There's Always Something Formal about the Point of a Pistol

[Saladjoe]

Oh, please. I can't believe we're both arguing this.

 

You guys put up a great counter-counter blitz, and we put up a pretty good opening blitz as well. So that's cool for both of us. But our goal was to back you guys off TOP, which it did. There's only 42 NPO-TOP wars, compared to 188 NPO-MI6 wars. Job well done for the first night if you ask me; now it comes down to activity, skill, and resolve. Good luck - I'm expecting this to be a bloody battle.

And this is why y'all are awesome.  :wub:

[berbers]

There's only 42 NPO-TOP wars, compared to 188 NPO-MI6 wars.

That's less a result of your blitz and more a result of....ah forget it ;)

[Believland]

That's less a result of your blitz and more a result of....ah forget it ;)

I take it you can't read. Is this an accurate assumption?

[Gibsonator21]

That's less a result of your blitz and more a result of....ah forget it ;)

berbers, you know I like you, but the amount of sheer ignorance I've seen from every single one of your posts the last few days is absolutely astounding. This one is no exception.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gibsonator21

[berbers]

I take it you can't read. Is this an accurate assumption?

  

Yes. Accurate in every way.

berbers, you know I like you, but the amount of sheer ignorance I've seen from every single one of your posts the last few days is absolutely astounding. This one is no exception.

It's not ignorance because you don't want to hear it Gibs, I've looked back at the old war stats pages, it's plain as day to see. I know you need to defend your ally and you know I need to attack them, so hopefully once this is over we can go back to normal :P

Edit: I mean I'm not a frothing at the mouth lunatic, I look at historical data and see TOP using PM in their underpopulated tiers to avoid damage and subsequently take less then their coalition mates. Then we see leaked logs of TOP saying they want to avoid damage in the "next " war ( that's this one) and hope to make it in on the third wave.

So what else do you need to convince you that they are snakes playing everyone off against each other? Edited November 4, 2013 by berbers

[Believland]

  

Yes. Accurate in every way.


It's not ignorance because you don't want to hear it Gibs, I've looked back at the old war stats pages, it's plain as day to see. I know you need to defend your ally and you know I need to attack them, so hopefully once this is over we can go back to normal :P

No, what he was able to explain to 99.999% of the people in the world is that our counter blitz made NPO refocus their wars to us instead of TOP. This made NPO's blitz against TOP a lot less effective than it originally was going to be, as they focused their wars on us (and did a damn good job of it too).

[berbers]

No, what he was able to explain to 99.999% of the people in the world is that our counter blitz made NPO refocus their wars to us instead of TOP. This made NPO's blitz against TOP a lot less effective than it originally was going to be, as they focused their wars on us (and did a damn good job of it too).

You think NPO just decided to stop attacking TOP and go all out on mi6? You don't think it has anything to do with you having way more nations in war mode and able to be countered?

Edit : they have 38 nations able to be attacked to your 72 that's the reason why you have more wars. Edited November 4, 2013 by berbers

[Gibsonator21]

It's not ignorance because you don't want to hear it Gibs, I've looked back at the old war stats pages, it's plain as day to see. I know you need to defend your ally and you know I need to attack them, so hopefully once this is over we can go back to normal :P

Edit: I mean I'm not a frothing at the mouth lunatic, I look at historical data and see TOP using PM in their underpopulated tiers to avoid damage and subsequently take less then their coalition mates. Then we see leaked logs of TOP saying they want to avoid damage in the "next " war ( that's this one) and hope to make it in on the third wave.

So what else do you need to convince you that they are snakes playing everyone off against each other?

No, it is ignorance. You're making peace mode arguments four days into a war that's more than likely going to last for at least a couple of months. You're even more ignorant if you think TOP would go into a war in the opening fucking attack and expect to get off with no damage.
 
 

You think NPO just decided to stop attacking TOP and go all out on mi6? You don't think it has anything to do with you having way more nations in war mode and able to be countered?

Edit : they have 38 nations able to be attacked to your 72 that's the reason why you have more wars.

And NPO only put up 32 attacks on those nations.

[berbers]

No, it is ignorance. You're making peace mode arguments four days into a war that's more than likely going to last for at least a couple of months. You're even more ignorant if you think TOP would go into a war in the opening fucking attack and expect to get off with no damage.
 
 

And NPO only put up 32 attacks on those nations.

TOP went in on the first wave in grudge war and took the least damage of anyone. I'm not being ignorant, i am projecting future results based on historical data.

NPO put up 32 attacks on those nations because a bunch of them would require up declares and that makes no sense to do when there is a plethora of targets in a more optimal range.

TOP created an extreme tier imbalance with PM and now you all pay the price. I could be wrong, but probably won't be.

[Gibsonator21]

TOP went in on the first wave in grudge war and took the least damage of anyone. I'm not being ignorant, i am projecting future results based on historical data.

Grudge War was also an incredible miss-match, whereas this war will be tough on both sides.

 

NPO put up 32 attacks on those nations because a bunch of them would require up declares and that makes no sense to do when there is a plethora of targets in a more optimal range.

TOP created an extreme tier imbalance with PM and now you all pay the price. I could be wrong, but probably won't be.

Maybe you're right. Maybe TOP should have left all of their nations out of PM when they were about to have near 20m NS crash into them. That sounds like a super plan.

[berbers]

Grudge War was also an incredible miss-match, whereas this war will be tough on both sides.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe TOP should have left all of their nations out of PM when they were about to have near 20m NS crash into them. That sounds like a super plan.

 

That 20M NS is going to crash somewhere, it just happens TOP seems better at getting out of the way (or shoving others in front of it, depending on how you view it)

[Branimir]

Oh, please. I can't believe we're both arguing this.

 

Was just correcting misinformation. Couldn't believe it was actually necessary.

Enjoy the fighting.

[ROMMELHSQ]

o/ friends!!! Good to have you with us (even though I still have no wars yet :( )

[Saladjoe]

Grudge War was also an incredible miss-match, whereas this war will be tough on both sides.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe TOP should have left all of their nations out of PM when they were about to have near 20m NS crash into them. That sounds like a super plan.

Just give up Gibs, logic and tactics don't have any meaning to these people. I mean, he's been screaming out us staying in peace mode since this whole dragged out and tedious affair started.. 4 days ago. 

[Dochartaigh]

Grudge War was also an incredible miss-match, whereas this war will be tough on both sides.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe TOP should have left all of their nations out of PM when they were about to have near 20m NS crash into them. That sounds like a super plan.

 

People who start shouting about PM tactics this early have nothing else to say. The usage of so-called "historical data" is amusing. I mean, someone brought up eQ where TOP took like 60-70% damage and people still tried to make the claim that TOP stuck like half their nation in PM for the entire war. 

[Gingervites]

People who start shouting about PM tactics this early have nothing else to say. The usage of so-called "historical data" is amusing. I mean, someone brought up eQ where TOP took like 60-70% damage and people still tried to make the claim that TOP stuck like half their nation in PM for the entire war. 

They did keep half their AA in pm for the entire war. They just had a lot of nations at their plate so the ones that did stay in war or didn't get into pm in time were dealt a lot of damage by a coalition that  was much bigger than them. 

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gingervites

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

  

Yes. Accurate in every way.

It's not ignorance because you don't want to hear it Gibs, I've looked back at the old war stats pages, it's plain as day to see. I know you need to defend your ally and you know I need to attack them, so hopefully once this is over we can go back to normal :P

Edit: I mean I'm not a frothing at the mouth lunatic, I look at historical data and see TOP using PM in their underpopulated tiers to avoid damage and subsequently take less then their coalition mates. Then we see leaked logs of TOP saying they want to avoid damage in the "next " war ( that's this one) and hope to make it in on the third wave.

So what else do you need to convince you that they are snakes playing everyone off against each other?

If we wanted so much to avoid taking damage in "this" war, you know what we could have done?

 

Accepted NSO-NPO-NG's plan and rolled Polar and the South pole for, what, a third or fourth consecutive time? Given our position in the treaty web, we would have been engaged in a minor fashion and would have seen our side score a decisive - albeit boring - victory over outnumbered forces. The lack of a powerful upper tier in that pole would have meant that very few of our nations would have been engaged.

 

Edit:
For the love of God, the PM point was already being addressed in the TOP DoW thread.

 

They did keep half their AA in pm for the entire war. They just had a lot of nations at their plate so the ones that did stay in war or didn't get into pm in time were dealt a lot of damage by a coalition that  was much bigger than them.

If you remove ghosts from the count, we had I believe 40 or 41 nations who stayed in peace mode that entire war.

 

The war was waged on fronts. Our front's strategy was to do a full engagement in the upper and super tiers where we could realistically have a chance to bring a stalemate. We got very close to that point but our initial heavy engagement on Anarchy Inc. meant that we had few reserves in that area.

The nations who stayed in peace mode the entire war were all in tiers where they'd have been outnumbered more than 5 to 1. A dozen of those nations were tech farms. A few were decent but unprepared/unreliable nations. We didn't save perfectly good nations from getting hammered.

 

The fact that we bled over 70% of our NS shows that we did a full engagement. You can't have it both ways.
 

Edited November 4, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Roadie]

If we wanted so much to avoid taking damage in "this" war, you know what we could have done?

 

Accepted NSO-NPO-NG's plan and rolled Polar and the South pole for, what, a third or fourth consecutive time? Given our position in the treaty web, we would have been engaged in a minor fashion and would have seen our side score a decisive - albeit boring - victory over outnumbered forces. The lack of a powerful upper tier in that pole would have meant that very few of our nations would have been engaged.

 

Edit:
For the love of God, the PM point was already being addressed in the TOP DoW thread.

 

If you remove ghosts from the count, we had I believe 40 or 41 nations who stayed in peace mode that entire war.

 

The war was waged on fronts. Our front's strategy was to do a full engagement in the upper and super tiers where we could realistically have a chance to bring a stalemate. We got very close to that point but our initial heavy engagement on Anarchy Inc. meant that we had few reserves in that area.

The nations who stayed in peace mode the entire war were all in tiers where they'd have been outnumbered more than 5 to 1. A dozen of those nations were tech farms. A few were decent but unprepared/unreliable nations. We didn't save perfectly good nations from getting hammered.

 

The fact that we bled over 70% of our NS shows that we did a full engagement. You can't have it both ways.
 

 

Sure he can. TOP kept half their alliance in PM and still lost of ton of NS. Both are true because both happened. That doesn't make TOP cowardly; tucking away what would otherwise get crushed is smart and both the NS loss and damage output by the nations not in PM proves TOP fought hard.

 

Can we get both sides to agree the other is also correct and move on?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Roadie

[berbers]

Well my point was where TOP has been on the offensive side of the last few wars they have limited their damage by artificially skewing the tier imbalance even further than it would be.  That automatically excluded Equilibrium because they were on the defensive.  However despite that, they still used PM more heavily than most alliances, so it's like 1/2 a point in my favour.

 

Anyways, why are we even arguing?  TOP is countering all my arguments with hur hur it's only day 4.  So let's just wait and see how much damage they take and how many of their nations come out of PM.  I'm game to wait a month or so to win this argument.

 

Actually, I win either way.  If TOP doesn't come out of PM, I get to say i told you so, if they do come out of PM I get to watch them burn.  So yeah, I'm sitting pretty good right now ;D

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Sure he can. TOP kept half their alliance in PM and still lost of ton of NS. Both are true because both happened. That doesn't make TOP cowardly; tucking away what would otherwise get crushed is smart and both the NS loss and damage output by the nations not in PM proves TOP fought hard.

 

Can we get both sides to agree the other is also correct and move on?

Except, that's not what they're implying with "TOP kept half their alliance in PM". They're implying we hid and didn't take the damage we should have taken. Which, on its face, is false.

 

Also, half is false as well. We had more than 80 members.

[IYIyTh]

Hey, you guys can hit TOP if you want.

 

But I wouldn't.

 

 

(We're supposed to do it :()

Edited November 4, 2013 by IYIyTh

[the rebel]

People who start shouting about PM tactics this early have nothing else to say. The usage of so-called "historical data" is amusing. I mean, someone brought up eQ where TOP took like 60-70% damage and people still tried to make the claim that TOP stuck like half their nation in PM for the entire war. 

 

Indeed when alliances match GATO "historical data" in eQ then they can start complaining...

[Taget]

As someone who actually likes Pacifica and most of the people in it, this makes me sad. But if there is one thing i've learned while here on Bob, it's that you stand tall whenever your allies need you. NPO stood tall, and now we do the same. No hard feelings had, and hopefully this war will be over quickly.

 

Good show, gents. See you on the fields of war.

 

Ditto to everything.

 

And there is something to be said for fighting good honorable folks.  Hopefully we can bury the hatchet after this.