Neo Uruk Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 So what if they are?It shows incompetence on the part of quite a number of alliances in their coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 20k damage to a whole two dozen targets? :v: If NoR's objective was to "wipe out" the top tier of our coalition, the choice of RIA and friends is an odd choice. You're about 2 years late. Not quite, some in your coalition had an upper tier. Not as good a one as other coalitions have had, and have, but enough of one to warrant needing beating down since you have proven your hostile intent to us. This war has seen an overwhelming number of upper tier nations get beat down. I'm sure some have the cash to buy back, and are buying back to try to drag more of us down. Others might have the cash to buy up but not to last in another round of war, and others I know lack the funds to even buy back up to where they were. Wars have destroyed years worth of growth, but in the end we still have an upper tier and your side will not have enough of one to challenge our upper tier directly for some time. So in that sense you have failed to create equilibrium by bringing down our upper tier and putting it into yours, and everyone elses, range. In the sense that some Umbrella nations have been declared on and staggered for the duration of the war and no doubt have lost tech and infra, years, or at least a year, of growth which has shaved off from Umbrella's collective tech, well that is accomplished. It is easier to rebuild the middle and lower tier than the upper tier. Will having an upper tier while you don't win us the war? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it does create an interesting situation where you can't exist above a NS threshold and we get dogpiled on under that threshold. Either way, this war will continue until both sides want to legitimately work out peace terms. Neither side is defeated yet, and judging by this DOW by Polar and the other one by Sparta on GOONS EQ is trying to relieve pressure from those alliances in its coalition who have been taking an absolute pounding this war. Thats to be expected, but it is sad considering how much your side outnumbers us and yet you still need to shift resources around at this late stage of the war. Your pulling out all the stops to try to force surrenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Your pulling out all the stops to try to force surrenders. "You're". Also, we will see about the whole "EQ will not exist above a certain threshold." I know that's the line being fed to your membership, but it ain't true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 "You're". Also, we will see about the whole "EQ will not exist above a certain threshold." I know that's the line being fed to your membership, but it ain't true. Examining the rosters of alliances on your side, you have very few above that threshold in war mode, and those who are in war mode are getting swiftly handled. It may be a line being fed, but that doesn't mean its not true. A quick look at alliance members will show the decrease of your upper tier nations. You still have some because of buy backs and what not, and perhaps you can drag some more of us down but that is not the way it has played out so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 You act as if Umbrella is the only AA capable of rebuying lost infra and tech. Hate to break it to you, but most of that upper tier will be right back where they started, at the conclusion of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckmanero Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 You act as if Umbrella is the only AA capable of rebuying lost infra and tech. Hate to break it to you, but most of that upper tier will be right back where they started, at the conclusion of the war. Some of them without even putting a dent in their warchests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 You act as if Umbrella is the only AA capable of rebuying lost infra and tech. Hate to break it to you, but most of that upper tier will be right back where they started, at the conclusion of the war. I was referring to your side when I mentioned rebuying. Of course both sides can rebuy, but up to a point. Not everyone who has been beaten down can afford to rebuy up to where they were. Not even aid falls can generate the kind of cash quickly to rebuy all the way. Rebuilding fully will take time. Some do have the warchests to rebuy like nothing happened. Most do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) It is easier to rebuild the middle and lower tier than the upper tier. Will having an upper tier while you don't win us the war? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it does create an interesting situation where you can't exist above a NS threshold and we get dogpiled on under that threshold. Either way, this war will continue until both sides want to legitimately work out peace terms. Neither side is defeated yet, and judging by this DOW by Polar and the other one by Sparta on GOONS EQ is trying to relieve pressure from those alliances in its coalition who have been taking an absolute pounding this war. Thats to be expected, but it is sad considering how much your side outnumbers us and yet you still need to shift resources around at this late stage of the war. Your pulling out all the stops to try to force surrenders. I think you're quite good at propaganda, stupid nonsensical logic but I guess that is what makes it good. Edited March 21, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Some of them without even putting a dent in their warchests. Some, but not most, certainly not the majority. And not if patterns continue as they are. Some can afford for a long time. Most cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I think you're quite good at propaganda, stupid nonsensical logic but I guess that is what makes it good. In what way was my assertion that you quoted illogical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Some, but not most, certainly not the majority. And not if patterns continue as they are. Some can afford for a long time. Most cannot. The fact you are missing is that this sentence also applies to the vast majority of your own coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) In what way was my assertion that you quoted illogical? I mean the problem I have it 1) Implying there is a chance of victory for (in)competence despite numerous surrenders already and others being crushed as we speak. 2) Implying GOONS are significant 3) Implying GOONS can pound 4) Saying many alliances on EQ took a pounding and it was to be expected(you may view pounding differently) 5) Implying moving resources is an attempt to force surrenders and not an attempt to simply crush opponents. Edited March 21, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yeah you won. With all 16 active wars. Maybe if you had actually done something I would respect your opinion, but yet again you really didn't do anything but run your mouth constantly and pretend to matter. CoJ's role: updeclare on Umb's upper tier. GOONS's role: peace out everyone over 10k and conduct wars at a level that can be undone with a a few rounds of aid. Glass houses and whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I mean the problem I have it 1) Implying there is a chance of victory for (in)competence despite numerous surrenders already and others being crushed as we speak. 2) Implying GOONS are significant 3) Implying GOONS can pound 4) Saying many alliances on EQ took a pounding and it was to be expected(you may view pounding differently) 5) Implying moving resources is an attempt to force surrenders and not an attempt to simply crush opponents. 1) There is a chance of victory. The war is not over yet and we have utterly decimated your upper tiers. 2) GOONS is a member of DH, and, if one can believe your propoganda, one of the main targets of a beat down. You don't target an insignificant alliance for a beat down. 3) GOONS pounded out NPL so bad Sparta had to come in to save them. Judging by Sparta's war record it might not be too far away to see an MHA and perhaps FARK coming in to save Sparta from the same fate. 4) Alliances in EQ did take a pounding, are taking a pounding, and will take a pounding. 5) You earn surrenders by breaking an enemies will to fight, and/or break their ability to fight. If warchests and morale hold it will be harder to force a surrender, and even harder to force a surrender on an alliance that is pounding out one of your coalition mates so hard they need to bring in help on that front. It is easier to force a surrender on an alliance that is dogpiled on and is being handled. GOONS is not being handled now, rather it was doing the handling. Basically you are wrong on all of your 5 points to the point where I would like to see you in command of EQ coalition forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 The fact you are missing is that this sentence also applies to the vast majority of your own coalition. I am aware it applies to both sides. The difference is I firmly believe our upper tier has the ability to withstand and handle what you can throw at it, and that this war will end with the destruction of your upper tier and inability to have nations above a certain NS threshold during this war. While you may be able to rebuy up after the war and exist with that infra, during war that infra will be shaved off with the quickness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) 2) GOONS is a member of DH, and, if one can believe your propoganda, one of the main targets of a beat down. You don't target an insignificant alliance for a beat down. 3) GOONS pounded out NPL so bad Sparta had to come in to save them. Judging by Sparta's war record it might not be too far away to see an MHA and perhaps FARK coming in to save Sparta from the same fate. 5) You earn surrenders by breaking an enemies will to fight, and/or break their ability to fight. If warchests and morale hold it will be harder to force a surrender, and even harder to force a surrender on an alliance that is pounding out one of your coalition mates so hard they need to bring in help on that front. It is easier to force a surrender on an alliance that is dogpiled on and is being handled. GOONS is not being handled now, rather it was doing the handling. Basically you are wrong on all of your 5 points to the point where I would like to see you in command of EQ coalition forces. I'm going to answer the three points in which you have somewhat of a point. 1) Is GOONS significant in a global war stage? No most of their nations are in a range that will not decide the fate of any war. I would wager they're barely more significant than your war effort so far. 2) This is really 1.1, nobody has enough nations pounded down into nothing like GOONS and now you're saying GOONS is some sort of risk. You're more likely to come out of peace mode than Sparta is to be caused trouble by GOONS 5) I say it is not a force surrender because I do not think any of (in)competence alliances would surrender because they suddenly got more targets. And that's not why resources are been moved. Breaking down opponents is not forcing surrenders, forcing is something more sudden such as a reaction to an event. Edited March 21, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I am aware it applies to both sides. The difference is I firmly believe our upper tier has the ability to withstand and handle what you can throw at it, and that this war will end with the destruction of your upper tier and inability to have nations above a certain NS threshold during this war. While you may be able to rebuy up after the war and exist with that infra, during war that infra will be shaved off with the quickness. Caliph With the last two replies I am going to just have to assume you are rather out of touch with what's actually going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm going to answer the three points in which you have somewhat of a point. 1) Is GOONS significant in a global war stage? No most of their nations are in a range that will not decide the fate of any war. I would wager they're barely more significant than your war effort so far. 2) This is really 1.1, nobody has enough nations pounded down into nothing like GOONS and now you're saying GOONS is some sort of risk. You're more likely to come out of peace mode than Sparta is to be caused trouble by GOONS 5) I say it is not a force surrender because I do not think any of (in)competence alliances would surrender because they suddenly got more targets. And that's not why resources are been moved. Breaking down opponents is not forcing surrenders, forcing is something more sudden such as a reaction to an event. 1) NPL needed the help. NPL was fighting GOONS. Therefore NPL needed help fighting GOONS. NPL has taking an absolute beating this war. Sparta had to come in, just like Polar had to come in here to relieve pressure. 2) Thats not what the facts show and not what the actions of your coalition show. 5) You clearly do not understand strategy then. Its like most of us are playing chess and you're stuck on playing checkers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Caliph With the last two replies I am going to just have to assume you are rather out of touch with what's actually going on. In your own words what would you say is going on that is different from what I have said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) 1) NPL needed the help. NPL was fighting GOONS. Therefore NPL needed help fighting GOONS. NPL has taking an absolute beating this war. Sparta had to come in, just like Polar had to come in here to relieve pressure. 2) Thats not what the facts show and not what the actions of your coalition show. 5) You clearly do not understand strategy then. Its like most of us are playing chess and you're stuck on playing checkers here. I like how you seem to think you know NPL. The only help we have asked for is that we have asked GOONs to come out of PM so we can fight them. I personally have posted my link for GOONS, for I have not had a defensive slot used all war. The guy who I just finished fighting, Mighty Funktopus, had a whopping $3 dollars and never once ran an offensive GA, the other guy, Ajaxify, let me nuke him on day 19 of his back collect. I love how the so-called Competence Coalition has the audacity to badmouth my alliance. Le Sigh. Edit: And to stay on topic, I hope NpO has as much fun as RIA seems to be having with the dropping of nukes. Edited March 21, 2013 by smurthwaite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 In your own words what would you say is going on that is different from what I have said? NPL have taken a beating, as have we, but our opponents have all taken a much worse beating, even including NoR who have been virtually ignored by the coalition at our request. Positing that GOONS are somehow in an excellent position while simultaneously trying to argue that NPL is not requires a special kind of doublethink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Smurthwaite hands Ogaden a taco. Here! Here! A toast to double-standard logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 1) There is a chance of victory. The war is not over yet and we have utterly decimated your upper tiers. Says the guy hiding in peace mode since the beginning of the war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Is bandnerd getting nuked yet? If no then WHY NOT??!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Says the guy hiding in peace mode since the beginning of the war... I keep thinking you guys can do better than that, but then you guys just turn right around and keep doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.