i would like to offer peace talks for woto

[the rebel]

TOP has 52 nations in war mode, 50 in peace mode for 49% in peace mode

NPO has 202 nations in war mode, 87 in peace mode for 30% in peace mode

 

No one cares.

 

If your alliance was crippled and the only terms were the ones suggested, then you could complain all you want and have reason to since were crippled. Complaining about being offered "harsh" terms when not crippled is a PR stunt.

[Dajobo]

I praise you, Dajobo, for having the moral tenacity to stand up for your beliefs in public. I have no moral qualms against harsh reps (only practical considerations against obvious damage to my alliance), however I would like to eenquire about parts of your argument I don't find logical:

 

I would like to ask how exactly does this argument of "not fighting" reconcile with us doing 9m of damage to your coalition, or indeed how does it account for the large majority of our top tier nations who did indeed fight (2/3).

After all, I would assume that "avoiding damage" only becomes relevant to the people defending us from damage if said avoiding of damage means also avoiding dealing out damage; but since our ability to deal our large levels of damage is quite aptly demonstrated, that would not be the case there. I would assume for example, that this is why there's no issue with TOP having kept 1/3 of their alliance in PM since the start of the war; their Damage ratio is so good, that it doesn't really matter, does it?

If instead "avoiding damage" is disliked because there is a certain level of damage desired in the context of removing future threats, and failing to do so leads to other ways of trying to pressure an alliance (including longer wars), then I can better see the logic in your reasoning.

 

The cost of peace terms is not measured by comparing it to the cost of continued war; it is measured by comparing it to the cost of peace with no terms.

If we are going to start determining the "harshness" level of peace dependent on if it is worse than continued war or not, then no peace would ever be harsh, because nobody would accept a peace that is worse than a continued war.

If you honestly disagree that the imposition of aid restrictions is harsh and punitive, then I should refer you to the reaction of the people on the losing side of the previous war when aid restrictions were offered as a possible term.

 

You are correct, there is nothing morally wrong about this, just as there is nothing wrong about imposing harsh terms in the first place. I am glad someone has the backbone to stand up for what they believe in in public, rather than just try and dodge all responsibility out of fear of bad PR.
 

You might just get to set a precedent, at least until this happens too many times and people get tired of it. I'm afraid however that it probably won't be used the way you envisage and forced PM will just be applied across the board (first to nations that cycle, and then to any nation in an upper tier). But regardless, that is a far off thing, and not relevant to this situation.

 

At the start of this war, NPO had 60 nations over 80k NS (total 611k tech) and 106 over 50k NS (total 852k tech)

Now this is: 22 over 80k NS (total 213k tech) and 39 over 50k NS (total 303k tech)

 

Letum our issue is not with those who fought and you will be aware we have no interest in any form of terms on those people. In a subsequent post I list the people who we have an issue with. The people who did fight and many who still do, fight hard and bring honour to Pacifica.

 

You bring up the nations in TOP who have been in peace mode, show me where they have repeatedly kept their top nations in peace mode during consecutive wars.

 

On the subject of a precedent and how it might be miss-used or twisted in the future, neither of us can predict the future but until it happens I'll live with my dream of presenting a better way than the extortion of reps where people are told "give us tech or money, or we will kill you".

 

 

 

1. TOP has more nations in long-term PM than NPO does and they're both on the "winning side" and don't use banks.

2. You don't give a $%&@ about NPO's allies. Get bent, turd.

3. We're not going to let you treat our allies like !@#$ for defending us and your strategy of trying to divide a coalition more united than yours is dumb.

4. Thank you for admitting that this is just you all trying to get at NPO and had nothing to do with NSO being a threat to anyone.

 

1. See above

2. NPO have some allies I quite like thanks and we are actually fighting two of them!

3. The only think dumb here is your suggestion that I was trying to!

4. You have special interpretations all of your own.

 

Well, last Global War was way, way shorter than most of the people around here wanted it to be. So it makes sense that the current war lags way, way longer than the average Global War.

 

I also think that reps are retarded, and in this case, that reps aimed at discouraging the use of Peace Mode are double retarded. Because Peace Mode provides over 50% of all the debate during any Global War. Without it, what would we be arging about? The OWF would surely die.

 

This is by far the best counter argument I have seen :D

[Jesse End]

 

No one cares.

 

If your alliance was crippled and the only terms were the ones suggested, then you could complain all you want and have reason to since were crippled. Complaining about being offered "harsh" terms when not crippled is a PR stunt.

 

I'm not complaining about being offered harsh terms.  We haven't been offered terms at all.

[Letum]

Letum our issue is not with those who fought and you will be aware we have no interest in any form of terms on those people. In a subsequent post I list the people who we have an issue with. The people who did fight and many who still do, fight hard and bring honour to Pacifica.

Yet, your terms will mainly damage our nations who *have* fought, and are relying on a system of rebuilding aid from those in peacemode in order to recover.

The collection penalty itself isn't that damaging to our alliance as a whole. It is the aid penalty that is the major concern as it prevents us from rebuilding (thus hampering growth across the board). I keep having to repeat this last point.

Reps, which you dismissed and made a big deal about being off the table, would actually be more effective in "penalizing our peacemode nations"...but they have the disadvantage of being "unpopular".

 

You bring up the nations in TOP who have been in peace mode, show me where they have repeatedly kept their top nations in peace mode during consecutive wars.

Just out of curiosity, if doing it in one war is not enough, what is the threshold after which keeping a lot of nations in PM is unacceptable and would be a behavior that needs to be redressed through punitive terms?

For the record, I totally disagree with the idea that you should lead a moral crusade to penalize people for not "fighting hard enough", especially as it's an extremely slippery slope...we could just as well target people who spend too much time "cycling", or who sit in on the winning side, in war mode, without declaring any wars (and we know there are some alliances who have a number of the latter). But if this is your justification for wanting to impose punitive terms, then so be it. We'll just have to let the battlefield create the settlement. Edited January 9, 2014 by Letum

[Crymson]

1. TOP has more nations in long-term PM than NPO does and they're both on the "winning side" and don't use banks.

 

Exactly how many times are you going to try to push this line before you'll realize that people aren't retarded? Looking purely at number of nations and utterly excluding the size and potency of those nations from the equation makes about as much sense as me offering to pay my dentist in unnamed units of currency. Rarely are numbers alone the entirety of the story, and that maxim certainly applies here as well. The majority of our nations that have remained in peace mode throughout the war are small nations that have no tech and do hardly anything beyond sending it out, and the rest belong to inactives. NPO put dozens of nations, including 17 of strength 100K or above, into peace mode for the entire war with the avowed purpose of protecting them from damage. So we have this: small nations versus big nations. Incidental versus deliberate. And so on.

 

Either you're too dense to make this distinction yourself, or you're firmly confident in some supposed sense of vast intellectual superiority over everyone around you. Whatever the case may be, all you're accomplishing is making yourself appear a foreigner to logic and reason.

 

Are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself? 

[Hereno]

1. See above
2. NPO have some allies I quite like thanks and we are actually fighting two of them!
3. The only think dumb here is your suggestion that I was trying to!
4. You have special interpretations all of your own.

 
I liked Letum's reply to the most important point but if NSO isn't one of the two allies that you "quite like" I'm going to have to spend the rest of my night soothing my tears with ice cream in front of the television.
 
Also your responses to 3 and 4 kinda weren't. I expected more.

 

Not really, no I didn't.
 

Exactly how many times are you going to try to push this line before you'll realize that people aren't retarded? Looking purely at number of nations and utterly excluding the size and potency of those nations from the equation makes about as much sense as me offering to pay my dentist in unnamed units of currency. Rarely are numbers alone the entirety of the story, and that maxim certainly applies here as well. The majority of our nations that have remained in peace mode throughout the war are small nations that have no tech and do hardly anything beyond sending it out, and the rest belong to inactives. NPO put dozens of nations, including 17 of strength 100K or above, into peace mode for the entire war with the avowed purpose of protecting them from damage. So we have this: small nations versus big nations. Incidental versus deliberate. And so on.
 
Either you're too dense to make this distinction yourself, or you're firmly confident in some supposed sense of vast intellectual superiority over everyone around you. Whatever the case may be, all you're accomplishing is making yourself appear a foreigner to logic and reason.
 
Are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?

 
If you actually think it's so obvious that I'm wrong then why do you pop up with walls of text that I don't read every time I say it (like 4 or 5 times)? Do you think everybody is that stupid that something so obviously dumb - according to you - might actually be believed, or are you perhaps being dishonest (see: yes)?
 
Also lmfao @ Crymson saying: "you're firmly confident in some supposed sense of vast intellectual superiority over everyone around you".
 
What a great thread.

[Rayvon]

Right, right right Crymson. MK is too war-torn to fight for TOP. That's all you need to say.

[Crymson]

Let's do the same thing with TOP

 

See above. Nobody is stupid enough to eat up this idiotic logic. But hey, if you want to go this route, let's do it. Go through that list and compare it to yours in terms of nation strength, tech level, activity, the works, and get back to me. I don't think you will do that, because you wouldn't like the results.

 

As Dajobo has said, we've never deliberately secreted any number of top tier nations in peace mode; our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows. The same cannot be said for your alliance, one with a long history of ensconcing large numbers of top-tier nations during wartime.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Crymson

[Rayvon]

Beyond that: as Dajobo has said, we've never deliberately secreted any number of top tier nations in peace mode; our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows. The same cannot be said for your alliance, one with a long history of ensconcing large numbers of top-tier nations during wartime.

So now the argument for these terms is that your nations are inactive and it's not possible for it to be the case for NPO's nations because ..... You say so? .... "Check the facts Letum, because I'm too lazy to do it and qualify my own words"

[Letum]

Exactly how many times are you going to try to push this line before you'll realize that people aren't retarded? Looking purely at number of nations and utterly excluding the size and potency of those nations from the equation makes about as much sense as me offering to pay my dentist in unnamed units of currency. Rarely are numbers alone the entirety of the story, and that maxim certainly applies here as well. The majority of our nations that have remained in peace mode throughout the war are small nations that have no tech and do hardly anything beyond sending it out, and the rest belong to inactives. NPO put dozens of nations, including 17 of strength 100K or above, into peace mode for the entire war with the avowed purpose of protecting them from damage. So we have this: small nations versus big nations. Incidental versus deliberate. And so on.
 
Either you're too dense to make this distinction yourself, or you're firmly confident in some supposed sense of vast intellectual superiority over everyone around you. Whatever the case may be, all you're accomplishing is making yourself appear a foreigner to logic and reason.
 
Are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?

 

Half of those nations are above 50k NS, where most of the fighting has happened.

 

In fact:

 

14.1% of TOP is both above 50k and sat in PM since the start of the war
11.3% of NPO is both above 50k and sat in PM since the start of the war

Both categories have nations with too little tech to fight properly and nations with enough tech to fight

 

I personally see nothing wrong with either alliance doing this, since both have exhibited that their remaining members are more than able to put up a superior level of fighting prowess than the average alliance can without keeping people in peacemode.

[Crymson]

I personally see nothing wrong with either alliance doing this, since both have exhibited that their remaining members are more than able to put up a superior level of fighting prowess than the average alliance can without keeping people in peacemode.

 

Get to the crux of the matter: point out all of the 100K+ nations we've protected in peace mode with the excuse that they're banks.

 

So now the argument for these terms is that your nations are inactive and it's not possible for it to be the case for NPO's nations because ..... You say so? .... "Check the facts Letum, because I'm too lazy to do it and qualify my own words"

 

With NPO having already claimed repeatedly that the large nations in question are being protected as banks, you're more than a bit too late to be making that argument.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Crymson

[Jesse End]

 

See above. Nobody is stupid enough to eat up this idiotic logic. But hey, if you want to go this route, let's do it. Go through that list and compare it to yours in terms of nation strength, tech level, activity, the works, and get back to me. I don't think you will do that, because you wouldn't like the results.

 

Beyond that: as Dajobo has said, we've never deliberately secreted any number of top tier nations in peace mode; our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows. The same cannot be said for your alliance, one with a long history of ensconcing large numbers of top-tier nations during wartime.

 

Let's play with some more actual numbers again!

 

On November 2, 2013, TOP had 68 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 59 nations.

On October 21, 2013, NPO had 106 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 39 nations.

 

Therefore, TOP still has 87% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations, and NPO only has 37% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations.

[Neo Uruk]

Its funny how your opinions change, like piss in the wind. To suit what alliance you have hopped too by the time a war comes around.

What the actual $%&@ are you talking about? I didn't trust NPO until I allied NSO while in LPH. I decided it was high time to bury my resentment for the sake of my ally and had a brief conversation with Farrin that reassured me they're a fine alliance and I'm currently proud to call them an ally.

My opinions have never "changed with the wind." The reason why I railed against CnG while in a GOD protectorate was the whole LSF debacle. We've made up. I've always held close to my personal beliefs and the fact that they gradually change over time comes from the fact that I'm human, I realize we are all human, and I don't wish to hold grudges for too long - unlike some of my former (and current) colleagues.

e: back on topic, re: terms I was more surprised something more similar to DH-NPO wasn't put on the table. Edited January 9, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Jesse End]

 

Get to the crux of the matter: point out all of the 100K+ nations we've protected in peace mode with the excuse that they're banks.

 

 

With NPO having already claimed repeatedly that the large nations in question are being protected as banks, you're more than a bit too late to be making that argument.

 

Oh hey, think maybe bankers are nations who want to exist on Bob, but their activity level doesn't enable them to fight?  You know, just as you said: our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows.

 

Or are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jesse End

[Auctor]

It's almost as if alliances on the winning side are the victors, whereas alliances on the losing side are not. Double standards much!

[Jesse End]

It's almost as if alliances on the winning side are the victors, whereas alliances on the losing side are not. Double standards much!

 

It's quite hypocritical for a winning alliance to be complaining about a losing alliance's use of peace mode when the former has more of their alliance in peace mode than the latter.

[Crymson]

 

Let's play with some more actual numbers again!

 

On November 2, 2013, TOP had 68 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 59 nations.

On October 21, 2013, NPO had 106 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 39 nations.

 

Therefore, TOP still has 87% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations, and NPO only has 37% of its 50k+ NS pre-war nations.

 

Welcome to a losing war. Furthermore, your chosen reference point was highly arbitrary. Our average NS on the eve of war was well in excess of 50K, and it therefore stands to reason that a large percentage of our nations would still be above that mark; as such, your statistics have precisely no relevance.

 

 

Oh hey, think maybe bankers are nations who want to exist on Bob, but their activity level doesn't enable them to fight?  You know, just as you said: our top tier always fights in as close to its entirety as member activity allows.

 

Or are you perhaps unable to make this distinction yourself?

 

As I said just a few minutes ago: for obvious reasons, it's far too late to be making that sort of argument.

 

It's quite hypocritical for a winning alliance to be complaining about a losing alliance's use of peace mode when the former has more of their alliance in peace mode than the latter.

 

And once again, the vacuous fixation on irrelevant numbers to the exclusion of the point at hand.

 

By the way, exactly who is complaining? And at what point did I become an alliance?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Crymson

[Hereno]

 

By the way, exactly who is complaining? And at what point did I become an alliance?

 

Do TOP and Polar disagree with you? Is that why they are trying to push the terms that they are?

[andyt2k]

I love how people have said throughout this war that "Hey we gave terms, it's their fault they're still at war"

 

Without saying how BS the terms are, it's like saying

 

"I'll pay dave credit card debt if he chops his arm off"

 

Then just telling people

 

"Hey I offered to pay Dave's debt for him but he refused, so he can't complain about being in debt........ what's that......what did I say he had to do for it......... never you mind that, the point is I made him an offer, so I'm the good guy in this"

[Azaghul]

Yet, your terms will mainly damage our nations who *have* fought, and are relying on a system of rebuilding aid from those in peacemode in order to recover.

The collection penalty itself isn't that damaging to our alliance as a whole. It is the aid penalty that is the major concern as it prevents us from rebuilding (thus hampering growth across the board). I keep having to repeat this last point.

I addressed this point here:

 

Assuming a NS threshold of 50K NS or infra of 5K, this would keep about 40 of your nations in peace mode out of 291.  Looking at your total stats, about 200 of your nations have at least some economic wonders and around 150 have close to a full set (excluding the high infra wonders.)  Excluding the 40 peace mode nations, you still have at least 100 of your nations that should be able to rebuild quickly.  Many of those nations should have enough left over warchest to rebuild themselves and start aiding out immediately.  The others, if they are competent, shouldn't take very long to get there.

 

 

Speaking personally, if it were up to me (it's not) this war would end in grey peace (just an admission of defeat / surrender) across the board.  But I think y'all are greatly overstating your case here.

 

If the aid component is the biggest issue for you, negotiate towards something that hurts those nations without inhibiting their ability to give out aid post war.

 

In any case the idea that only nations that didn't fight can send out aid post-war is very, very outdated.

[Azaghul]

 

Why are we all wasting resources on each other when the entire planet would be better served by giving an EZI sentence to this moron?

Now this is something I can get behind!

[Letum]

I addressed this point here:

 

 

If the aid component is the biggest issue for you, negotiate towards something that hurts those nations without inhibiting their ability to give out aid post war.

 

In any case the idea that only nations that didn't fight can send out aid post-war is very, very outdated.

 

We're not saying that there will be zero aid going around, simply that there will much be less of it (to the tune of 18-26bn) and said "less" will have a very big impact on our rebuilding.

 

And of course, 5 months of no tech deals for those nations will have a similar impact to our future tech ratios as 8 months of no tech dealing had after Karma.

[IYIyTh]

 

It's quite hypocritical for a winning alliance to be complaining about a losing alliance's use of peace mode when the former has more of their alliance in peace mode than the latter.

 

Whoosh. That was the sound of Auctor's point sailing over your head.

[Rush Sykes]

 

Letum our issue is not with those who fought and you will be aware we have no interest in any form of terms on those people. In a subsequent post I list the people who we have an issue with. The people who did fight and many who still do, fight hard and bring honour to Pacifica.

 

You bring up the nations in TOP who have been in peace mode, show me where they have repeatedly kept their top nations in peace mode during consecutive wars.

 

On the subject of a precedent and how it might be miss-used or twisted in the future, neither of us can predict the future but until it happens I'll live with my dream of presenting a better way than the extortion of reps where people are told "give us tech or money, or we will kill you".

 

 

 

 

 

You are the one accusing these Pacifican PM nations of sitting out multiple wars. It is you who should be providing the proof based on your own accusation.... fortunately for you, Dajobo, since you showed your ability at math is terrible (you know, 9% loss in PM)... I have rode in once again to make the case for you about these 17 NPO nations over 100K who cower every war in Peace Mode. Here is what my investigation concludes...

 

Nation 1: Kingdom of Dark. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=29470

 

This coward has clearly taken the easy path and peace moded every war... because Dajobo hath decreed it... wait... what? He has 16 million casualties? He must cheat.

 

Nation 2: Dorsai. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=233123 

 

Another coward who never fights...oh... 4.5 million casualties? He cheats too. Because Dajobo is an honorable man, and his word is law.

 

Nation 3 Espanola. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=134146

 

Finally the honorable Dajobo gets on the board. This guy has 500k+ casualties, clearly has not fought much. 

 

Nation 4. Sludgeville http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=22897

 

Another nation who has not fought very much at all. The prophecy of Dajobo is coming back to life!

 

Nation 5: Magusland http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132439

 

8 million casualties. Swing and miss. But he cheats too, because Dajobo must be right.

 

Nation 6: Wilsonovia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169033

 

Team Dajobo makes a comeback, another inexperienced fighter who clearly doesnt fight much. LONG LIVE DAJOBO!

 

Nation 7: Urth http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=84844

 

5 million casualties... for sure not someone who sits out repeated wars. But, Dajobo is an honorable man, and must be right. So this ruler cheats.

 

Nation 8: Tiamathia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=329212

 

This one is too close to call... this guy cheated his way to just under 2  million casualties. That is a tweener number though, and because Dajobo is always right and is immensely honorable, I will give him this one.

 

Nation 9: aodhtopia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=49773

 

Another cheater tweener... 3 million casualties... I have to give this one to NPO though. Seeing as last war, I was at war every single day of it, and only picked up 900K casualties. This guy clearly does not repeatedly sit out wars. But Dajobo is still right and honorable!

 

Nation 10: Cyrene http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=195263

 

One more for the great Dajobo. 600K or so casualties. The Dajobo prophecy lives on. Oh.. you mean its 5 and 5? Well.. 5 for Dajobo and 5 cheating Pacificans, amirite Dajobo?

 

Nation 11: Delray Beach http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=90642

 

14 million cheating casualties. Because, after all, Dajobo hath decreed that these nations do this every war, so it must be so.

 

Nation 12: Empire of SVB http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=256346

 

Another 2 million casualty tweener, I will give it to Dajobo, because Dammit, he is Dajobo and Pacifica always hides these guys. So.. the tally is 6-6 with 2 of Dajobo's 6 being tweeners that I had to make a judgement call to give him. These Pacificans are good at cheating. But Dajobo shall  be avenged.

 

Nation 13: Soviet New France http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=18453

 

This is the 1st true zinger for Dajobo, the Pacifican cheaters forgot to shore this guys numbers up. 50K casualties. TEAM DAJOBO TAKES THE LEAD!

 

Nation 14: Poi http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=53947

 

3 million casualties. Another successful cheat by  NPO. Scum. Out here making Dajobo's decree look silly and whatnot.

 

Nation 15: Land o Chile http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=113984

 

Nearly 6 million casualties. The NPO cheat machine strikes again. This guy is a coward who has not fought since the early days of GW1.

 

Nation 16: Suttonia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=152802

 

Just under 1 million, Dajobo's decree exposes another coward pacifican.

 

Nation 17: ROMA CAPUT MUNDI http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132119

 

Nearly 6 million. Another blow to the book of Dajobo.

 

So.. there we have the 17 still over 100k (lets not even mention that they began the war with 39 over 100K...oh wait, I just did?)...

 

So... 9 who clearly dont use PM every war. 8 Who I will give him credit and say they do(even though 2 of them are VERY tweener)

 

STOP HIDING THESE SAME NATIONS EVERY WAR NPO :wub:

Edited January 9, 2014 by Rush Sykes

[Tick1]

 

You are the one accusing these Pacifican PM nations of sitting out multiple wars. It is you who should be providing the proof based on your own accusation.... fortunately for you, Dajobo, since you showed your ability at math is terrible (you know, 9% loss in PM)... I have rode in once again to make the case for you about these 17 NPO nations over 100K who cower every war in Peace Mode. Here is what my investigation concludes...

 

Nation 1: Kingdom of Dark. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=29470

 

This coward has clearly taken the easy path and peace moded every war... because Dajobo hath decreed it... wait... what? He has 16 million casualties? He must cheat.

 

Nation 2: Dorsai. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=233123 

 

Another coward who never fights...oh... 4.5 million casualties? He cheats too. Because Dajobo is an honorable man, and his word is law.

 

Nation 3 Espanola. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=134146

 

Finally the honorable Dajobo gets on the board. This guy has 500k+ casualties, clearly has not fought much. 

 

Nation 4. Sludgeville http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=22897

 

Another nation who has not fought very much at all. The prophecy of Dajobo is coming back to life!

 

Nation 5: Magusland http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132439

 

8 million casualties. Swing and miss. But he cheats too, because Dajobo must be right.

 

Nation 6: Wilsonovia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169033

 

Team Dajobo makes a comeback, another inexperienced fighter who clearly doesnt fight much. LONG LIVE DAJOBO!

 

Nation 7: Urth http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=84844

 

5 million casualties... for sure not someone who sits out repeated wars. But, Dajobo is an honorable man, and must be right. So this ruler cheats.

 

Nation 8: Tiamathia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=329212

 

This one is too close to call... this guy cheated his way to just under 2  million casualties. That is a tweener number though, and because Dajobo is always right and is immensely honorable, I will give him this one.

 

Nation 9: aodhtopia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=49773

 

Another cheater tweener... 3 million casualties... I have to give this one to NPO though. Seeing as last war, I was at war every single day of it, and only picked up 900K casualties. This guy clearly does not repeatedly sit out wars. But Dajobo is still right and honorable!

 

Nation 10: Cyrene http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=195263

 

One more for the great Dajobo. 600K or so casualties. The Dajobo prophecy lives on. Oh.. you mean its 5 and 5? Well.. 5 for Dajobo and 5 cheating Pacificans, amirite Dajobo?

 

Nation 11: Delray Beach http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=90642

 

14 million cheating casualties. Because, after all, Dajobo hath decreed that these nations do this every war, so it must be so.

 

Nation 12: Empire of SVB http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=256346

 

Another 2 million casualty tweener, I will give it to Dajobo, because Dammit, he is Dajobo and Pacifica always hides these guys. So.. the tally is 6-6 with 2 of Dajobo's 6 being tweeners that I had to make a judgement call to give him. These Pacificans are good at cheating. But Dajobo shall  be avenged.

 

Nation 13: Soviet New France http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=18453

 

This is the 1st true zinger for Dajobo, the Pacifican cheaters forgot to shore this guys numbers up. 50K casualties. TEAM DAJOBO TAKES THE LEAD!

 

Nation 14: Poi http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=53947

 

3 million casualties. Another successful cheat by  NPO. Scum. Out here making Dajobo's decree look silly and whatnot.

 

Nation 15: Land o Chile http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=113984

 

Nearly 6 million casualties. The NPO cheat machine strikes again. This guy is a coward who has not fought since the early days of GW1.

 

Nation 16: Suttonia http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=152802

 

Just under 1 million, Dajobo's decree exposes another coward pacifican.

 

Nation 17: ROMA CAPUT MUNDI http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=132119

 

Nearly 6 million. Another blow to the book of Dajobo.

 

So.. there we have the 17 still over 100k (lets not even mention that they began the war with 39 over 100K...oh wait, I just did?)...

 

So... 9 who clearly dont use PM every war. 8 Who I will give him credit and say they do(even though 2 of them are VERY tweener)

 

STOP HIDING THESE SAME NATIONS EVERY WAR NPO :wub:

 

Apr 15 2013, 12:14 PM

 

So it lists the alliances with the most casualties and Umbrella is number five.

 New Pacific Order 480,560,704
 Non Grata 473,917,245
 Mushroom Kingdom 468,374,219
 Independent Republic of Orange Nations 437,441,118
 Umbrella 372,833,789

But then a quick look at the average per member:

 Umbrella 4,546,754
 Mushroom Kingdom 3,807,920
 Non Grata 2,889,739
 Independent Republic of Orange Nations 1,411,100
 New Pacific Order 1,357,516

 

 

Although these statistics are a bit out dated Umbrella is now averaging ~5 million casualties per nation. Let me know when an alliance that isn't DBDC is near us.