Jump to content

A question of a platypus nature


berbers

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying they should do anything, I am asking based on the above what is the purpose of having a treaty with them?

I can't figure it out for the life of me and was looking for help from the fine upstanding OWF community.

 

Why not have a treaty with them? I mean, you want to throw around numbers, let's throw around some numbers shall we? 

 

NATO has 121 members currently. TOP has 80 members currently. This means TOP has 2/3rds the membership of NATO. 

 

NATO is currently doing 1,794,451.59 NS worth of damage. TOP is doing 1,551,409.66 NS worth of damage. That means TOP is doing 86% the damage that NATO is doing with 66% the membership. 

 

But wait, you stated in the OP that around 72% of TOP is in PM. I mean giving PM cycling, we can what assume that 50% of TOP is in PM for this whole time? (not gonna go through and look but Berbers can since this is his whole schtick which is funny since iirc Berbers was the one defending NPO's use of PM in Disorder...) So that means 40 members (or 1/3rd the amount of NATO members) are doing roughly 86% the damage all of NATO are doing.

 

Frankly, if it takes 3 times the amount of members to do the damage TOP members are doing, why should anyone be allied to NATO?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Because NATO doesn't hide in peace mode. Ha, checkmate TOP supporters.

 

Does it matter? TOP is far better at war if it hides in PM and is able to still do almost as much damage as NATO. :P Though I will give you this, if TOP had gone balls to the wall, they would probably be doing far more damage than NATO could ever dream of doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hold on a bit mate where did we come into this?

 

We always have to be mentioned by at least one person in every topic regardless of what that topic actually is. If polar found out that they had the loch ness monster as a member I am sure MI6 would probably be connected to it somehow in the minds of some :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
We always have to be mentioned by at least one person in every topic regardless of what that topic actually is. If polar found out that they had the loch ness monster as a member I am sure MI6 would probably be connected to it somehow in the minds of some :P


Polar has the Loch Ness monster
MI6 has poached the Loch Ness monster from Polar

I can see how that might play out :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate we're going to be at war and outnumbered for ages yet. I'd rather see TOP playing it smart as they are than some short blaze of glory.

 

There's something to be said for the blaze of glory. [OOC]Everybody remembers the charge of the Light Brigade.[/OOC] However, I agree with your basic premise.

 

EDIT: However, I think back to the conduct of TDSM8 during the BAPS War. They went all-in against overwhelming odds and were lauded by most for giving their all in support of an ally.

 

I don't think there's a 'right or 'wrong' here, but I do think that one action leaves one open to criticism, while the other does not.

Edited by kingzog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you Rush certainly are an expert on the tactic. It almost worked for TLR during Disorder too. Almost.
 

[spoiler]You asked for it, can we still be friends?[/spoiler]

 

Except that you are completely wrong. During Disorder, granted, I was in PM the whole war. We also had a total of nations who were in PM the whole war. Out of a pre-war total of 97 nations.  Of those 12, only 8 of them were 75K+.. when you consider  alongside that , that we began the war with 15 nations over 100K, it becomes quite clear that we did not engage in a preservationist strategy, and to suggest otherwise, quite frankly, is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that you are completely wrong. During Disorder, granted, I was in PM the whole war. We also had a total of nations who were in PM the whole war. Out of a pre-war total of 97 nations.  Of those 12, only 8 of them were 75K+.. when you consider  alongside that , that we began the war with 15 nations over 100K, it becomes quite clear that we did not engage in a preservationist strategy, and to suggest otherwise, quite frankly, is foolish.


I'm glad we can agree on how wrong lowsten generally is. Always wrong. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does it matter? TOP is far better at war if it hides in PM and is able to still do almost as much damage as NATO. :P Though I will give you this, if TOP had gone balls to the wall, they would probably be doing far more damage than NATO could ever dream of doing. 

 

TOP has more tech than NATO, I would hope that they could do more damage than them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is bad and you should feel bad, berby.
 

I understand where you're coming from, but if that's the line you're towing wouldn't have it been better to keep them out entirely? TOP's strenght is their upper tier and the core of experienced fighters, or so I assume given their "elite" label: having those nations drop down and fight in the midtiers would have probably put a major strain on our coalition's limited resources there, just by looking at the damage output NpO's former upper tier is dishing. I do not mean to tease and I don't have coalition-planning experience unlike yourself, but that just does not seem a successful strategy so far.

We all here appreciate the masterful strategy of delayed entries, now it seems to be happening at tier level. Anyone keeping an eye on the tier numbers will realize we should all be praising our friends on the other side for their continuous support.

This public show of unity and support on the face of criticism is most welcome, similar to the show of how "Polar convinced SNX to let them fight and not let SNX take all the damage all alone" by the sheer force of their moralism. SNX totally did not ask for help guys. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does it matter? TOP is far better at war if it hides in PM and is able to still do almost as much damage as NATO. :P Though I will give you this, if TOP had gone balls to the wall, they would probably be doing far more damage than NATO could ever dream of doing. 

 

Was sarcasm.

 

 

 

Except that you are completely wrong. During Disorder, granted, I was in PM the whole war. We also had a total of nations who were in PM the whole war. Out of a pre-war total of 97 nations.  Of those 12, only 8 of them were 75K+.. when you consider  alongside that , that we began the war with 15 nations over 100K, it becomes quite clear that we did not engage in a preservationist strategy, and to suggest otherwise, quite frankly, is foolish.

 

I was going to make a comment about how by the end you were 90% in PM, or something to that effect, but you clearly have numbers that don't sound made up. Thus I'll concede on the grounds that TLR did not go in with preservationist strategy, though it's indisputable that by the end it was (preserving started after the first round if memory serves, which is contestable considering my lack of memory on your opening stats), which was honestly the best strategy for you at the time so I can't and won't harp on you for that in light of the numbers you just brought to the table. Have a nice day Rush.

 

 

I'm glad we can agree on how wrong lowsten generally is. Always wrong. :)

 

I take back everything I said, TOP should be fighting and you specifically should be rolled into a fine powder. Ginger too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take back everything I said, TOP should be fighting and you specifically should be rolled into a fine powder. Ginger too.


I believe we can come to some sort of arrangement, particularly on the last item.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate we're going to be at war and outnumbered for ages yet. I'd rather see TOP playing it smart as they are than some short blaze of glory.

.

Oh Dajobo, what you must say in public for actions of your ally, this part I get.

Rest is just empty talk. You absolutely detest what TOP is doing, there are countless posts of yours in public that can be quoted on this topic.

Secondly, suggesting what TOP is doing is smart and implying burning in blaze of glory is not implies that Sparta, Mi6, FARK etc are stupid.

Thirdly, it suggests there is no central strategy in your coalition. Getting tiers wiped out piece meal is a very stupid strategy. If you were tywin and friends etc, I'd have believed it was by design, but you're not tywin, its not by design. It is because some people have higher propensity to preserve pixels than others and weak central coalition command to over ride that propensity and direct a coherent strategy. Some are here to do actual defending, others are here to tick off a clause on a paper and put some guys out there for token defense.

All in all, you're putting up a show of public support and unity, however it does not stands up to your own views in recent history nor does it makes any logical sense in terms of overall coalition strategy. This united show of support is as honest as the statement of Polaris convincing SNX to invite them in. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Oh Dajobo, what you must say in public for actions of your ally, this part I get.

Rest is just empty talk. You absolutely detest what TOP is doing, there are countless posts of yours in public that can be quoted on this topic. Polaris as a brand has been built as an Aa that has consistent stance based on principle,moral and honor, not a stance that changes depending on the AA. So my friend, there is no way to reconcile the gaps here, either your stances are based on AAs, damned be the principles, or privately you just hate and detest what TOP is doing as per your own statements same time last year.

Secondly, suggesting what TOP is doing is smart and implying burning in blaze of glory is not implies that Sparta, Mi6, FARK etc are stupid.

Thirdly, it suggests there is no central strategy in your coalition. Getting tiers wiped out piece meal is a very stupid strategy. If you were tywin and friends etc, I'd have believed it was by design, but you're not tywin, its not by design. It is because some people have higher propensity to preserve pixels than others and weak central coalition command to over ride that propensity and direct a coherent strategy.

All in all, you're putting up a show of public support and unity, however it does not stands up to your own views in recent history nor does it makes any logical sense in terms if overall coalition strategy. This united show of support is as honest as the statement of Polaris convincing SNX to request help.

 

Hey, MI6 is the worst alliance in CN at the moment, I would figure with that honor goes a rightful amount of stupidity... :P

 

 

As for the coalition strategy, yeah, personally I agree. It was not the smartest strategy at all, caused the war to be prolonged, and in the end our side is probably getting thrashed worse than it could have but on the flip side, we actually have no idea. For all we know, we could have entered a lot sooner and still be at war now. If we had followed the strategy y'all wanted, our upper tier would probably be considerably smaller than it currently is and everyone on this side would be in the same situation now (well actually a worse one since our entire side would have been at war for probably a month or so longer than we currently are). 

 

Going balls to the wall is only smart if you know the war is going to end in a relatively short time. Otherwise, it just means that y'alls upper tier would be almost fully uncontested in the next war and let's face it, y'all gonna work on ensuring the next war will be yet another beatdown of our side. It would take some seriously political blundering for any alliance on your side to be on the opposite side let alone the next target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You were fighting ONE alliance of similar size to your own, Because you know nobody could counter you... and you still lost.

 

What are you retarded, we fought MK who had one of the best Upper Tiers in the game at the time.  They had so many more people > 10K tech than us that it was a farce of a fight lol.  But we at least wanted to spit in their eye when we fought so we actually fought instead of TOPPING out :/  (Get it, I made a pun from tapping out, like you guys gave up before you started, har har)

 

 

 

Why not have a treaty with them? I mean, you want to throw around numbers, let's throw around some numbers shall we? 

 

NATO has 121 members currently. TOP has 80 members currently. This means TOP has 2/3rds the membership of NATO. 

 

NATO is currently doing 1,794,451.59 NS worth of damage. TOP is doing 1,551,409.66 NS worth of damage. That means TOP is doing 86% the damage that NATO is doing with 66% the membership. 

 

But wait, you stated in the OP that around 72% of TOP is in PM. I mean giving PM cycling, we can what assume that 50% of TOP is in PM for this whole time? (not gonna go through and look but Berbers can since this is his whole schtick which is funny since iirc Berbers was the one defending NPO's use of PM in Disorder...) So that means 40 members (or 1/3rd the amount of NATO members) are doing roughly 86% the damage all of NATO are doing.

 

Frankly, if it takes 3 times the amount of members to do the damage TOP members are doing, why should anyone be allied to NATO?  

 

Well I'm going to assume you are smarter than this post indicates, but if you bothered to look, almost none of our top 20 nations got to see *any* fighting... at all.  Mostly because the people who hit NpO's upper tier were pretty badass and beat them down efficiently.

 

So most of NATO fought in tiers where there wasn't that much damage to be done, like there were not 40K damage wars or anything because nobody had that much infra/land to blow up, hell some of the early wars amongst the big nations accounts for a very high % of the damage done to date in the war.  Based on how we rolled out and with who we rolled out with, there wasn't a whole lot more that we could do, and our war target is suitable dismantled.  We declared 100's of wars, didn't blow any staggers and did a good bit more damage than we received, nothing wrong with that.

 

I guess that's one reason to ally NATO.

 

Now TOP on the other hand, half-assed their way into the war, have probably the worse damage ratio, did next to no damage in the tier they should have been fighting in.  If TOP commited like NATO did to this war, they'd have done a ton more damage and put more pressure on our coalition to end the war.  But they didn't, they hid away and so the coverage on everyone else is overwhelmingly worse than it needs to be.

 

Hell TOP could come out right now with it's PM nations and ruin some people's day pretty bad, and maybe, just maybe, end the war quicker.  But of course I'm not telling them what to do, I just wanted to have a debate on the merits of allying TOP.  I've gotten very few answers, mostly people just saying "no u", but it's entertaining so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK you got us berbers. We were about to roll Umbrella for hitting MI6 but got cold feet because we were afraid NATO would chain in. 

 

 

 I just wanted to have a debate on the merits of allying TOP.

 

How about having you as an opposition instead of an ally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
What are you retarded, we fought MK who had one of the best Upper Tiers in the game at the time.  They had so many more people > 10K tech than us that it was a farce of a fight lol.  But we at least wanted to spit in their eye when we fought so we actually fought instead of TOPPING out :/  (Get it, I made a pun from tapping out, like you guys gave up before you started, har har)
 
 
 
Well I'm going to assume you are smarter than this post indicates, but if you bothered to look, almost none of our top 20 nations got to see *any* fighting... at all.  Mostly because the people who hit NpO's upper tier were pretty badass and beat them down efficiently.
 
So most of NATO fought in tiers where there wasn't that much damage to be done, like there were not 40K damage wars or anything because nobody had that much infra/land to blow up, hell some of the early wars amongst the big nations accounts for a very high % of the damage done to date in the war.  Based on how we rolled out and with who we rolled out with, there wasn't a whole lot more that we could do, and our war target is suitable dismantled.  We declared 100's of wars, didn't blow any staggers and did a good bit more damage than we received, nothing wrong with that.
 
I guess that's one reason to ally NATO.
 
Now TOP on the other hand, half-assed their way into the war, have probably the worse damage ratio, did next to no damage in the tier they should have been fighting in.  If TOP commited like NATO did to this war, they'd have done a ton more damage and put more pressure on our coalition to end the war.  But they didn't, they hid away and so the coverage on everyone else is overwhelmingly worse than it needs to be.
 
Hell TOP could come out right now with it's PM nations and ruin some people's day pretty bad, and maybe, just maybe, end the war quicker.  But of course I'm not telling them what to do, I just wanted to have a debate on the merits of allying TOP.  I've gotten very few answers, mostly people just saying "no u", but it's entertaining so far.

Comparison of NATO and TOP between different wars and different fronts is like comparing apples and oranges and a red herring IMO.

A more appropriate comparison would be comparing Mi6 and Sparta's contribution in this war to TOP. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparison of NATO and TOP between different wars and different fronts is like comparing apples and oranges and a red herring IMO.

A more appropriate comparison would be comparing Mi6 and Sparta's contribution in this war to TOP.


Very good point, KB is a bit of a tard for bringing it up and I am a bit of a tard for rebutting :/

More on point to some of the TOP people replying, why do you guys feel Mi6 and Sparta are contributing so much more than you guys to the war effort? Is it cultural differences? Better leadership? Is it because of physical appearance and sex appeal? Please do tell, it may shed some light on why people actually want to be treatied to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...