Hershey-Nascar War Stats, powered by RI5

[The Zigur]

Damage ratios and such are meaningless, all that matters is breaking the enemies will, and that is far from happening in the civilized world. We know that should we be destroyed the world will descend into a new Dark Age of Lulzism and Chaos.

[Sabcat]

You really do struggle with the OOC concept of this forum. This is a game, we're playing or some of us are. Some of us don't appear to be playing any more and are ignoring their nations and you, Tywin seem to think this is real.

[The Zigur]

It is real!

[Dochartaigh]

Damage ratios and such are meaningless, all that matters is breaking the enemies will, and that is far from happening in the civilized world. We know that should we be destroyed the world will descend into a new Dark Age of Lulzism and Chaos.

 

Not only what Sabcat said but also damage ratios aren't meaningless. You can have all the active players you want and all the will you want, but if your nations are damaged to the point that they cannot viably sustain a war, then they are useless. You can continue to take a beating and go "yippee" but other than that, you aren't doing anything. We are nowhere near that point but fact is, some alliances will get to that point whether on the losing side or even the winning side. And damage ratios will show which alliances those are.

[TBRaiders]

You really do struggle with the OOC concept of this forum. This is a game, we're playing or some of us are. Some of us don't appear to be playing any more and are ignoring their nations and you, Tywin seem to think this is real.

Great post.  Tywin should do an essay on why some people can't seem to separate IC from OOC (no life) and how it has ruined the game.

[Dajobo]

I know Polar had many players struggling for time with exam finals for students and Christmas/holiday preparations for older members with families. We'd probably be a good representation of players across CN so perhaps it will improve in the new year.

Back on stats though, a quality opening blitz put us way down early but like most others we're hanging around 1:1 since. This will become a war of attrition and politics so pretty boring for people not involved in the political side of the game.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Dajobo

[The Zigur]

 

Not only what Sabcat said but also damage ratios aren't meaningless. You can have all the active players you want and all the will you want, but if your nations are damaged to the point that they cannot viably sustain a war, then they are useless. You can continue to take a beating and go "yippee" but other than that, you aren't doing anything. We are nowhere near that point but fact is, some alliances will get to that point whether on the losing side or even the winning side. And damage ratios will show which alliances those are.

 

I am viably sustaining the war by draining the warchests of nuclear nations and preventing them from adequately combating more important higher tier targets. I am still getting nuked at 1400 NS, yet I am winning GAs and causing all kinds of havoc among the Enemy. There are all kinds of tricks you can employ as you wage guerrilla war on the Enemy, and the purpose of guerrilla warfare is to win confrontations through sustained insurgency. Remember, many of the old Vox Populi fighters are now in Polaris.

 

I was only half joking when I said that this is real. Plenty of people dismiss CN as "pixels," but the hours of work put into building nations and social relationships, not to mention milcom and other alliance institutions, are definitely real. So, people giving up the fight cannot simply be excused with "boredom," but (aside from those with RL difficulty accessing the game) rather is the result of a lack of Will as well as a failure of leadership. If you read Sun Tzu you will understand the stratagem.

 

 

Great post.  Tywin should do an essay on why some people can't seem to separate IC from OOC (no life) and how it has ruined the game.

 

This is rich coming from the guy who's leader dresses his kid in shirts about cybernations.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Unknown Smurf]

 
I am viably sustaining the war by draining the warchests of nuclear nations and preventing them from adequately combating more important higher tier targets. I am still getting nuked at 1400 NS, yet I am winning GAs and causing all kinds of havoc among the Enemy. There are all kinds of tricks you can employ as you wage guerrilla war on the Enemy, and the purpose of guerrilla warfare is to win confrontations through sustained insurgency. Remember, many of the old Vox Populi fighters are now in Polaris.
 
I was only half joking when I said that this is real. Plenty of people dismiss CN as "pixels," but the hours of work put into building nations and social relationships, not to mention milcom and other alliance institutions, are definitely real. So, people giving up the fight cannot simply be excused with "boredom," but (aside from those with RL difficulty accessing the game) rather is the result of a lack of Will as well as a failure of leadership. If you read Sun Tzu you will understand the stratagem.
 
 
 
This is rich coming from the guy who's leader dresses his kid in shirts about cybernations.

You don't even have barracks. I know of nonforum/nonirc 100 day old nations that know how to war better than you do.

You're getting nuked because people think you are annoying.

Also none of what you said adresses the original issue, your inability to seperate OOC and IC.

[The Zigur]

You don't even have barracks. I know of nonforum/nonirc 100 day old nations that know how to war better than you do.
You're getting nuked because people think you are annoying.
Also none of what you said adresses the original issue, your inability to seperate OOC and IC.

1. I started the war with 2000 infra and am happy with my current setup

2. I attacked the guy currently nuking me

3. I don't post OOC in IC forums unlike others :smug:

[Unknown Smurf]

1. I started the war with 2000 infra and am happy with my current setup

2. I attacked the guy currently nuking me

3. I don't post OOC in IC forums unlike others :smug:

1) The satellite is stupid. So is the FM imo but that's debatable.

2) Congratulations.

3) You've posted IC in this thread.

[The Zigur]

I felt the satellite will do more long term damage than a barracks in a long term war again higher infra targets.

[Karl Peters]

I was only half joking when I said that this is real. Plenty of people dismiss CN as "pixels," but the hours of work put into building nations and social relationships, not to mention milcom and other alliance institutions, are definitely real. So, people giving up the fight cannot simply be excused with "boredom," but (aside from those with RL difficulty accessing the game) rather is the result of a lack of Will as well as a failure of leadership. If you read Sun Tzu you will understand the stratagem.

 

Just because you read it doesn't mean you understand it. If you actually read the book, you would also realize that it was a manual handed out during lectures purely for note taking and memorization. Without the lecture you just have words and a "kind of sort of" meaning. So please stop using Sun Tzu (it is actually the Art of War written by Sun Tzu) when you have no clue on how the military works or what that book actually says.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Karl Peters

[The Zigur]

Hahaha thanks for the military lesson

[Unknown Smurf]

I felt the satellite will do more long term damage than a barracks in a long term war again higher infra targets.

 

None of the points you brought up are helping your sides war effort at all. You have a very rudimentary idea of how war works. You literally have given zero thought to tier or alliance wide warfare, the only aspect of war you have seemed to take a second to think about is 1 on 1 wars and even then you failed. 

 

The sub-2k NS targets you're fighting aren't considered "higher infra." GA odds are all that matter in the lower tier, 1 won battle for 1million is enough money to buy 400 infra (without trades) which easily dwarfs the +10% CM damage you get from your satellite (2 infra per day per war). You would need 16 days of full offensive AND defensive war slots of CMs to make up for 1 GA. 

 

You aren't even efficient with your aid slots making the FM not worth it either. 

[The Zigur]

Did you even look at my wars or

None of my targets are smaller than I am.

[infinite citadel]

 

None of the points you brought up are helping your sides war effort at all. You have a very rudimentary idea of how war works. You literally have given zero thought to tier or alliance wide warfare, the only aspect of war you have seemed to take a second to think about is 1 on 1 wars and even then you failed. 

 

The sub-2k NS targets you're fighting aren't considered "higher infra." GA odds are all that matter in the lower tier, 1 won battle for 1million is enough money to buy 400 infra (without trades) which easily dwarfs the +10% CM damage you get from your satellite (2 infra per day per war). You would need 16 days of full offensive AND defensive war slots of CMs to make up for 1 GA. 

 

You aren't even efficient with your aid slots making the FM not worth it either. 

 

Is it even worth trying at this point

[Unknown Smurf]

Did you even look at my wars or

None of my targets are smaller than I am.

 

It's irrelevant. 1) You wouldn't know who you would be fighting when setting up improvements in a 'long term' war (your words). 2) Even if they aren't smaller than you, they are still small nations. 3) Barracks is 100x better than satellite for your nation regardless. 

 

 

 

Is it even worth trying at this point

 

 

I get bored at work.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Unknown Smurf

[The Zigur]

Lol you are actually criticizing my satellite rather than war performance. I have been pleased with the extra CM damage thus far, especially when I am so often relying on CMs and underdog attacks. I don't care about a mere ten percent efficiency difference (sure didnt need it last night after winning every GA), but I will keep that in mind when I rebuild for the next war, if this war ever ends.

Until then I will enjoy harassing the Enemy low tier and waiting for more friendly mid tier nations to come on down... that's when the real fun starts. ;)

I was once mocked in SNX for saying this but I say it again: who needs a top tier?

Edited December 18, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Unknown Smurf]

Lol you are actually criticizing my satellite rather than war performance. I have been pleased with the extra CM damage thus far, especially when I am so often relying on CMs and underdog attacks. I don't care about a mere ten percent efficiency difference (sure didnt need it last night after winning every GA), but I will keep that in mind when I rebuild for the next war, if this war ever ends.

Until then I will enjoy harassing the Enemy low tier and waiting for more friendly mid tier nations to come on down... that's when the real fun starts. ;)

I was once mocked in SNX for saying this but I say it again: who needs a top tier?

 

War performance? You click the right 10 buttons? Awesome great job man. You want a cookie? Many nations do that. But nowhere near the majority and the nations you are fighting don't. So yes you might be good compared to them, but you're not great. 

 

There's 100-250 very active nations in CN, you're one of them: awesome. That doesn't make you a great fighter though. If you could go toe to toe with someone actually very active you might have some credibility to your boasting.

 

As of now, you're no more than a low rent Rey.

[Rayvon]

I was once mocked

Ohhhh .... I'm very certain it's been more than once ...

[Tehmina]

KEEP CALM AND MUNCH ON STATS.

[Sabcat]

 
War performance? You click the right 10 buttons? Awesome great job man. You want a cookie? Many nations do that. But nowhere near the majority and the nations you are fighting don't. So yes you might be good compared to them, but you're not great. 
 
There's 100-250 very active nations in CN, you're one of them: awesome. That doesn't make you a great fighter though. If you could go toe to toe with someone actually very active you might have some credibility to your boasting.
 
As of now, you're no more than a low rent Rey.

I think that's the rub. Too many people aren't bothered with pressing the right buttons or any buttons every day. To be good at war you really need to be checking regularly and reacting.

[The Zigur]

War performance? You click the right 10 buttons? Awesome great job man. You want a cookie? Many nations do that. But nowhere near the majority and the nations you are fighting don't. So yes you might be good compared to them, but you're not great. 
 
There's 100-250 very active nations in CN, you're one of them: awesome. That doesn't make you a great fighter though. If you could go toe to toe with someone actually very active you might have some credibility to your boasting.
 
As of now, you're no more than a low rent Rey.

Im basically singlehandedly responsible for TBM going broke so I think that counts :awesome:

[Longshadow]

I think something to consider is that the politics are pretty static lately, there hasn't been much "change" in CN politics in some time, and for me I think it stems from a lack of change in the game itself. Perhaps if we could see some more dynamic changes or gameplay things we might have more dynamic politics.

[IYIyTh]

 

War performance? You click the right 10 buttons? Awesome great job man. You want a cookie? Many nations do that. But nowhere near the majority and the nations you are fighting don't. So yes you might be good compared to them, but you're not great. 

 

There's 100-250 very active nations in CN, you're one of them: awesome. That doesn't make you a great fighter though. If you could go toe to toe with someone actually very active you might have some credibility to your boasting.

 

As of now, you're no more than a low rent Rey.

 

Am I a good fighter Smurf? :(