too, but it's pointless and detracts from a fairly interesting thread.  

 

Secondly, I find the bolded passage a very shallow look at the political and military factors of the war.  If me getting beaten down means that 1/3rd of the alliances of CN wil never have an upper-tier in war mode in a military conflict ever again, I'm pretty satisfied with that trade.  

Edited by hapapants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, another gonos nub. Read this very stats thread. There's between 50 and 100 above 100k. I'm not keeping count of the numbers myself. Frankly I don't care about the details. I just find it funny and unsurprising that Umb is talking about saving such few nations at the expense of their entire coalition.

 

Don't worry CnG, Umb will send you rebuilding money!

The fact is though, that that "few nations" being talked about by your coalition in these stats threads does seem to be increasing exponentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody wants that, but I think both coalitions are prepared for it. Maybe you're underestimating how upset people are with DH.

 

That's true, you can rebuild the low tiers quickly with aid, but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that we can't rebuild our upper tier, or that you're going to "secure your upper tier safety for 3+ years". From my current NS, I could probably rebuy up to 12K infra and 8K tech twice over. There are nations on both sides of the fence with better wc's than me.

 

To address your last statement, eventually, you'll want to bow out for the sake of your allies, simply put. You can stay in the war, but you may not have any allies worth anything once the war's over. Or, worse, they'll want to roll you as much as everyone else for dragging them through the dirt. I should be explicit that my desire to roll you again in 6 months is my own, and not reflections of Sparta's or the coalitions intentions. We can all dream, can't we?

 

Are you serious? You literally cannot rebuild your upper tier because tech can only be acquired at a certain rate. Many of your nations would take 1-2 years to rebuy the amount of tech that they lost. I don't understand how none of you seem to realize this is what we have been talking about the whole time. Granted a few of your members have super warchests, but that will only do you so good when you're limited to rebuying 200-300 tech every 10 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This war won't last forever, nobody wants that.  But we still have some fight left in us, and we are making this war as painful for you as possible.  We may lose, but in the meantime we are decimating your upper tiers.  Like I said, we can rebuild our lower and middle tiers a lot easier than you can rebuild your upper tiers.

 

And we have seen enough people on your side wanting to roll us again in a few months, so why in the blue hells would we try to get out of this war while you still have some sort of upper tier?  It doesn't make sense for us to bow out while leaving you in a position to directly threaten us again in a few months, which is what you have stated you plan on doing.

I dont quite fallow.  If you can beat so called upper tier of your opponents now, you can beat it couple of months from now. Your reasoning doesn't add up. Considering heavy rumors of a lot of peace talks going on (I wouldn't actually know), smaller side is more then ready to take their wounds at this point and move forward.

 

On first point, the larger side has not only heavily damaged what was in so called lower tiers of the smaller side at the start of the war, but as well former upper tier nations that dropped there. Quite some, one must note that.

 

Umb isn't untouchable as you were. You are not regaining 400k tech over night, damages you did are spread out over numerous of opponents and huge majority of your nations are getting deeper into the hole by the day. Few so called upper tier victories here and there, is hardly enough to balance what your alliance as a whole is taking. Which is story of also other ex bigger upper tier alliances of the smaller side. Prolonging the war, only works for the larger side, as is clear from the get to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? You literally cannot rebuild your upper tier because tech can only be acquired at a certain rate. Many of your nations would take 1-2 years to rebuy the amount of tech that they lost. I don't understand how none of you seem to realize this is what we have been talking about the whole time. Granted a few of your members have super warchests, but that will only do you so good when you're limited to rebuying 200-300 tech every 10 days.

You don't seem to understand that the declare war button has no relation to the amount of tech you have.

 

Iron didn't beat ramlins because they had more tech than ramlins. They beat ramlins because they could push the declare war button.

 

 

As for warchests, Money has lost all value on bob. If I wanted, I could probably buy 8000 tech and 8K infra and still have some left for war with the money I have on hand. No tech deals required.

Edited by Enamel32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand that the declare war button has no relation to the amount of tech you have.

 

Iron didn't beat ramlins because they had more tech than ramlins. They beat ramlins because they could push the declare war button.

...

 

Yes.  You've been trying this strategy for two months have you not?  How has that ended for you?


If it ended well, this thread wouldn't exist.  

Edited by hapapants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  You've been trying this strategy for two months have you not?  How has that ended for you?


If it ended well, this thread wouldn't exist.  

A thread comparing stats, where today's update was that the mid tier coalition did more damage than the upper tier coalition? I don't see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thread comparing stats, where today's update was that the mid tier coalition did more damage than the upper tier coalition? I don't see your point.

 

Bleh that was a poor way of expressing that the current situation in the high-tier wouldn't exist.  

 

Either way, I don't believe you're dense enough to not understand my point here.  You tried the IRON-Gramlins thing.  It miserably failed and made the situation worse.  So if that doesn't work, how are you going to avoid not peacing out your entire upper-tier in every subsequent war from now on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo... how exactly do you propose being able to touch the DH/CnG upper tier in the next 3 years?  Seriously.  With what alliances?  With what nations?

 

You guys had a fair shot at contesting the upper tier when this conflict kicked off - you had the manpower, and you had a handful of high-tech nations that could go blow-to-blow with the best.  Yet despite this, every single upper-tier nation in your entire coalition got melted, and sustained years (plural) of tech damage. 

Are you being intentionally hyperbolic? The stats a few posts up show:

 

Equilibrium


  120k+ -  26 (0) --> 26 (0)

  100k -   31 (2) --> 30 (2)

  80k -    158 (79) --> 154 (74)

 

True, it seems EQ has decided that DQ has the advantage in the 100k+ range and has decided to avoid fighting up there. But there are still 56 EQ nations in peace mode up there to DQ's 88. I've taken about 4200 tech damage while fighting multiple Top 10 Umb nations, definitely not ~[i]years[/i]~ of damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bleh that was a poor way of expressing that the current situation in the high-tier wouldn't exist.  

 

Either way, I don't believe you're dense enough to not understand my point here.  You tried the IRON-Gramlins thing.  It miserably failed and made the situation worse.  So if that doesn't work, how are you going to avoid not peacing out your entire upper-tier in every subsequent war from now on?

The iron gramlins "thing" lasted months. We've only been at war a month and a half. Nothing has failed miserably.

 

Go home gonos nub :facepalm:

Edited by Enamel32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand that the declare war button has no relation to the amount of tech you have.

 

Iron didn't beat ramlins because they had more tech than ramlins. They beat ramlins because they could push the declare war button.

 

Iron beat Grämlins because Old Guard and Zenith stepped in and gave Iron the breathing room to regroup. As far as rebuilding from loosing a ton of tech, some of us are still recovering from even that long ago. A lot of tech heavy top tier nukes were dropped on that front.

Edited by EEjack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? You literally cannot rebuild your upper tier because tech can only be acquired at a certain rate. Many of your nations would take 1-2 years to rebuy the amount of tech that they lost. I don't understand how none of you seem to realize this is what we have been talking about the whole time. Granted a few of your members have super warchests, but that will only do you so good when you're limited to rebuying 200-300 tech every 10 days.

Nations from the bigger side which were knocked out from the perceived upper tier, did not found themselves in new losing wars after that.

 

Unlike nations from the smaller side, which when knocked out of the upper tier, found themselves in a constant losing situation.

 

Previous upper tier nations from the bigger side are in a far shallower hole, then their counterparts on the smaller side. Difference growing larger by the day. Hence, why it is favorable for the larger side to continue the war as long as possible. Smaller sides numerous ex upper tier nations will not bounce back as quickly, and thusly, why this war served its purpose for the larger side.

 

Obvious fact, not mentioned for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went ahead and tallied up my wars (had to interpolate a bit since a few were deleted/not registered) and I've done a collective 425k NS damage to my opponents.  That's more than certain entire AA's out there.  Just because I finished my task before the "shark tank (lol)" could kill my AA-mates doesn't mean I've not done some heavy lifting.  Quite the contrary sir, we've actually statistically eliminated the entire enemy super tier, and most of its remaining upper tier, thereby securing our own security for the next, I dunno, 3 years?

...thereby securing your own irrelevance for the next few years, you mean? If your "super" nations are big beyond the opponent's reach, then their nations are perfectly safe from you as well. One could speculate that over the next few wars, your opponents could treat those "super" nations like they don't exist...relegate them to a few piddlin' aid slots. Sure, maybe'd they have to leave a few of their own top end nations in PM, but if the next war conducts itself 80k and down...well, yeah.

 

Soooo... how exactly do you propose being able to touch the DH/CnG upper tier in the next 3 years?  Seriously.  With what alliances?  With what nations?

 

You guys had a fair shot at contesting the upper tier when this conflict kicked off - you had the manpower, and you had a handful of high-tech nations that could go blow-to-blow with the best.  Yet despite this, every single upper-tier nation in your entire coalition got melted, and sustained years (plural) of tech damage.  

 

Far from contesting the upper tier, the high-tier tech gap increased.  Short of a treaty/bloc shakeup, 3 years might be generous.

 

 

I've been popping into the OWF every couple of weeks, and this number continues to grow and grow.

 

Originally, it was 4-5 "super-tier nations" that EQ had no plan to deal with.

A few weeks ago, it was 30-50.  

Now according to you, we're pushing 100.  

 

I, for one, am rather content with this pattern.  

You realize there's no value in EQ/etc. intentionally pushing their NS up to where they can look pretty on a chart and get blown up by "super" nations, right? This thread is essentially a trap in that respect. Why would anyone rebuild past what's necessary to reach targets? Because a number on this thread's gotten low? Pfft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Vhalen, how bleak has your outlook gotten, that you just assume that your coalition will never again have a nation in the top 270?  I for one, can live with that assumption, but let's be real, EQ wanted to take down everyone, then they wanted to take down most, then a majority, and now you are just conceding that as long as you stay UNDER a certain NS you will be "untouchable" ??  This is a really dumb way to foster growth on an AA, or encourage big hitters to join you and give protection when Timmeh comes to collect his monthly land donation.

 

If you want to take that mindset, I'm cool with it, but at some point somebody will want to start infra-whoring again and maybe do some tech deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems most of you don't realize that people lose less and less tech and infra as they go down. 

Well they have less and less to lose, regardless, those nations on the smaller side keep on losing. That is a constant.

 

Those of them which are ex upper tier nations (this thread being about them), aint returning up there anytime soon. Hole getting deeper, by the day. Damages they do, are being spread out among far more numerous lower tiers nations of opponents, lower tiers, being more cheaply and easily rebuild. Their pre war counterparts on the opposite side, not sharing their fate.

 

Considering smaller side has huge majority of their nations in this predicament (being ex upper tier or not), we again return to the fact that longer war is more favorable for the bigger side.

Edited by Branimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...