Link Gaetz Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 The TOP PR machine is in full gear I see. Almost MKesque! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Sounds like TOP is doing incredible damage, and taking incredible damage, and taking the damage where it hurts worst, among its upper tier. This transparent attempt to suggest TOP isn't pulling its weight is obviously lacking factual support. That the coalition TOP is a member of isn't complaining, and the target of said coalition is complaining suggests TOP is doing exactly what it should be doing. Pleasing allies and upsetting enemies. Factcheck: Losing ~20% of your NS isn't "taking incredible damage" j/s. It's pretty lackluster for major war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) The TOP PR machine is in full gear I see. Almost MKesque! Look's like somebody is upset that EG and Lum wrecked his nation.. :rolleyes: Factcheck: Losing ~20% of your NS isn't "taking incredible damage" j/s. It's pretty lackluster for major war. The actual value of an alliance military is the ability to fire nukes, not eat them. If you believe we have failed to take enough damage, then you should direct your complaints to those we are fighting. Edited December 9, 2013 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) http://ri5.rialliance.net/warstats.php Dear Rotavele, is the lack of glasses the reason you post such nonsense all the time? We could talk to bros about a fundraising to get your eye sight fixed. I thought i did type 289, it was 1 in the morning. Also I am financially secure, but its the thought that counts. Now that we established that the 75 nations in MI6 declared 434 wars, and the 105 in TOP declared 289 I think we can say TOP has definitely pulled it's own weight in this war. (Yes that is sarcasm for the many of you who take 99% of what I say seriously on here.) For the serious part of this post, you need bad to recognize good and while I would say TOP is the bad, they compliment MI6 and make them look much better. So they can rely off of each other I guess. Edited December 9, 2013 by Rotavele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Factcheck: Losing ~20% of your NS isn't "taking incredible damage" j/s. It's pretty lackluster for major war. Factcheck: we're part of the winning side. Alliances significantly involved on the winning side of a major war generally lose 20%-30% of their total NS, versus 50%+ for the losing side. Edited December 9, 2013 by Crymson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Also I am financially secure, but its the thought that counts. For a third server nation, perhaps .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 NPO has nobody over 60k in war mode. Just 2 over 50k. As far as wars for TOP, I guess you could have gone in on us with IRON? IRON let a dozen or so of our upper tier into PM to escape anarchy 2 days after they DoW'd and it cost them almost half a million NS. I frankly don't care how many wars you guys are in, I just hate when people throw around false numbers. Are you implying we should have attacked an ally of an ally, the same thing your alliance attacked IRON for on these forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Factcheck: we're part of the winning side. Alliances significantly involved on the winning side of a major war generally lose 20%-30% of their total NS, versus 50%+ for the losing side.20% is by no means "incredible", and we all know it. He misspoke, just admit it. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Factcheck: we're part of the winning side. Alliances significantly involved on the winning side of a major war generally lose 20%-30% of their total NS, versus 50%+ for the losing side. Factcheck: It's still not "incredible damage". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) 20% is by no means "incredible", and we all know it. He misspoke, just admit it. Jesus. We should all strive to take more damage, as much as we possibly can even. Pardon me as I anarchy myself and demolish my infra. Edited December 9, 2013 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Are you implying we should have attacked an ally of an ally, the same thing your alliance attacked IRON for on these forums? We share an ally with IRON? That's disappointing. No, clearly you misinterpreted my post though. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility and as an excuse to mock IRON's incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Quintus Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 The bloc looks more and more like a half-baked idea the longer the war goes on. Fact check: Kashmir is way more than half-baked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Fact Check: over 90% of all propaganda threads start with false data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Are you implying we should have attacked an ally of an ally, the same thing your alliance attacked IRON for on these forums? STA is MDoAPed to UPN. UPN is in Aftermath (NADC) who STA attacked. STA never accused IRON of anything simply because they would have been called on that. Anyways my point is your wrong and they didn't say anything about IRON. Fact Check: over 90% of all propaganda threads start with false data. How is this false data or are you implying others are, and therefore leading the belief to some that this one is too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 STA is MDoAPed to UPN. UPN is in Aftermath (NADC) who STA attacked. STA never accused IRON of anything simply because they would have been called on that. Anyways my point is your wrong and they didn't say anything about IRON. How is this false data or are you implying others are, and therefore leading the belief to some that this one is too? STA did this, and your point is wrong. Your next point is also wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) STA did this, and your point is wrong. Your next point is also wrong. Actions speak louder than words, so link me to it. Edited December 9, 2013 by Rotavele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 STA is MDoAPed to UPN. UPN is in Aftermath (NADC) who STA attacked. STA never accused IRON of anything simply because they would have been called on that. Anyways my point is your wrong and they didn't say anything about IRON. How is this false data or are you implying others are, and therefore leading the belief to some that this one is too? my point was more if you are gonna make an owf thread you will bend the facts towards your point, when the data most of the time can be used towards both sides relatively easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Factcheck: It's still not "incredible damage". Factcheck: It's not "pretty lackluster" either. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Factcheck: It's not "pretty lackluster" either. Not even close. There's the strawman I've been waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 Haha funny you would mention this here as we only contra blitzed mi6 as top was in peace mode by in large and we couldnt really blitz them which was our intention. You just came along. Also our contra blitz was far more epic then yours :P. A nasty slap when you wanted to ride high- sorry about that but you were just available. Much respect for that. We outblitzed you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 There's the strawman I've been waiting for. As I never made any reference to "incredible damage," I'm afraid my post does not fit your description. Your own does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 The TOP PR machine is in full gear I see. Almost MKesque! All we need is a nazi mention and I think we can cover Godwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 So these stats are bit newer from the morning. Total wars: MHA 252 MI6 436 TOP 293 Offensive wars: MHA 227 MI6: 198 TOP : 186 Numbers used in Rotas post: (bit older numbers, thus slight difference) MHA 248 MI6 434 TOP 189 You were saying? (I even connected the linked numbers with colours for you) Here, I'll help you further: http://www.connectionsacademy.com/home.aspx Beware the MHA juggernaught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) As I never made any reference to "incredible damage," I'm afraid my post does not fit your description. Your own does. No. A TOP member says TOP took incredible damage. I pointed out that was false. You then tried to salvage some points arguing that TOP took more than "lackluster" damage, a claim which I never remotely came close to making. I understand sticking together, but there's a point where you really ought to cut your losses. Edited December 9, 2013 by Coloradia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) No. A TOP member says TOP took incredible damage. I pointed out that was false. You then tried to salvage some points arguing that TOP took more than "lackluster" damage, a claim which I never remotely came close to making. I understand sticking together, but there's a point where you really ought to cut your losses. I'm fully aware that 20% damage doesn't fall into the "incredible" category. I openly said that it's more like average, a term that is quite mutually exclusive from superlative. As such, you haven't any substance to your argument. With regards to the rest of your post, bad news for you is that what one says on an Internet forum stays there for all to see. I'll refresh your apparently very, very short-term memory. Factcheck: Losing ~20% of your NS isn't "taking incredible damage" j/s. It's pretty lackluster for major war. There you go. Edited December 9, 2013 by Crymson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts