Producers vs Parasites 2: Types of Nations

[Max Power]

DBDC obviously only signed a NAP with IRON because DBDC only picks fights where it outnumbers the other party enough that they pose no serious risk to their stats.  It's the same reason they (except for O Ya Baby) haven't attacked WTF, GPA, or OBR.  Certain (mostly ex-MK) members of DBDC might like a good, competitive, fight, or at least used to, but it's clear that's not the spirit of the alliance as a whole.

 

IRON also didn't want to have it's upper tier nations smashed or have them have to sit in peace mode long term, thus the NAP.

 

Yes former enemies have reconciled (like TOP/MK or TOP/NpO), usually after a big fight where they both smash each other.  That never took place between DBDC and IRON.
 

ETA: To preeempt any "BUT WHAT ABOUT TOP BEING IN PEACEMODE" objections, if it were up to me personally TOP would have more engaged, and I have engaged my own nation and lost about 70,000 NS so far (but dished out quite a bit more.)

Please, why don't you criticize TB's alliance more? If you thought he was doing that shitty a job, you presumably would have mentioned that during the about half a billion years you spent together in MK. I know you mentioned ex-MK there but I dunno, send TOP's #1 at him or something.

 

Good analysis. There is no coincidence that DBDC has only openly opposed the heavily mid tier XX and AFM in the past few years. Any alliance with a significant presence in the top tier has been quickly allied by them.

The tier concentration, and not the FA incompetence, is exactly why people oh right, this is about DBDC have has opposed XX and AFM. Totally. Yeah.

[Neo Uruk]

Show me my hyperbole shahenshah please

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Please, why don't you criticize TB's alliance more? If you thought he was doing that !@#$%* a job, you presumably would have mentioned that during the about half a billion years you spent together in MK. I know you mentioned ex-MK there but I dunno, send TOP's #1 at him or something.

 

The tier concentration, and not the FA incompetence, is exactly why people oh right, this is about DBDC have has opposed XX and AFM. Totally. Yeah.

There was nothing XX/AF could do FA wise to avoid getting rolled, its a no CB war so its unfair to call it incompetent. NPO only shoot themselves in the foot by building a coalition against their weakest threat and one they'll likely need in the future.

 

Tier concentration and FA are the same, forming pacts with alliances with strong top tiers is FA.

 

As for DBDC, I'd say it's strategy more than anything personal. Systematically destroying their enemies and future enemies top tier nations one by one is just smart politics. Their growth rate is incredible and having such powerful nations militarily greatly enhances your position politically. Everyone wants to be them, all the DBDC fan boys want to be with them. Making sure Tsar bombs don't fall on your alliance seems to be priority for most FA maneuvering. ^_^

[saxasm]

There was nothing XX/AF could do FA wise to avoid getting rolled, its a no CB war so its unfair to call it incompetent. NPO only shoot themselves in the foot by building a coalition against their weakest threat and one they'll likely need in the future.

 

That's just plain false. That kind of strict determinism is almost never true, and it definitely isn't true that neither XX nor Aft could have improved their positions. They tried to do a bunch of stuff, but generally failed at much of it, or failed to pursue it sufficiently. I wouldn't expect you to know about those things, but to say that it was inevitable that XX or Aft would find themselves in this situation, that it was determined more than a couple of months ago at most, is not really true.

 

I'll also point out that your idea that we were the ones who built this coalition is also pretty silly, since I doubt anyone else has claimed that. The Polar line used to be that we were puppets of someone else, not that we were the puppeteers...

[Bob Janova]

There's an interesting topic to be written about the interaction between upper, mid and lower tier nations, and if you want to call them 'parasites' and 'producers' that only partly invalidates your argument. (Though in particular the suggestion that only small nations take on all the non-physical 'production' roles is just nonsense.) But this isn't it, it's a bad "Polar good DBDC bad" thread and you should be ashamed. You, sir, are no Vladimir.

[Third King]

Of course we want you to come to blows with DBDC. Both of you sat on stats for years and have built up to ridiculous levels. Now, DBDC has allied everyone in range, and IRON has successfully joined the winning side yet again.

 

The difference between TOP-Polar and IRON-DBDC is that there was an actual (and very bitter) war involved, and more than a week between fighting and allying. You allied DBDC to preserve stats. We allied TOP to eliminate others stats. That's the key difference.

 

Eventually you and Valhalla will be caught up to. I'd almost like to get involved back into politics to unite the IRON/Val haters into a nice grouping. Watch out, because I promise someone will do it.

 

Good analysis. There is no coincidence that DBDC has only openly opposed the heavily mid tier XX and AFM in the past few years. Any alliance with a significant presence in the top tier has been quickly allied by them.

 

1. IRON did not successfully join the winning side, we helped create it.
2. There are numerous differences between TOP-NpO and IRON-DBDC, and I don't expect you to know or acknowledge all of them. That NAP was signed almost a year ago now. I suggest getting over it.

 

 

Where was IRON when XX/AF were getting rolled? You did nothing when you were able too and then you wanted those unable to do anything to come help you. IRON fought back and rolled 1-2? of their smaller nations but no one was worried about them. You knew no one had the resources to do anything, and you knew the only option was lose your top tier or reach a resolution to end hostilities. IRON made the right choice but don't blame anyone else for your decision.

 

. . .What?

[Starfox101]

 

1. IRON did not successfully join the winning side, we helped create it.
2. There are numerous differences between TOP-NpO and IRON-DBDC, and I don't expect you to know or acknowledge all of them. That NAP was signed almost a year ago now. I suggest getting over it.

Numerous differences huh? You mean exactly what I said? Thank you for confirming it.

[Artigo]

DBDC obviously only signed a NAP with IRON because DBDC only picks fights where it outnumbers the other party enough that they pose no serious risk to their stats. 

 

In general I agree with your posts Azaghul, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

 

We been openly at war with the world's top tier since out inception in October of 2013.  Both TDO and GOP's upper tier had NS advantages over our nations at this point in time (including tech).  Then we began to systematically dismantle the remaining top tier nations in our range which was our goal from the beginning.  Regardless of whether or not they were larger or smaller than us, we targeted all the nations we could.

 

We then hit Pax Corvus who possessed 3 nations in the top #25 and their number 1 nation coming in at #7 which was significantly higher than a majority of DBDC at the time.  Ya'll can talk as much !@#$ as we want, but we've never been afraid to fight nations bigger than ours.  It's not our fault that a 100-something nations between then and now bowed out without a fight.  Those stats came easy so we don't care about losing them.

 

And before I get reply about DBDC not taking fair fights or not hitting allies 1) I'm here to win 2) You all had your chance a year ago.  It's not our fault you were to busy flailing around with your dicks in the mud.

 

edit: Also I'd like to add we signed our NAP with IRON because it was specifically the opposite of what TOP wanted or expected

Edited January 1, 2015 by Artigo

[Starfox101]

Beating GOP, TDO and Pax Corvus isn't exactly destroying giants. I mean hell, o ya baby is destroying 4 of those neutrals and has gained NS out of it. Neutrals are just worthless. They are too afraid to even nuke back, or counter you out of fear more will hit. 

 

Actually, please destroy the rest of the neutrals. There's one thing I can actually agree with.

 

Edit: Got me so worked up about neutrals, I forgot to mention the fact that DBDC has never fought any non-neutral with a top tier presence. There is no coincidence they've allied anyone who is even a sliver of a threat up there. Once you stop beating on neutrals or alliances with 10 nation top tiers, let me know.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Starfox101

[Artigo]

We must have different definition of giants.  The only nations that can hurt us have 30k+ tech. All of the alliances I mentioned had that and in Pax's cases nations over 45k+ tech.  Also, he has been nuked.  

 

And actually we have hit a ton of alliances with top tier presence.  Damn you have the most selective memory of anyone I've ever met.

 

 

 DBDC has never fought any non-neutral with a top tier presence. 

 

 

 Did you forget about this?

 

 

We were VASTLY outnumbered in the top tier at one point, but as I've mentioned that time has come and gone.  We've beaten you all down so badly many of you refuse to even grow back into range.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Artigo

[hapapants]

...

 

Edit: Got me so worked up about neutrals, I forgot to mention the fact that DBDC has never fought any non-neutral with a top tier presence. There is no coincidence they've allied anyone who is even a sliver of a threat up there. Once you stop beating on neutrals or alliances with 10 nation top tiers, let me know.

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114848

[Azaghul]

 

In general I agree with your posts Azaghul, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

 

We been openly at war with the world's top tier since out inception in October of 2013.  Both TDO and GOP's upper tier had NS advantages over our nations at this point in time (including tech).  Then we began to systematically dismantle the remaining top tier nations in our range which was our goal from the beginning.  Regardless of whether or not they were larger or smaller than us, we targeted all the nations we could.

 

We then hit Pax Corvus who possessed 3 nations in the top #25 and their number 1 nation coming in at #7 which was significantly higher than a majority of DBDC at the time.  Ya'll can talk as much !@#$ as we want, but we've never been afraid to fight nations bigger than ours.  It's not our fault that a 100-something nations between then and now bowed out without a fight.  Those stats came easy so we don't care about losing them.

 

And before I get reply about DBDC not taking fair fights or not hitting allies 1) I'm here to win 2) You all had your chance a year ago.  It's not our fault you were to busy flailing around with your dicks in the mud.

 

edit: Also I'd like to add we signed our NAP with IRON because it was specifically the opposite of what TOP wanted or expected

Pax Corvus had some big nations, but their big nations were outnumbered by your big nations so while they could still do some damage if they fought back, they could be tag teamed and would still be knocked out of range within a round or two.  They didn't pose a serious threat because you'd easily win a war of attrition.  The risk was pretty small.  I'll grant you that there was some risk with TDO/GOP, before the NAP with IRON and all, but that was in the beginning of your history.

 

It'd be one thing if we were JUST talking about IRON, that could be explained by politics.  But you also haven't hit OBR, GPA*, or WTF the three other alliances that would pose a reasonable challenge: OBR because of Hime's stat's (he couldn't be taken down in just a round or two), GPA and WTF because of number of top tier nations (easily winning the war of attrition isn't guaranteed.)  Those three neutral alliances have 64 of the nations in the top 250, well over a third of the remaining nations in the top 250 if you take out DBDC and allies.

 

Also: I really don't care about TOP's relationship to any of this. A year ago I liked DBDC, before you started to play it safe all the time.  I still like Doomsquad and a lot of your members as individuals.  I might have joined DBDC or DS after this war even.

 

*with the exception of o ya baby, but that's him doing his own thing I'm willing to bet.

[TBRaiders]

DBDC playing it safe.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

We must have different definition of giants.  The only nations that can hurt us have 30k+ tech. All of the alliances I mentioned had that and in Pax's cases nations over 45k+ tech.  Also, he has been nuked.  

 

And actually we have hit a ton of alliances with top tier presence.  Damn you have the most selective memory of anyone I've ever met.

 

 Did you forget about this?

 

 

We were VASTLY outnumbered in the top tier at one point, but as I've mentioned that time has come and gone.  We've beaten you all down so badly many of you refuse to even grow back into range.

 

Ha, that was fun. One of the best wars I've been in. 

[the rebel]

If you refure to grow past 50k you won't be able to...

 

nonsense.

[Dochartaigh]

I'll have to agree with Artigo on the fact that most alliances with top tier nations were too pussy to fight back even a year ago. I watched as I would wager 80+% sat back and did nothing for the couple of days to a week long raid/war took place. Why? They did not want to lose their stats. What is sad is that there was no forethought to the fact that they would simply be hit time and again (and this happened several times) so if they had just fought back in the first place, DBDC would not be as large as they are now. 

 

I honestly don't think DBDC is frightened of much. They are smart and why not wait until they have a couple more nations over 70k tech before they take on the likes of Dulra. Cuba has already fought Dulra at least once so it is bound to happen again. Currently, we are watching the same failure that we watched over the past year. GPA is getting hit by a single DBDC nation and instead of all 4 fighting back and adding on 3 more on top of that, GPA is sitting back and taking it. It is rather sad.

[Starfox101]

We must have different definition of giants.  The only nations that can hurt us have 30k+ tech. All of the alliances I mentioned had that and in Pax's cases nations over 45k+ tech.  Also, he has been nuked.  

 

And actually we have hit a ton of alliances with top tier presence.  Damn you have the most selective memory of anyone I've ever met.

 

 Did you forget about this?

 

 

We were VASTLY outnumbered in the top tier at one point, but as I've mentioned that time has come and gone.  We've beaten you all down so badly many of you refuse to even grow back into range.

To be fair when you can be hit by nations with over 600k more NS, and 500k NS x2, what reason is there to even grow into the top 250? Polar will never be a top tier alliance and having our nations up there is rather pointless when they get raided every few weeks.

 

Also, it looks like only one of those neutrals is even fighting back, and has at most hit him with 2 nukes. The others are either so inactive, or rolling over out of fear just as they did when NPO came knocking years ago. Some things never change.

 

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114848

Sorry, I failed to specify. I am aware DBDC fought a top tier battle two years ago. I should not have said never, and should have pointed out that it has been a long time since they've fought an alliance with a top tier presence rather than sending a treaty offer. My apologies.

 

This is all a moot discussion though. I would like to see IRON's entire sphere rolled and that is the reason I was speaking of the NAP. Newton's 8th law declares that every CN discussion must end in discussing DBDC, but let's get back to the real issue here.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Starfox101

[Artigo]

To be fair when you can be hit by nations with over 600k more NS, and 500k NS x2

 

Do you realize that October 2013 my nation was around 270k and Cuba just over 300k barely a year ago?

 

It took me ~6 years to reach 250k and less than a year to double that.

 

I just want to make the point clear that you and yours inaction is what  allowed us to become The Reapers™

 

You have no one to blame but yourself.

[Hereno]

tywin, send me tech

tia

[Starfox101]

 

Do you realize that October 2013 my nation was around 270k and Cuba just over 300k barely a year ago?

 

It took me ~6 years to reach 250k and less than a year to double that.

 

I just want to make the point clear that you and yours inaction is what  allowed us to become The Reapers™

 

You have no one to blame but yourself.

I like that you think I wield some sort of power, but it's well past 2008. I also haven't been top 100 since 2006. ;)

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*Thumbs talons up at the post before him.* This guy is totally wasting space.. *Sips his UPN slurpeee.* What's worse, I can't eat him.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Starfox101]

You are a strange one

[Third King]

Numerous differences huh? You mean exactly what I said? Thank you for confirming it.

 

Not quite. You left out the bit about how much our allies benefited from that deal. And just think how much more difficult it would have been to take on TOP's top tier after trading blows with DBDC. 

[Starfox101]

The problem with that is...you let TOP be until a coalition was built that had an advantage. You fought alongside them last war. Even then, you still didn't declare on them.

 

Typical IRON

[CubaQuerida]

I think there are far too many examples ITT of over-simplifying the intricate nature of CN politics. It's doing a terrible disservice to the strong willed individuals at IRON and DBDC who were able to circumvent an entire war cycle in the name of a better, lasting agreement.

It's beyond stupid to say that any alliance willingly takes actions which directly hurt their cause in the long run or the short run. Everyone wants to survive and thrive and be surrounded by friends and good people. It's just coming off extremely petty and bitter to attack the actions of any alliance for doing what's in their best interest, both short and long term.

If you think the actions of DBDC or iron are motivated by fear or cowardice, then you have not spent enough time in a leadership position, or your time was wasted pursuing goals that didn't pan out.

Why have we not attacked WTF/GPA? That's our problem, not yours. None of us got to this position by following public sentiment and treaty web politics, we rejected that construct and replaced it with our own version that suits our interests better.

The only reason we are still alive and capable of enforcing this radical movement is that we are the most capable of defending ourselves and defeating any who oppose us, both diplomatically and militarily.

But by all means, continue to speak more about strategies you don't comprehend and about nations you don't control and about the way you think we should all interact.