Upper Tier Tracking Thread

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I don't think CC is playing for a win here. They're playing for the next war. It is already clear that this war cannot be won outright by either side, so now is the time to start thinking about what happens next. The Upper Tier is what stands between EQ and victory, but they cannot break into it if they keep gradually leaking nations. Conversely, their opposition is in a position where their ability to break down and help out the mid-tier is weakening. They will do what they can to dish out as much damage as possible until the war is over, hoping to bounce back afterwards.

 

Game over boys, I'm willing to call it at this point, but the outcome of the war is still open, depending on who ends it, and how. The true victor will only emerge around a year from now.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

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.

I'd agree with most of what you said, except for the part about their pre-war counterparts not sharing their fate. On our front - maybe it has something to do with a smaller number of nations being involved - we are often seeing the same people DoW'ing on us again and again. The people that used to compose the upper tier of the alliances arrayed against us are now firmly in the 40-70k area, where most of our people have fallen too.

The arrival of fresh forces has changed that to some extent but it is very recent.

 

I was mostly making a point that you can't say: "hey, they had 9k tech, they lost 3k this month, they'll have zero in two months". That's just not how it works.

[Aeternos Astramora]

What people are forgetting is that, since EQ has more nations, they have more potential for tech growth.  Not individually, no, but as a whole.  If we have 3 guys at 10K tech to one of yours at 16K tech, then all three of our guys can reach 13K tech while your guy reaches 19K tech. 

 

I'll take that trade.

[CubaQuerida]

What people are forgetting is that, since EQ has more nations, they have more potential for tech growth.  Not individually, no, but as a whole.  If we have 3 guys at 10K tech to one of yours at 16K tech, then all three of our guys can reach 13K tech while your guy reaches 19K tech. 

 

I'll take that trade.

 

If you have anyone starting at 10k tech (and "not warring all that much like you keep saying") after the game has been around for 5 years, it's pretty clear that tech acquisition is not a huge priority for them.  This is what started the mess to begin with, forget the business of a rogue's war slots or random acts of bullying, it's all about people not building their nations correctly.  Probably the worst possible thing you could do is reward them with a victory speech, convincing them that tech wasn't all that important after all.  Then a year from now, DH nations will be back at strong tech levels and you'll have to convince another 40 alliances to do this again.  We'll be ready.

[Prodigal Moon]

If you have anyone starting at 10k tech (and "not warring all that much like you keep saying") after the game has been around for 5 years, it's pretty clear that tech acquisition is not a huge priority for them.  This is what started the mess to begin with, forget the business of a rogue's war slots or random acts of bullying, it's all about people not building their nations correctly.  Probably the worst possible thing you could do is reward them with a victory speech, convincing them that tech wasn't all that important after all.  Then a year from now, DH nations will be back at strong tech levels and you'll have to convince another 40 alliances to do this again.  We'll be ready.

You realize that's about 97% of the nations out there at this point, right? Even Umb only has 17 nations with over 10k tech on the AA now.

 

These allegedly poor nation builders in EQ were once thought to be invincible too. Then the political landscape changed and some of them got rolled repeatedly and extorted for huge reps.

[CubaQuerida]

Deleted, not bothering to respond to that actually.  This is an upper tier thread and my point stands as made.

Edited March 11, 2013 by CubaQuerida

[Commander shepard]

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!

 

There is less that 50 that are actually "super" nations.

If this war was to continue that number would likely drop further.

[feardaram]

What people are forgetting is that, since EQ has more nations, they have more potential for tech growth.  Not individually, no, but as a whole.  If we have 3 guys at 10K tech to one of yours at 16K tech, then all three of our guys can reach 13K tech while your guy reaches 19K tech. 

 

I'll take that trade.

 

if history is a good indicator then your 10k tech nations will only reach 11k or 12k. there is obviously no great secret to nation building/tech importing, but your side as a whole has never executed it as well as ours. it's probably false to assume you'll all of a sudden be better at it. i don't see how your upper tier is going to be any better off after this than they were before unless you redraw the lines. same with our middle and bottom tiers. 

Edited March 11, 2013 by feardaram

[Caliph]

You realize that's about 97% of the nations out there at this point, right? Even Umb only has 17 nations with over 10k tech on the AA now.

 

These allegedly poor nation builders in EQ were once thought to be invincible too. Then the political landscape changed and some of them got rolled repeatedly and extorted for huge reps.

 

They were never tested.  When we tested them they crumbled or hid in peace mode to avoid the fight alltogether. 

When we are tested, we didn't crumble, we came out swinging.  And we still are swinging. 

[Enamel32]

If you have anyone starting at 10k tech (and "not warring all that much like you keep saying") after the game has been around for 5 years, it's pretty clear that tech acquisition is not a huge priority for them.  This is what started the mess to begin with, forget the business of a rogue's war slots or random acts of bullying, it's all about people not building their nations correctly.  Probably the worst possible thing you could do is reward them with a victory speech, convincing them that tech wasn't all that important after all.  Then a year from now, DH nations will be back at strong tech levels and you'll have to convince another 40 alliances to do this again.  We'll be ready.

Nah that's horse shit see below.

 

You realize that's about 97% of the nations out there at this point, right? Even Umb only has 17 nations with over 10k tech on the AA now.

 

These allegedly poor nation builders in EQ were once thought to be invincible too. Then the political landscape changed and some of them got rolled repeatedly and extorted for huge reps.

Or picked on-how MK and Umb shat on Alexandros O Megas and his alliance, when they werent even involved in Dave war.

 

There is less that 50 that are actually "super" nations.

If this war was to continue that number would likely drop further.

What exactly constitutes a "super" nation. I'm a man of scientific nature. These designations mean little to me!

 

They were never tested.  When we tested them they crumbled or hid in peace mode to avoid the fight alltogether. 

When we are tested, we didn't crumble, we came out swinging.  And we still are swinging. 

Are you kidding me? Umb is perhaps the king of avoiding war.

 

TOP-CnG

Umb: Hey let's roll TOP. They attacked CnG.....OK Sparta....you go first....we'll back you up!

 

TOP-NpO/Dave War

Sparta: Umb, TOP is threating to roll us. We need you to back us up.  (See sig for details)

~a couple short months later~

Umb: BACKUP? WELL, IDK BOUT THIS SPARTA.

Umb: ROQ'S IN UR ALLIANCE? WELL I GUESS THAT MEANS WE'LL HAVE TO CANCEL.
 

Edited March 12, 2013 by Enamel32

[Vhalen]

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.

Hmm? I don't believe I assumed that. I'm not gonna hunt down my post to check my precise words, but basically what I mean is: if (and from you guys' chest-thumping, it sounds like plenty of you are leaning this way) you intend to assert a long-term aggressive control of the upper tier for the forseeable future, then it's silly to stand atop the hill just to provide a better target for snipers. And you act like nobody will be able to build at all. There's wiggle room.

 

In the face of your side's implied policies regarding future upper tier aggression, though, I'd actually suggest (and this is by no means good for Bob, nor the course of action I advocate, but rather, the logical tactical choice in the face of the "cap opponent nation growth" approach) that it'd be in EQ's best interest to continue this war until your side consists of nothing but its handful of "super" nations and the ZI'd wreckage of whoever didn't abandon you or delete. They should grind down mid-tier nations and allies, gun for Doombird tech sellers, etc.

 

And they will abandon/delete. Don't kid yourself. War weariness eventually makes it unfun, and think whatever you want, you guys aren't FAN. (Whereas that same war weariness is significantly less of a concern when much of one's side can sit in war mode and not worry about being declared upon, while cycling in whichever nations feel like a few weeks of war...ask NPO how much war weariness they felt during that, erm, "extended conflict.")

 

(Underlining supplied so people don't miss that bit and run off calling me a madman for all the wrong reasons.)

[Corin]

I think it was an iceburn...

[Caliph]

Nah that's horse shit see below.

 

Or picked on-how MK and Umb shat on Alexandros O Megas and his alliance, when they werent even involved in Dave war.

 

What exactly constitutes a "super" nation. I'm a man of scientific nature. These designations mean little to me!

 

Are you kidding me? Umb is perhaps the king of avoiding war.

 

TOP-CnG

Umb: Hey let's roll TOP. They attacked CnG.....OK Sparta....you go first....we'll back you up!

 

TOP-NpO/Dave War

Sparta: Umb, TOP is threating to roll us. We need you to back us up.  (See sig for details)

~a couple short months later~

Umb: BACKUP? WELL, IDK BOUT THIS SPARTA.

Umb: ROQ'S IN UR ALLIANCE? WELL I GUESS THAT MEANS WE'LL HAVE TO CANCEL.
 

 

You know it didn't go down exactly like that.  

[Enamel32]

You know it didn't go down exactly like that.  

OHHH! OHHH! Enlighten me!

[CubaQuerida]

Hmm? I don't believe I assumed that. I'm not gonna hunt down my post to check my precise words, but basically what I mean is: if (and from you guys' chest-thumping, it sounds like plenty of you are leaning this way) you intend to assert a long-term aggressive control of the upper tier for the forseeable future, then it's silly to stand atop the hill just to provide a better target for snipers. And you act like nobody will be able to build at all. There's wiggle room.

 

In the face of your side's implied policies regarding future upper tier aggression, though, I'd actually suggest (and this is by no means good for Bob, nor the course of action I advocate, but rather, the logical tactical choice in the face of the "cap opponent nation growth" approach) that it'd be in EQ's best interest to continue this war until your side consists of nothing but its handful of "super" nations and the ZI'd wreckage of whoever didn't abandon you or delete. They should grind down mid-tier nations and allies, gun for Doombird tech sellers, etc.

 

And they will abandon/delete. Don't kid yourself. War weariness eventually makes it unfun, and think whatever you want, you guys aren't FAN. (Whereas that same war weariness is significantly less of a concern when much of one's side can sit in war mode and not worry about being declared upon, while cycling in whichever nations feel like a few weeks of war...ask NPO how much war weariness they felt during that, erm, "extended conflict.")

 

(Underlining supplied so people don't miss that bit and run off calling me a madman for all the wrong reasons.)

 

The best you can come up with is "WIGGLE ROOM" lol.  War weariness is hell of course, except pretty much straight across the board, although sustaining losses, our nations are doing more damage than they're taking.  This makes it actually enjoyable to take a 4k tech nuke and dish out a 12k one.  Sometimes you even get people without SDI's.

 

Also Enamel32, just because you can multiquote doesn't mean a point is refuted.  All you essentially said was, "watch this, everyone"...then flamepost.  At least stay on point, referencing random historical jibber jabber has no relevance here.

Edited March 12, 2013 by CubaQuerida

[Banned]

*words* gun for Doombird tech sellers, etc. *more words*

I really don't understand the logic here to be honest.  So essentially you want to allow Doombird to get into a groove with their active sellers, and then perpetually save those super-nations the trouble of having to cycle tech sellers, by keeping their sellers in a selling status more long-term?  While you, in turn what... waste valuable tech buying slots to aid those nations to build them up way past the point that the sellers can actually fight back, thus ensuring that the super-nations will only expand their gap over you?

 

I'm beginning to understand why one side is called "Competence", and the other felt that war was the better way of dealing with tech inequalities while preaching that they have these amazing advantages in terms of economy programs and could easily outbuild the alliances that have clearly outbuilt them.  I'm beginning to understand why with an extreme difference in numbers, this war has managed to stay interesting.

[Vhalen]

The best you can come up with is "WIGGLE ROOM" lol.  War weariness is hell of course, except pretty much straight across the board, although sustaining losses, our nations are doing more damage than they're taking.  This makes it actually enjoyable to take a 4k tech nuke and dish out a 12k one.  Sometimes you even get people without SDI's.

Wow, way to focus on the throwaway line. At any rate, 100+kNS is a lot of "wiggle room," so I probably worded that somewhat poorly. And no, war weariness isn't the same across the board. Take two sides, give one a significant numbers advantage, and see which one notices the war more. The numbers side could easily have people taking a month off, with the other side never able to declare an offensive war. To make it more fun, let's also make it so the outnumbered side's biggest nations are in virtual peace mode, so they feel like they're being pummeled and you're not doing anything. Morale's gonna SOAR over the next six months, right? I DID say I didn't advocate this approach and it'd be bad for Bob, remember.

 

*silly words* keeping their sellers in a selling status *gibberish*

I can delete everything except for the bits and pieces I cherry-picked to respond to in a denigrating fashion, too.

 

I like how in your magical world DB's tech sellers never have to actually HAVE the money, buy the tech, put together an aid offer, or get it accepted. They're all perfect little puppets who sit there and take a beating for somebody else's gain, huh? Sure. There're hundreds of masochistic altruists out there, just dying to get their faces smashed in on a daily basis to no purpose of their own. And they're all so dedicated that they coordinate minute-to-minute on IRC to avoid attacks between accepting cash and delivering tech. Such dedicated punching bags you've found. That fits the human condition to a tee. "Competence" hardly sounds descriptive of your imagined utopia, though. Perhaps "Desperate Obsession" fits better?

 

Seriously, though, there's a reason I specifically said I don't advocate gunning for tech sellers and young nations. It'd be bad for Bob, crippling the incoming population and driving out plenty of the old. You DID catch the part where I said I didn't advocate this and it would be bad for Bob, right? Oh, you didn't? Was that part of the "*words*" you skimmed over while searching for something to put a twist on?

 

Let's be realistic, though. What'll happen instead is the same thing that always happens. This war will eventually fizzle out, politics will shift, nations will wander around, and in 6-12 months somebody'll kick a rock through somebody else's window and we'll all invent new nonsense names to group everyone into so we can insult them without the trouble of actual thought. Also you smell funny.  ;)

[Commander shepard]

What exactly constitutes a "super" nation. I'm a man of scientific nature. These designations mean little to me!

 

Right now I would say >15000 Tech.

[Banned]

I like how in your magical world DB's tech sellers never have to actually HAVE the money, buy the tech, put together an aid offer, or get it accepted. They're all perfect little puppets who sit there and take a beating for somebody else's gain, huh? Sure. There're hundreds of masochistic altruists out there, just dying to get their faces smashed in on a daily basis to no purpose of their own. And they're all so dedicated that they coordinate minute-to-minute on IRC to avoid attacks between accepting cash and delivering tech. Such dedicated punching bags you've found. That fits the human condition to a tee. "Competence" hardly sounds descriptive of your imagined utopia, though. Perhaps "Desperate Obsession" fits better?

Now that doesn't sound like you're towing the coalition line.  Have you forgotten so quickly all the anti-GOONS propaganda that suggest that's exactly what they do for DH?

[Vol Navy]

Now that doesn't sound like you're towing the coalition line.  Have you forgotten so quickly all the anti-GOONS propaganda that suggest that's exactly what they do for DH?

 

It's not propaganda, it's just true. GOONS were an awesome ally for doing that, they chose not to build even a mid-tier to flood tech to UMB/MK. They'd started changing that some, that plus no ROQ had saw UMB's tech importation slow greatly. Also, UMB has taken a lot more damage this war than in past wars. This war also won't see GOONS getting billions in reps that they were able to turn into tech for UMB/MK like several past wars. 

[shahenshah]

They were never tested.  When we tested them they crumbled or hid in peace mode to avoid the fight alltogether. 

When we are tested, we didn't crumble, we came out swinging.  And we still are swinging. 

You didnt come out swinging anything, you got caught and majority never got a chance to cycle in and out after that. Well, apart from you, you have yet to come out and swing. 

[Vhalen]

Now that doesn't sound like you're towing the coalition line.  Have you forgotten so quickly all the anti-GOONS propaganda that suggest that's exactly what they do for DH?

I never claimed to be anyone's spokesman, and I've never seen myself as a mindless drone. I say whatever I want to say.

 

In this instance, though, pretty sure GOONS has said they don't exactly do that anymore, and I doubt they ever saw it as a permanent setup. Besides, I don't think aid drops were under siege the whole time (which, as I've said, is a nasty tactic that hurts everyone in the long run, but one that would work.)

 

Wait a minute, though. Wasn't it you who said EQ would risk giving DB/etc more consistent sellers by that tactic? If they already HAVE those consistent sellers, then what was that whole bit about in the first place? Or are you just talking out both sides of your mouth? ;)

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Nah that's horse shit see below.

 

Or picked on-how MK and Umb shat on Alexandros O Megas and his alliance, when they werent even involved in Dave war.

 

What exactly constitutes a "super" nation. I'm a man of scientific nature. These designations mean little to me!

 

Are you kidding me? Umb is perhaps the king of avoiding war.

 

TOP-CnG

Umb: Hey let's roll TOP. They attacked CnG.....OK Sparta....you go first....we'll back you up!

 

TOP-NpO/Dave War

Sparta: Umb, TOP is threating to roll us. We need you to back us up.  (See sig for details)

~a couple short months later~

Umb: BACKUP? WELL, IDK BOUT THIS SPARTA.

Umb: ROQ'S IN UR ALLIANCE? WELL I GUESS THAT MEANS WE'LL HAVE TO CANCEL.
 

1)Sparta never came "first" on TOP during BiPolar. You came in as poor seconds, mostly to keep us at war, while we obliterated the handful of nations you sent at us. You were also one of the few non-directly involved alliances who demanded war reparations from us. Not exactly a small sum either. For that, you earned our enmity. Not that you really cared at that point, you were all too happy to tell us that we would never have a chance to get them back, etc.

 

2)We didn't threaten Sparta months prior to the TOP-NpO war, at least not more than usual or not more than other alliances on our side did. If you meant that we planned to take a swing at you during an upcoming war, that much is true. You were a blob that needed to be taken down because your alliance had a solid upper tier after dodging many wars. We knew that several months before any war was to take place and maneuvered politically to see it happen. Our efforts mostly failed but, for a reason or another, Umbrella finally decided to stop protecting you. It probably had partly to do with you harboring Roq while Roq was openly threatening Umbrella.

 

You also spent most of that war in peace mode.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[ROMMELHSQ]

OHHH! OHHH! Enlighten me!

My memory is a little fuzzy. But didn't we and Umb have a MDP in effect during Bi-polar?

 

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

[Enamel32]

My memory is a little fuzzy. But didn't we and Umb have a MDP in effect during Bi-polar?

 

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

You know, I don't remember tbh. That was so long ago now. I just remember Sparta and MK coordinating a bit back then. And roq talking about how much effort and planning was required to bring down TOP.

 

EDIT: Yeah, they must have. According to the wiki it looks like they hit fringe alliances, but I mean, If we're trying to argue Umb's ability to hit where it hurts, that's not really helping their cause.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Enamel32