I have a question about EQ

[Enamel32]

You do realize MHA + Sparta comprised probably one current CnG and that the alliances aligned against CnG recruit far more than those who hit XX that war?

 

Try harder.

Oh Lawdy, you're not actually going to play that game are you?

 

You do realize that Sparta/MHA/RnR/Fark/SF and everyone else currently going against CnG, just got raped in not just one, but two conflicts over the last year, don't you? CnG is fighting alliances of similiar NS. XX/SF/Polar definitely did not get that luxury having to fight MJ/DR/PF/DH/NPOsphere/CnG

Edited March 20, 2013 by Enamel32

[Neo Uruk]

Oh Lawdy, you're not actually going to play that game are you?

 

You do realize that Sparta/MHA/RnR/Fark/SF and everyone else currently going against CnG, just got raped in not just one, but two conflicts over the last year, don't you? CnG is fighting alliances of similiar NS. XX/SF definitely did not get that luxury having to fight DR/PF/DH/NPOsphere/CnG

Are you being serious? You're claiming the upper tiers don't matter to the outcome of a war, but are now claiming that your alliances get a pass because of the tier differences. Not to mention Sparta and a few other alliances weren't touched in the last two wars because of the "peace mode everything" strategy.

[Enamel32]

Christ that's an awful post. I'm not even responding to that. Someone else can respond if they can garner enough damn to give.

[Rush Sykes]

Actually, in TOP's pre-empt Sparta had to fight at least 10 alliances.

That's likely more or not far off from the CnG front. Certainly a greater disparity in terms of NS on each side.

 

The defintion of "fight" is what is left up to the history writers.

[Neo Uruk]

Christ that's an awful post. I'm not even responding to that. Someone else can respond if they can garner enough damn to give.

It's ok, you can be wrong sometimes.

[Great Lord Moth]

It's ok, you can be wrong sometimes.

 

Come on, you can do better than that. He thinks your post is awful because you misrepresented his argument to an extreme degree. He said nothing about the upper tiers. He said nothing about  tier differences entirely. Sparta is only one alliance of the bloc he mentioned that includes it. Your entire post serves only to distract, so Enamel chose not to acknowledge it. I, on the other hand, love demolishing logical fallacies. >.> <.<

 

As for the question, no idea. Maybe the treaty web. Maybe some people in EQ simply want revenge over some people in not-EQ for some past grievance. I haven't been paying attention, myself. ;>.> Peace mode is awesome like that.

[Neo Uruk]

Come on, you can do better than that. He thinks your post is awful because you misrepresented his argument to an extreme degree. He said nothing about the upper tiers. He said nothing about  tier differences entirely. Sparta is only one alliance of the bloc he mentioned that includes it. Your entire post serves only to distract, so Enamel chose not to acknowledge it. I, on the other hand, love demolishing logical fallacies. >.> <.<

He actually said that their weakness due to being "raped" the past year, which implies a lack of upper tier nations ie tier differential, is why CnG's disadvantage is not worse than Sparta's.

[Dochartaigh]

He actually said that their weakness due to being "raped" the past year, which implies a lack of upper tier nations ie tier differential, is why CnG's disadvantage is not worse than Sparta's.

 

Actually it implies having been beaten down to a large extent. This does not simply equate to "upper tier" but also to tech differences, WC differences, as well as tier differentials. So, the implications was much more involved than the simplicity to which you made it out to be.

[Omniscient1]

 
The initial DOW on C&G included 22 alliances.  Of those 22, MHA and Sparta were included.  In terms of NS, in terms of amount of nations, and terms of number of alliances this dogpile on C&G is far more than anything XX has faced.

So all 26ish alliances vs NG, ODN, INT, Hooligans, Gato, and whatever other small GATO allies engaged in the front; is a greater disparity than the coalition hitting Sparta in grudge? I mean, I'm not calling you a liar, but it's certainly difficult to believe.

Rushy-poo, since you enjoy this, run the numbers please. Edited March 20, 2013 by Omniscient1

[Neo Uruk]

Actually it implies having been beaten down to a large extent. This does not simply equate to "upper tier" but also to tech differences, WC differences, as well as tier differentials. So, the implications was much more involved than the simplicity to which you made it out to be.

Warchest has nothing to do with sheer numbers.

[Dochartaigh]

Warchest has nothing to do with sheer numbers.

 

...Really? Seriously?

[Master Hakai]

This discussion, along with all others of its kind, is accomplishing an awful lot. I am simply pointing this out.

[Vhalen]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115540-omg-gato-please-come-out-of-peace-mode/?p=3101804

 

 

 

there you go. 

 

Never in any global war prior to this one, has the smaller side done more damage to the larger side.

I attribute this descrepancy largely to the DBDC AA, and before you go all, "Well, of course, they're upper tier nations, they do a lot of damage," what I mean is, it's because their roguing strategy allows them to ignore traditional war declarations and boundaries. By virtue of deserting their normal alliance and joining a new one (as DBDC has officially declared itself,) and mind you, an alliance with zero treaty ties to any at-war alliance, and a pretty piss-poor war declaration that can read however one wants it to, they allow themselves a ton of flexibility that hasn't existed in previous global wars. Essentially, they've chosen to abandon the "alliance/DoW" paradigm more or less entirely. (On a side note, it should be interesting to see how this is reflected in peace talks. One would think there'd be an interest in discouraging this sort of behavior in the future. I can think of a few things I'd suggest...so it's probably for the best that I'm not involved in peace talks.)

 

its funny that you facepalm over score. The score is calculated the same for every alliance. Using the same formula. It is singularly the most fair way to deduce damage. Its even more laughable that you choose to use % of NS lost as the measuring stick. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of math. If I have 100 oranges and I eat 30, I have lost 30% of my oranges. If I have 200 oranges and I lost 50, I have lost 25% of my oranges. A lower % but more overall loss. It is , in fact, statistically, the worst way to measure damage. It would only be an accurate way if every alliance and every coalition was the same size. You should be facepalming, but it should be at yourself for what you insinuate. You can present it any way you want. Raw NS lost. Score lost... in all measurables we are reaming your coalition. We are doing something that no other losing side has EVER done. As for score being a function of the number of nations in the game, it is completely irrelevant, because EVERY alliance scores is measured against that same variable, hence it is not variable from alliance to alliance. Since the # of nations in the game is the same for EVERYONE. The only variable is alliance strength. Therefore the fact that one side has taken more score damage than another side ....100% means that that side has taken more raw damage than the other side. Same as in past wars. You should re-take Algebra 1, maybe  you would gain an understanding of what variables are.

I can't speak for every front, but there's been a ton of infra buybacks (and tech buybacks, for that matter) over in this neck of the woods. Pretty sure destroying 10k infra twice only counts as lost score once. ;)

 

Furthermore, I see regular Umb arguments that EQ's side is all infra and no tech. If that's true, and infra evaporates so fast, %NS lost should be enormously in their favor, instead of 51% to 33% the other way.

[Saladjoe]

So a friend and I were talking, and we were wondering how does a coalition that considers itself sovereign and the defeaters of evil still go to war against alliances that it has no cause to do so? Granted, there are alliances and blocs out there that have a right to declare on an alliance through defense of allies, but the EQ seems to be ridden with alliances that have no reason to fight other alliances.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the EQ is bad at war and has to use numbers to make up for their infra-hugging tendencies.

 

Just curious, you know?

Didn't read any of the topic, just posting to say that is one god awful ugly avatar you've got there. THWg.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Perhaps this AA hopping would end if EQ abandoned its ridiculous Musketeer Doctrine. Both have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on alliance politics and should be firmly kept from becoming the norm.

Edited March 20, 2013 by revolutionary rebel

[Ogaden]

Perhaps this AA hopping would end if EQ abandoned its ridiculous Musketeer Doctrine. Both have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on alliance politics and should be firmly kept from becoming the norm.

 

The latter is a response to the former, and the abuse of the former has merely reinforced the wisdom of the latter.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

The latter is a response to the former, and the abuse of the former has merely reinforced the wisdom of the latter.

Which came first? I am sure both Coalitions will provide a different answer.

I think that you will find such policies to be counter-productive in the long term. Unless EQ has a clear and swift victory (It hasn't) and is able to thus dictate the norm, your Coalition will be kept at war by that doctrine indefinitely. One day, blanket declarations of that nature will be used against EQ's weaker members, who - being more numerous and lacking in depth, will suffer for it. It is a tool for monopolising power and establishing or preserving hegemony, nothing more. Edited March 20, 2013 by revolutionary rebel

[Ogaden]

Which came first? I am sure both Coalitions will provide a different answer.

I think that you will find such policies to be counter-productive in the long term. Unless EQ has a clear and swift victory (It hasn't) and is able to thus dictate the norm, your Coalition will be kept at war by that doctrine indefinitely. One day, blanket declarations of that nature will be used against EQ's weaker members, who - being more numerous and lacking in depth, will suffer for it. It is a tool for monopolising power and establishing or preserving hegemony, nothing more.

 

Look we didn't even pioneer this, this was first used against us by Umbrella in the Grudge AND Dave wars.  The cat isn't just out of the bag, it's frolicking in a grassy paddock.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Look we didn't even pioneer this, this was first used against us by Umbrella in the Grudge AND Dave wars.  The cat isn't just out of the bag, it's frolicking in a grassy paddock.

I sadly, was away from Bob during those wars, so I missed the opportunity to witness either event. I'll have to take your word for it, until I hear otherwise.

Going back to your earlier comment though, if the 'Musketeer Doctrine' is a punitive measure against enemy Alliances that AA-hop, why is is being brought to bear against Alliances that do not engage in such tactics? Does that not validate criticism of the Doctrine?

Treaties should not be thrown out the window during wartime, or twisted for the sake of tactical convenience. Given my misgivings both ways, I see no arguments to support DH or the instigating parties within EQ versus one another.

[Omniscient1]

I sadly, was away from Bob during those wars, so I missed the opportunity to witness either event. I'll have to take your word for it, until I hear otherwise.

Going back to your earlier comment though, if the 'Musketeer Doctrine' is a punitive measure against enemy Alliances that AA-hop, why is is being brought to bear against Alliances that do not engage in such tactics? Does that not validate criticism of the Doctrine?

Treaties should not be thrown out the window during wartime, or twisted for the sake of tactical convenience. Given my misgivings both ways, I see no arguments to support DH or the instigating parties within EQ versus one another.

I don't agree with you or know who you are, but your posts seem well thought out and interesting. So kudos and stuff. That's a rare quality in this place.

[Prodigal Moon]

I sadly, was away from Bob during those wars, so I missed the opportunity to witness either event. I'll have to take your word for it, until I hear otherwise.

Going back to your earlier comment though, if the 'Musketeer Doctrine' is a punitive measure against enemy Alliances that AA-hop, why is is being brought to bear against Alliances that do not engage in such tactics? Does that not validate criticism of the Doctrine?

Treaties should not be thrown out the window during wartime, or twisted for the sake of tactical convenience. Given my misgivings both ways, I see no arguments to support DH or the instigating parties within EQ versus one another.

The way people sign individual treaties all over the place and then chain in onto the side they want, they are already being thrown out the window during wartime. This has been the SOP for as long as I can remember. Finally acknowledging that reality, and building a formal and defined coalition that supercedes individual treaties is a vast improvement.  

[Neo Uruk]

Look we didn't even pioneer this, this was first used against us by Umbrella in the Grudge AND Dave wars.  The cat isn't just out of the bag, it's frolicking in a grassy paddock.

Because one alliance issuing a blanket DoW is equal to a coalition issuing a blanket DoW. You're truly amazing.

 

PS: AA hopping was mostly used by MK's factions - who almost everyone knows about and could read in the DoWs - before your mass copycatting of Umbrella. So no, the latter isn't caused by the former.

[Vhalen]

Perhaps this AA hopping would end if EQ abandoned its ridiculous Musketeer Doctrine. Both have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on alliance politics and should be firmly kept from becoming the norm.

Can't argue with you there. I don't think too highly of either. I think the practices diminish both politics and war, but I won't get into all the reasoning right now, on account of being lazy.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

By virtue of deserting their normal alliance and joining a new one (as DBDC has officially declared itself,) and mind you, an alliance with zero treaty ties to any at-war alliance

 

The bolded statement is incorrect. Umbrella is DBDC's protectorate c.f. DBDC DoE/Treaty/DoW

Edited March 21, 2013 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I don't agree with you or know who you are, but your posts seem well thought out and interesting. So kudos and stuff. That's a rare quality in this place.

Gracias.

That said, thinking before posting in the OWF? Clearly, I'm in the wrong place.