Pillars of Sand

[Tick1]

As I've repeatedly said in that thread, even if Equilibrium suffers losses at an equal rate to "Competence", the mere fact that they have more nations in that 80-60k tier means that those losses mean less to them overall. If you read the OP's statements, he clearly states that Equilibrium's hold over the middle tiers means that Competence nations in the top tier need to continually purchase above that range or get swarmed to death. This is the simple fact of it. You can try and skew the facts however you want, but anybody analysing this in a rational manner on either side knows this.

 

You guys keep saying those losses mean less, every loss you take puts you in that much of a worse position. As has been stated multiple times by your coalition you are made up of multiple faces. Even if you remove us from the equation you may not be in such a good standing yourself when you allies deem you no longer necessary for their cause and you split from your original goal. Your goal was to even out the upper tiers which you may or may not do, however if you do even out our upper tier how much are you sacrificing for the next upcoming war? How much are the other sphere sacrificing in comparison to you?

[Namayan]

As I've repeatedly said in that thread, even if Equilibrium suffers losses at an equal rate to "Competence", the mere fact that they have more nations in that 80-60k tier means that those losses mean less to them overall. If you read the OP's statements, he clearly states that Equilibrium's hold over the middle tiers means that Competence nations in the top tier need to continually purchase above that range or get swarmed to death. This is the simple fact of it. You can try and skew the facts however you want, but anybody analysing this in a rational manner on either side knows this.

 

 

Not really, you did not understand those statistics very well.  On the 100k-80km there was a 247% percentage increase in losses for Equilibrium for that and a 60% percentage decrease  for Competence.  Like I said on that blog, If that patterned continued Equilibrium will be in trouble especially if the pattern would to continue increase in percentage loss for Equilibrium and decrease for Competence, no amount of superiority numbers would hold.  The losses were very different a week ago as stated by the blog poster wherein Equilibrium lost less both in numbers and percentage wise compared to Competence.

 

So, you might have not yet updated your numbers yet as you seem very biased even though the statistics says otherwise.

[berbers]

You have overestimated the advantage you hold by far. Your nations will be stripped of tech and infra, while ours may be bare of infra they will be laden with tech. To claim your CMs and nukes will be of greater effect is either a blatant lie or a misguided assumption. Your numbers are not that mighty, despite what you have been told. A 3:1 advantage does not assure you an easy victory, as you have been told. We have SDIs just like you. We, however, have less soft, doughy nations made of infra instead of tech.

 

Ok, so the fact that we are doing roughly equal damage means we've hurt you way more than you've hurt us, as our damage was on soft infra and your damage was on ultra hard tech that lifts.

[Namayan]

Ok, so the fact that we are doing roughly equal damage means we've hurt you way more than you've hurt us, as our damage was on soft infra and your damage was on ultra hard tech that lifts.

 

Losses are very much different by tiers for this week.  If you based it at around 100k-80k ranges, Equilibrium had around 247% increased losses at that NS range( this already includes GDA and Apparatus at the count) while Competence decreased its losses by 60%(EvU,Hooligans,HB not yet included at the count).

 

With regards, to 80k-60k NS range there is a tie.  This I will agree with you.

 

If the trend of Eq keeps increasing percentage in losses at the 100k-80k continues, the kill zone for Equilibrium seems to be going down tier by tier which was around 100k-80k last week, 80k-60k this week.

[Brehon]

Our kill zone was never 100-80k.  Ever.  People here may have spouted that, but not a single planner looked at 100-80k and went OMG that is where we want all of Umbrella (DH et al), lets make it happen.  I am simply boggled by the sheer about of bad data you all take as the gospel. /boggle.

 

As a side note, I know its fun to make reference to Q with the rhetoric against my side and to call your side Competence (really EQ people you are okay with calling them Competence? /shakes head).  The fact is; if there was that level of competence you would have put a muzzle on Umbrella.  You know and I know it.  You are simply DH.  You predicted your future in your own name and lived up to it.

[Avakael]

Could you provide examples of active (read: fighting) nations with WRCs who are close to 500 tech or less?

[url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=37811]Lamuella[/url] and [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=215873]Jacques Cousteau[/url] are both below 500 tech- I know the latter is still putting up a solid fight, and the former gave me a good round a couple of weeks back. Mind you, neither started with tonnes of tech, so I'm not sure if you're counting them.

 

Also spare a thought for Sardonic, who probably hasn't seen 500 tech in months.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Avakael

[Dcrews]

Their coalition name is Clique.

[The Big Bad]

Our kill zone was never 100-80k.  Ever.  People here may have spouted that, but not a single planner looked at 100-80k and went OMG that is where we want all of Umbrella (DH et al), lets make it happen.  I am simply boggled by the sheer about of bad data you all take as the gospel. /boggle.

 

As a side note, I know its fun to make reference to Q with the rhetoric against my side and to call your side Competence (really EQ people you are okay with calling them Competence? /shakes head).  The fact is; if there was that level of competence you would have put a muzzle on Umbrella.  You know and I know it.  You are simply DH.  You predicted your future in your own name and lived up to it.

 

I think they are called Competence in an ironic manner.  When you leave the propaganda behind everyone knows DH lost this war before the first shot was fired.  I do not blame them for the fantasy they have created where they win with the help of a few active nations in one tier or wizards or whatever deus ex machina they are selling at the moment .  Kaskus did the same thing.  In both cases everyone knew from the start how it was going to end.       

[KenoCore]

We all forget that in the end Money & Determination when wars. The rest are are but pawns in war.

[Neo Uruk]

 
Ok, so the fact that we are doing roughly equal damage means we've hurt you way more than you've hurt us, as our damage was on soft infra and your damage was on ultra hard tech that lifts.

Actually, most of your damage has been in lower ranges. So it is easier, by far, to rebuild the damage that you have done.

 
I think they are called Competence in an ironic manner.  When you leave the propaganda behind everyone knows DH lost this war before the first shot was fired.  I do not blame them for the fantasy they have created where they win with the help of a few active nations in one tier or wizards or whatever deus ex machina they are selling at the moment .  Kaskus did the same thing.  In both cases everyone knew from the start how it was going to end.       

You so know that for us to be losing or to lose you would at one point need to inflict more damage than us. And then you would still need to stop us from rebuilding! With the coalition you have, I can't see that happening. Edited February 23, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Caliph]

Our kill zone was never 100-80k.  Ever.  People here may have spouted that, but not a single planner looked at 100-80k and went OMG that is where we want all of Umbrella (DH et al), lets make it happen.  I am simply boggled by the sheer about of bad data you all take as the gospel. /boggle.

 

As a side note, I know its fun to make reference to Q with the rhetoric against my side and to call your side Competence (really EQ people you are okay with calling them Competence? /shakes head).  The fact is; if there was that level of competence you would have put a muzzle on Umbrella.  You know and I know it.  You are simply DH.  You predicted your future in your own name and lived up to it.

 

I dunno about that, I mean look at the amount of forces arrayed against us.  I'd say that there are enough of you who are either scared of us or respect our ability to fight a war to warrant this dogpile.  

[Geerland]

Hmm. We're (ODN) doing very nicely in the Sub-10k range. Not much sand down here.

[Ardus]

Our kill zone was never 100-80k.  Ever.  People here may have spouted that, but not a single planner looked at 100-80k and went OMG that is where we want all of Umbrella (DH et al), lets make it happen.  I am simply boggled by the sheer about of bad data you all take as the gospel. /boggle.
 
As a side note, I know its fun to make reference to Q with the rhetoric against my side and to call your side Competence (really EQ people you are okay with calling them Competence? /shakes head).  The fact is; if there was that level of competence you would have put a muzzle on Umbrella.  You know and I know it.  You are simply DH.  You predicted your future in your own name and lived up to it.

The House is strong.

[Letum]

You so know that for us to be losing or to lose you would at one point need to inflict more damage than us. And then you would still need to stop us from rebuilding! With the coalition you have, I can't see that happening.

You could inflict double our damage on us and you'd still end up losing. That's the beauty of having three times your "hitpoints". Of course, that would a shitty Pyrrhic victory and not what we're aiming for, but you're going to have to realize that it is physically impossible for you to destroy you're enemy's fighting capacity by sheer force of arms.

There's only two really feasible "good" paths for you. One is to manage to completely clear the topmost tier of any possible threat or updeclarer, and then make sure that any multi-month attempt to deny access to tech-sellers and build up warchests for up-buying is so costly so as to sap the political will of your opponent. The downside of course is that this is a mere "survival" strategy, that also abandons any lower tiers (and any lower tier allies) to defeat. The other, less feasible, is to hope (or try and induce) such a complete split in the world arrayed against you that your opponents see someone else as a primary threat to their interests and have to accordingly alter their priorities. Given how much hate you've managed to engender, that is unlikely.

Again, you should note that any conceivable positive path for you lies in your opponents just giving up, calling it a day and going home. You can spin off propaganda about elitism all you like, but in the end your technical skill matters far less than the respective political wills.

Of course, I will acknowledge the counterpoint that the Doomhouse alliances at least are certainly quite cohesive, and at the same time, not everyone in our coalition has the same motive for war or the same resolve for carrying itout. But before you go too far in thinking your enemy will just fall apart into an aimless horde by their own weight, do keep in mind that the fact that our losses get spread out between so many nations means that they are comparatively tiny. The vast majority of us handled much, much worse for much, much longer whenever we were in a losing war in the past few years (quite often at your hands). All of us survived that intact despite no chance of victory; we certainly aren't going to be so intimidated by the prospect of a much less painful conflict where the worst that can happen is we get knocked down to the mid-ranges.

As for your point about rebuilding, of course we aren't going to be able to stop you. The only thing that could stop you from rebuilding is internal factors. We are all very well aware that any leftover tech and warchests after this war will still render the various upper-tier alliances in the Doomhouse coalition a powerful force in future years. Quite a lot of us (including my alliance) are well aware of the capability of a beaten down group to rise up again and again, given the right resources of will and economy. That isn't really the objective. Rather, the objective is for you to lose the "untouchable" mantle, whereby a world-wide coalition of top-tiers is needed to assemble, and become just another normal set of alliances.

[Tick1]

You could inflict double our damage on us and you'd still end up losing. That's the beauty of having three times your "hitpoints". Of course, that would a shitty Pyrrhic victory and not what we're aiming for, but you're going to have to realize that it is physically impossible for you to destroy you're enemy's fighting capacity by sheer force of arms.

There's only two really feasible "good" paths for you. One is to manage to completely clear the topmost tier of any possible threat or updeclarer, and then make sure that any multi-month attempt to deny access to tech-sellers and build up warchests for up-buying is so costly so as to sap the political will of your opponent. The downside of course is that this is a mere "survival" strategy, that also abandons any lower tiers (and any lower tier allies) to defeat. The other, less feasible, is to hope (or try and induce) such a complete split in the world arrayed against you that your opponents see someone else as a primary threat to their interests and have to accordingly alter their priorities. Given how much hate you've managed to engender, that is unlikely.

Again, you should note that any conceivable positive path for you lies in your opponents just giving up, calling it a day and going home. You can spin off propaganda about elitism all you like, but in the end your technical skill matters far less than the respective political wills.

Of course, I will acknowledge the counterpoint that the Doomhouse alliances at least are certainly quite cohesive, and at the same time, not everyone in our coalition has the same motive for war or the same resolve for carrying itout. But before you go too far in thinking your enemy will just fall apart into an aimless horde by their own weight, do keep in mind that the fact that our losses get spread out between so many nations means that they are comparatively tiny. The vast majority of us handled much, much worse for much, much longer whenever we were in a losing war in the past few years (quite often at your hands). All of us survived that intact despite no chance of victory; we certainly aren't going to be so intimidated by the prospect of a much less painful conflict where the worst that can happen is we get knocked down to the mid-ranges.

As for your point about rebuilding, of course we aren't going to be able to stop you. The only thing that could stop you from rebuilding is internal factors. We are all very well aware that any leftover tech and warchests after this war will still render the various upper-tier alliances in the Doomhouse coalition a powerful force in future years. Quite a lot of us (including my alliance) are well aware of the capability of a beaten down group to rise up again and again, given the right resources of will and economy. That isn't really the objective. Rather, the objective is for you to lose the "untouchable" mantle, whereby a world-wide coalition of top-tiers is needed to assemble, and become just another normal set of alliances.

 

I still don't understand the need to validate whether or not you are winning or losing. Doesn't change that we wont be surrendering until you guys give up or get bored. Anyhow, have fun writing long responses that prove nothing of value. Cheers!

[The Big Bad]

Actually, most of your damage has been in lower ranges. So it is easier, by far, to rebuild the damage that you have done.
You so know that for us to be losing or to lose you would at one point need to inflict more damage than us. And then you would still need to stop us from rebuilding! With the coalition you have, I can't see that happening.

 

You lost the war the second you let it begin.  A great deal of damage has already been given out and great deal more is to come.  Your already taking about rebuilding when the war has a long long road ahead.  Give it a few months I can promise you it gets much much worse.   Your allies can not last.  Your other tiers can not last.  This is the nature of warfare on Planet Bob and nothing can change it.  Wars are won or lost with the politcal game that is played before, once the shooting starts nothing can change the result.  Turining everyone against you was not a good move.  And now the long hard road begins.   

[Tick1]

You lost the war the second you let it begin.  A great deal of damage has already been given out and great deal more is to come.  Your already taking about rebuilding when the war has a long long road ahead.  Give it a few months I can promise you it gets much much worse.   Your allies can not last.  Your other tiers can not last.  This is the nature of warfare on Planet Bob and nothing can change it.  Wars are won or lost with the politcal game that is played before, once the shooting starts nothing can change the result.  Turining everyone against you was not a good move.  And now the long hard road begins.   

 

I don't understand what you are getting at, how do you plan for disasters? Do you wait until after they have finished?

[President S O]

They won't be anarchied unless you hit them and keep them staggered, otherwise 3-6 nations from your mid tier will go down at once. Your side will drown in Competence tech.

Eventually, they'll run out of nukes. Every nation I've fought on your side, when they run out of nukes - gives up. Except Simon.

[Max Power]

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but there are great people on both sides of this war (not only OOC but amazingly IC for many of us as well) so I think the best response is to crack a beer and watch the fireworks happen. Not every month you get to see the two most powerful centres (DR and DH in this case, I suppose?) take each other on like this. Fun war indeed.

 

TBB, you're wrong about the usage of "you're" and "your" in your posts sometimes. Check that autocorrect. :P

[Caliph]

You lost the war the second you let it begin.  A great deal of damage has already been given out and great deal more is to come.  Your already taking about rebuilding when the war has a long long road ahead.  Give it a few months I can promise you it gets much much worse.   Your allies can not last.  Your other tiers can not last.  This is the nature of warfare on Planet Bob and nothing can change it.  Wars are won or lost with the politcal game that is played before, once the shooting starts nothing can change the result.  Turining everyone against you was not a good move.  And now the long hard road begins.   

 

For people who have "lost the war the moment it began" we sure are doing a lot of damage and owning your upper tiers, and in recent times your lower  tiers as well.  

[Mogar]

I still don't understand the need to validate whether or not you are winning or losing. Doesn't change that we wont be surrendering until you guys give up or get bored. Anyhow, have fun writing long responses that prove nothing of value. Cheers!

I still don't understand how you don't seem to get that the coalition against you will not stop until you surrender.

[Illustrious]

I still don't understand how you don't seem to get that the coalition against you will not stop until you surrender.

There comes a point where we just need to agree to disagree and just wait and see what will happen in the next few months. 

[Tick1]

I still don't understand how you don't seem to get that the coalition against you will not stop until you surrender.

 

That's not the reason of my response, you guys are so busy validating who you think is winning when in reality it means nothing at all. It's just that, an analysis which is meant for interpretation. When in reality neither side has any mind set of surrendering at this point in time. If anyone was to surrender/cease fire first I believe it'll be SF/XX, because they have the least at stake here in this war. 

 

Edit: by 'you guys' I do not mean your coalition I mean everyone posting in the threads

Edited February 24, 2013 by Tick1

[Pingu]

TBB, I understand your propaganda point, but this is not the place for that. If it was indeed the case that wars were lost before they began, there wouldn't be any point in them. Wars take over when politics and diplomacy fail. And the critical point about wars is that their outcomes are uncertain. The statistical analyses etc are fun and even useful in calculating odds. But they don't calculate outcomes. It ain't over until Walling sings.

[Charles Stuart]

Could you provide examples of active (read: fighting) nations with WRCs who are close to 500 tech or less?

 

here ya go.

 

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=74161