OMG GATO PLEASE COME OUT OF PEACE MODE!

[Omniscient1]

 

There are some alliances we disliked, sure.  Lots of people kept telling us that we had never been challenged, or fought wars.  Despite us showing evidence to the contrary, they still spout this nonsense.  This war was going to happen sooner or later, at least between DR and DH because DR made the choice months ago to roll DH.  Did DH make a choice to roll DR?  Perhaps, perhaps not, but DH was preparing defensively and DR agressively. 
 
AI wanted a piece of us for a while now.  We're fine with fighting a war.  But nothing unites an alliance more than facing an overwhelming force coming to burn our house down.  Most of us have faced similar odds in a war many years ago where the world rose up against us.  We are much more prepared and united now than we ever were.  The world wants to bring us down to size, then we will make the world tremble.  If we're coming down, we're bringing all of your upper tiers with us.  If we can't have an upper tier, you can't either.

My point was that the last three wars, the loser/defender gave a half hearted "we don't want to fight but we'll make it hurt". DH's response (especially after having NG swing to their side) is more of a "we've been waiting for you". It has nothing to do with hatred, it's more the will to fight. Again, maybe you're secretly scared shitless. But at least both sides this war are actually seeking some sort of victory. Instead of trying to minimize damage long enough to secure peace. (except maybe people like GATO. Which is what the thread is about). Again,this is the best war since bipolar.

[Caliph]

My point was that the last three wars, the loser/defender gave a half hearted "we don't want to fight but we'll make it hurt". DH's response (especially after having NG swing to their side) is more of a "we've been waiting for you". It has nothing to do with hatred, it's more the will to fight. Again, maybe you're secretly scared shitless. But at least both sides this war are actually seeking some sort of victory. Instead of trying to minimize damage long enough to secure peace. (except maybe people like GATO. Which is what the thread is about). Again,this is the best war since bipolar.

 

Well it doens't seem like anyone is hiding their nations in peace mode to avoid fighting the war, but rather to cycle them in and out, which already makes this war a better war than the last few where the losing/smaller side hid nations the whole of the war in peace to avoid fighting.

And of course we've been waiting for you, anyone who didn't see the writing on the wall between DR and DH would have to be blind or inactive.  We knew this eventuality would happen one way or another sooner or later, we're just glad its now so we don't have to keep waiting in suspence. 

[Shimmer]

No one is going to open up their nations into a tier that they have no chance of winning it. It's as simple as that. Anything else is baseless posturing for the most part. One side is avoiding their top tier. The other side is avoiding their bottom tier.

 

 

Everyone is simply maximizing damage output and minimizing damage taken. Both strategies are at work. 

 

That being said, GATO is doing absolutely fine and we don't care much for what the OWF is saying. Our allies are satisfied with our response and overarching strategy to this war. Just because the other coalition isn't can only mean one thing that the strategy is effective or they are simply mad they can't touch us. 

 

This war has also just begun. I'd be rather shocked to see it end before May myself. 

[Rush Sykes]

Ok let's be honest, what I am about to post proves that I both have OCD and nothing better to do on Sunday.

 

 

The illiustrious, sharp-minded Enamel32 quipped earlier in this thread that the smaller side always does more damage than the bigger side. He is using this line in an attempt to downplay the fact that nearly every day of this war, our side has done more damage (score wise) to the other side. In fairness to the illustrious Enamel32, I see this line spouted alot by others as well. I decided to put this theory to the test and visited the ASR thread for the relevant time periods of the preceding 2 globals war... then to the TOP-C&G war. I know I skipped a global war in there for purposes of these statistics, but I just didnt feel like doing it. The previous 2 are used to establish a trend. The TOP-C&G war was used as it is probably the one global war that most closely compares to this. So, now to test the notion that the smaller side always does more damage than the larger side. 

 

 

 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoiqrwhcMH0IdFdGNGlJNG5qY3h1ZHpYR19HQUNvN3c#gid=0

 

This spreadsheet chronicles the damage done by score by each coalition by day. Taken solely from the Continuing Alliances line of each war report in the ASR thread (thank you Gopher and Almighty Hero for these).

 

 

A couple of things come to light VERY quickly. In these global conflicts, the smaller side has never... EVER ... done more damage to the larger side. Not once. Ever. This anomaly may sometimes happen in alliance vs alliance skirmishes, but never on a global scale. Often times in alliance skirmishes this happens because in many cases the larger alliance does not have the manpower to 3v1 every nation in the smaller alliance... most of those end up being 1v1s and 2v1s unless you bring in an ally. In a 1v1, tenacity is the difference. The more active person will almost always outdamage the less active person. In that skirmish scenario it is easy to see why the smaller side can in fact inflict more damage. This, however, is the exception, not the rule. In globally expansive conflicts, it has never happened.

 

This war, thus far, flies 100% in the face of conventional wisdom. The only war that even compares remotely is TOP-C&G. On a day by day breakdown TOP and friends outdamaged C&G friends 28 days out of 52 days. Yet overall TOP lost more score than C&G and friends. Thus far, in this war , the "presumptive" losing side (and the clearly smaller side)... has outdamaged the other side in terms of score by  16%. Day by day, the "presumptive" losing side has outdamaged the other side 25 out of 37 times. All things being equal.... the participants being the same, only sides being shuffled, what is the explanation for this? The opinion of a GREAT many people (on BOTH sides)... is that while Eq probably has the numbers to scratch out an eventual win, they are doing so with seriously useless alliances tugging at their coattails who are totally incapable of carrying their own weight. yet hiding their incompetence behind rhetoric like "the smaller side always does more damage than the larger side."

 

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. If DR goes on to win this, I hope they have GINORMOUS back muscles , because their biggest problem going forward, is they have alot of dead weight to carry on their backs.

 

 

[Master Holton]

Ok let's be honest, what I am about to post proves that I both have OCD and nothing better to do on Sunday.

 

 

The illiustrious, sharp-minded Enamel32 quipped earlier in this thread that the smaller side always does more damage than the bigger side. He is using this line in an attempt to downplay the fact that nearly every day of this war, our side has done more damage (score wise) to the other side. In fairness to the illustrious Enamel32, I see this line spouted alot by others as well. I decided to put this theory to the test and visited the ASR thread for the relevant time periods of the preceding 2 globals war... then to the TOP-C&G war. I know I skipped a global war in there for purposes of these statistics, but I just didnt feel like doing it. The previous 2 are used to establish a trend. The TOP-C&G war was used as it is probably the one global war that most closely compares to this. So, now to test the notion that the smaller side always does more damage than the larger side. 

 

 

 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoiqrwhcMH0IdFdGNGlJNG5qY3h1ZHpYR19HQUNvN3c#gid=0

 

This spreadsheet chronicles the damage done by score by each coalition by day. Taken solely from the Continuing Alliances line of each war report in the ASR thread (thank you Gopher and Almighty Hero for these).

 

 

A couple of things come to light VERY quickly. In these global conflicts, the smaller side has never... EVER ... done more damage to the larger side. Not once. Ever. This anomaly may sometimes happen in alliance vs alliance skirmishes, but never on a global scale. Often times in alliance skirmishes this happens because in many cases the larger alliance does not have the manpower to 3v1 every nation in the smaller alliance... most of those end up being 1v1s and 2v1s unless you bring in an ally. In a 1v1, tenacity is the difference. The more active person will almost always outdamage the less active person. In that skirmish scenario it is easy to see why the smaller side can in fact inflict more damage. This, however, is the exception, not the rule. In globally expansive conflicts, it has never happened.

 

This war, thus far, flies 100% in the face of conventional wisdom. The only war that even compares remotely is TOP-C&G. On a day by day breakdown TOP and friends outdamaged C&G friends 28 days out of 52 days. Yet overall TOP lost more score than C&G and friends. Thus far, in this war , the "presumptive" losing side (and the clearly smaller side)... has outdamaged the other side in terms of score by  16%. Day by day, the "presumptive" losing side has outdamaged the other side 25 out of 37 times. All things being equal.... the participants being the same, only sides being shuffled, what is the explanation for this? The opinion of a GREAT many people (on BOTH sides)... is that while Eq probably has the numbers to scratch out an eventual win, they are doing so with seriously useless alliances tugging at their coattails who are totally incapable of carrying their own weight. yet hiding their incompetence behind rhetoric like "the smaller side always does more damage than the larger side."

 

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. If DR goes on to win this, I hope they have GINORMOUS back muscles , because their biggest problem going forward, is they have alot of dead weight to carry on their backs.

 

 

A good post.

[Mogar]

thing is, my nukes and say, o ya baby's are going to do completely different amounts of damage, you have the advantage of upper tier nations so I'm not surprised you're doing more damage with less people.

[magicninja]

thing is, my nukes and say, o ya baby's are going to do completely different amounts of damage, you have the advantage of upper tier nations so I'm not surprised you're doing more damage with less people.

 

You're learning. Now say when some of our big guys fall or probably have to sell down to hit 3 in the middle and hopefully 2 you throw on to stagger...Whose nukes will STILL do more damage? Then you see your dilemma. Throw mid after mid after low at guys with no infra to do little to no real damage only to be zi'd in a week while losing 1k tech or surrender. Either way we'll all have a lot of fun.

[the rebel]

You're learning. Now say when some of our big guys fall or probably have to sell down to hit 3 in the middle and hopefully 2 you throw on to stagger...Whose nukes will STILL do more damage? Then you see your dilemma. Throw mid after mid after low at guys with no infra to do little to no real damage only to be zi'd in a week while losing 1k tech or surrender. Either way we'll all have a lot of fun.

 

You must share the secret of the SDI bypass hack. For all of that is on the presumption that they will always have nukes.

[magicninja]

You must share the secret of the SDI bypass hack. For all of that is on the presumption that they will always have nukes.

 

Even if it was only the first week after the sell down....30 nations x5 means 150 nations burn to a crisp week 1. That's 150 our mids will now have no worry with. No consider our max to sell and burn is around 100 with participation of around half that;s 250 or so nations that burn without us even having to come out of peace. We will come out of peace of course just to add on to the damage and declare down since you won't be able to declare down on us being in anarchy etc...... So its going to be pretty bad for you guys it seems. Even if only for the first few weeks of that push...it'll be a hell of a week. 

[Rush Sykes]

You must share the secret of the SDI bypass hack. For all of that is on the presumption that they will always have nukes.

 

Ask yourself which is more important... more people to maybe push buttons.... or fewer people whom  you KNOW will push buttons... either way, you have HEAVY reliance on alliances that have shown time and time again in the past, that they are unreliable. In short... it REALLY is quality (which our side has always demanded) vs Quantity (that hopes to eek out some quality, but have never really demanded it).

[the rebel]

Even if it was only the first week after the sell down....30 nations x5 means 150 nations burn to a crisp week 1. That's 150 our mids will now have no worry with. No consider our max to sell and burn is around 100 with participation of around half that;s 250 or so nations that burn without us even having to come out of peace. We will come out of peace of course just to add on to the damage and declare down since you won't be able to declare down on us being in anarchy etc...... So its going to be pretty bad for you guys it seems. Even if only for the first few weeks of that push...it'll be a hell of a week. 

 

That's a lot of assumption with propaganda thrown in for good measure, less talking and more walking I say :)

 

Ask yourself which is more important... more people to maybe push buttons.... or fewer people whom  you KNOW will push buttons... either way, you have HEAVY reliance on alliances that have shown time and time again in the past, that they are unreliable. In short... it REALLY is quality (which our side has always demanded) vs Quantity (that hopes to eek out some quality, but have never really demanded it).

 

That doesn't answer my post and is loaded with propaganda with no way to show irrefutable evidence to prove it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by the rebel

[Rush Sykes]

That's a lot of assumption with propaganda thrown in for good measure, less talking and more walking I say :)

 

 

That doesn't answer my post and is loaded with propaganda with no way to show irrefutable evidence to prove it.

 

I fail to see what you want answered in your post, you didnt ask anything. You made a comment about running out of nukes. This is a game, what kind of irrefutable evidence would you like? 

[the rebel]

I fail to see what you want answered in your post, you didnt ask anything. You made a comment about running out of nukes. This is a game, what kind of irrefutable evidence would you like? 

 

Didn't need answering after what magicninja said when he reclarified his tier after tier post to just one week. That's the thing there is no irrefutable evidence to prove it so its just rhetoric.

[Luckao]

His post is a pure piece of propaganda and anyone buying it is a fool. My comprehension is fine.

 

Hey, Miss Marple, your perception skills are broken.  Go back through the thread and let this realisation emphatically dawn upon you.

[D34th]

Too bad for rush that his propaganda thread failed in the 2nd page. Well done Stealthkill.

Rush, you need to try harder. 

 

[kerschbs]

You must share the secret of the SDI bypass hack. For all of that is on the presumption that they will always have nukes.

 

It is pretty simple to re-stock nukes when our enemies keep letting us get to peace mode.

 

I'm sitting at 60k (in the prime range of your meat grinder,) was down to 6 nukes after hurting the poor legion guy who hit me, and had my stagger dropped.

 

Don't worry I'll be back out in a few days fully re-upped to destroy some poor guys with a fraction of my tech.

[Chimaera]

Listen, you.

 

We like it in our closet.  It's safe and sound and doesn't bully us at school for wearing dresses instead of blue jeans.

[scytale]

Listen, you.

 

We like it in our closet.  It's safe and sound and doesn't bully us at school for wearing dresses instead of blue jeans.

What color dress?  Any nice patterns?

[Caliph]

What color dress?  Any nice patterns?

 

I'm sensing its a frilly pink one.

 

Is it a frilly pink one?

[bucovina]

Alright then, if we suck so bad, put your money where your mouth is. Unleash the PM nations we are too inept to handle. If not, shut up and quit trying to win an argument that nobody's buying.

 

It is getting frustrating to repeat myself, but if you haven't read all the post re-read them and keep in mind this: "first eat what you have in your plate before asking for more!"

yawn.  

 

insert hear PM joke  and how terrible CnG is. 

 

wake me when they ready to fight

 

Unfortunately, and i know that even your allies know this, your alliance is one of the most unprepared we fought. So you can just keep sleeping, it wouldn't make any difference.

StealthKill's post is beautiful. 

 

Neo Uruk's comprehension really is that bad. 

 

One thing I will give CnG and co, is that damage should be turning in EQ's favor now that nuke stockpiles should be depleted and so far that doesn't seem to be the case and I don't really have an explanation.  Perhaps with so much of the CnG mid-tier in PM, SF/XX can't really maximize our damage output in that range, or it is being offset by higher losses in the upper tiers.  Or it could be that we are blowing staggers and missing attacks.

 

Well, yes you are blowing staggers and missing attacks. Thank you sir for not trying to lie yourself and posted one true thing.

C&G continuing to ignore the fact that their 20-80(100?)K range is almost completely full of defense slots?

 

Yup. 

 

We are not ignoring anything. Just i remind you that also other ranges are fighting. Try to fill those too and make a competent fight. 

No one is going to open up their nations into a tier that they have no chance of winning it. It's as simple as that. Anything else is baseless posturing for the most part. One side is avoiding their top tier. The other side is avoiding their bottom tier.

 

 

Everyone is simply maximizing damage output and minimizing damage taken. Both strategies are at work. 

 

That being said, GATO is doing absolutely fine and we don't care much for what the OWF is saying. Our allies are satisfied with our response and overarching strategy to this war. Just because the other coalition isn't can only mean one thing that the strategy is effective or they are simply mad they can't touch us. 

 

This war has also just begun. I'd be rather shocked to see it end before May myself. 

It is useless to talk with this people. You throw them numbers and evidence and day shift their talk. GATO has been a formidable ally and friend.

 

That's a lot of assumption with propaganda thrown in for good measure, less talking and more walking I say :)

 

 

That doesn't answer my post and is loaded with propaganda with no way to show irrefutable evidence to prove it.

Re-read the other posts, or better go to the post GREAT SANCTION RACE. Read those numbers, try to understand them, compare them and then the answer and evidence will be revealed.

 

Too bad for rush that his propaganda thread failed in the 2nd page. Well done Stealthkill.

Rush, you need to try harder. 

 

 

Yes it failed when you take statistics and point to others that despite the big numbers of EQ, C&G and friends are doing more damage and that EQ asks for more nations to come out of PM, and they can't even fill the slots of the ones being in war mode.

 

And before another smart person comes and throws some useless words, please explain me the numbers we provided you along this thread.
Explain please why aren't all our defensive slots full and why are we doing more damage, or let's say we are equal. 

Edited February 25, 2013 by bucovina

[D34th]

It is getting frustrating to repeat myself, but if you haven't read all the post re-read them and keep in mind this: "first eat what you have in your plate before asking for more!"

 

Unfortunately, and i know that even your allies know this, your alliance is one of the most unprepared we fought. So you can just keep sleeping, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

Well, yes you are blowing staggers and missing attacks. Thank you sir for not trying to lie yourself and posted one true thing.

 

We are not ignoring anything. Just i remind you that also other ranges are fighting. Try to fill those too and make a competent fight. 

It is useless to talk with this people. You throw them numbers and evidence and day shift their talk. GATO has been a formidable ally and friend.

 

Re-read the other posts, or better go to the post GREAT SANCTION RACE. Read those numbers, try to understand them, compare them and then the answer and evidence will be revealed.

 

 

Yes it failed when you take statistics and point to others that despite the big numbers of EQ, C&G and friends are doing more damage and that EQ asks for more nations to come out of PM, and they can't even fill the slots of the ones being in war mode.

 

And before another smart person comes and throws some useless words, please explain me the numbers we provided you along this thread.
Explain please why aren't all our defensive slots full and why are we doing more damage, or let's say we are equal. 

 

The outnumbered side normally does more damage at the first stages of war(and yes, with the currently size of warchests, the first month can now be considered the first stage of war), since one nation can just eat one nuke per day, but can launch 6. Just another game flaw, nothing to brag about.

 

Also remember that while EQ is taking more damage, said damage is spread among much more nations so probable DH/CnG nations are individually taking more damage than the EQ nations. 

Edited February 25, 2013 by D34th

[Rush Sykes]

The outnumbered side normally does more damage at the first stages of war(and yes, with the currently size of warchests, the first month can now be considered the first stage of war), since one nation can just eat one nuke per day, but can launch 6. Just another game flaw, nothing to brag about.

 

Also remember that while EQ is taking more damage, said damage is spread among much more nations so probable DH/CnG nations are individually taking more damage than the EQ nations. 

 

You are cute D34th. I have already debunked this nonsense that the smaller side always or normally does more damage, and provided hard empirical evidence of such. This is the literally the ONLY war where the smaller side has done done more damage. I suggest you read my post on page 6 before you spout complete and utter nonsense.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Rush Sykes

[D34th]

You are cute D34th. I have already debunked this nonsense that the smaller side always or normally does more damage, and provided hard empirical evidence of such. This is the literally the ONLY war where the smaller side has done done more damage. I suggest you read my post on page 5 before you spout complete and utter nonsense.

 

I hate to repeat myself but: As I said, the small side normally cause more damage int he FIRST STAGES OF WAR, because the game flaw were you can just eat one nuke, but can launch six.

Oh and the fact that you don't even tried to spin the first part of my post is because not even you, the spin master couldn't find an argument against it. I'm glad to see you know when you're defeated. 

[Rush Sykes]

I hate to repeat myself but: As I said, the small side normally cause more damage int he FIRST STAGES OF WAR, because the game flaw were you can just eat one nuke, but can launch six.

Oh and the fact that you don't even tried to spin the first part of my post is because not even you, the spin master couldn't find an argument against it. I'm glad to see you know when you're defeated. 

The smaller side normally causes more damage in the early stages of war? Except they dont. EVER. CLICK MY LINK. You cannot deny the statistical evidence that shows that argument is just absurd. In no war. EVER, in CN  history.... has the smaller side done more damage than the larger side ... in the beginning.... in the middle... at the end. Not once. EVER. Until now.

[Caliph]

The smaller side normally causes more damage in the early stages of war? Except they dont. EVER. CLICK MY LINK. You cannot deny the statistical evidence that shows that argument is just absurd. In no war. EVER, in CN  history.... has the smaller side done more damage than the larger side ... in the beginning.... in the middle... at the end. Not once. EVER. Until now.

 

This man speaks the truth.