Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wolves of the North Declaration of War

giphy.gif

Apparently to someone I mentored and was once a Wolf I am stupid and worst of all compared to HG! So I guess I will just have to drop some Nukes..

And because I am horrible, Ill through in someone I guess is just as misguided as him....

1 hour ago, Bajoran Federation said:

I have to be honest, the level of egotism, self-righteousness, close-mindedness and unintelligence in this post rivals no one but HG himself.

Wolves declare war on United Nations and Roman Empire: May the misguided nations of TE enjoy some nuclear anarchy, o and a smack or two:

giphy.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats:

 

Alliance
down.gif up.gif

 Total
down.gif up.gif

Active
down.gif up.gif
Strength
down.gif up.gif
Avg
down.gif up.gif
Score
down_active.gif up.gif
Anarchy
down.gif up.gif
Infras
down.gif up.gif
Tech
down.gif up.gif
Nukes
down.gif up.gif
 
                     
award.png
2) Wolves of the North
19
18
546,939
28,786
50.06
0
86,536
11,006
104
 
                     
 
4) United Nations
20
18
431,981
21,599
47.90
1
78,241
8,323
129
award.png
                     
award.png
                     
 
7) Roman Empire
8
6
106,786
13,348
17.16
1
20,000
3,618
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bajoran Federation said:

Pairing us with RE? An odd combination lol 

 

Anyway, glhf.

Pairing you with Lord Hitchcock, he always gets a visit from me...

 

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have fun out there ya furry fur balls

 

XVWG06H.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 9:27 PM, Bajoran Federation said:

Pairing us with RE? An odd combination lol 

 

Anyway, glhf.

un-involved-in-africa.jpg

 

RE was the last alliance not at war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I could have just hit UN, but ya I try to be fair and help the out but still they complain haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bajoran Federation said:

Your stats are missing RE

 

If the Wolves focused solely on the UN then they'd have dealt more damage to the UN.

 

Here you go my young padawan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/107EAKEhHQ9kXY70-sv_BKFyM-H0N4h9Mh2k-fmrzg7I/edit?usp=sharing

Edited by HiredGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree thank you HG.

I am not good with Google docs so here is the summary,  I went to each nation and pulled the stats because when you pull them all it is always off a tad...

First time I did that and will never do it again, it was off by very little amount as you can see with HGs stats haha

 

Alpha Wolves vs. United Nations & Roman Empire

AW declares on UN- 34 Wars
AW declares on RE- 6 Wars
UN retaliated - 19 wars
RE retaliated - 0 wars
Total Wars Fought- 59

Total Wins for WotN- 30 (More damage caused)
Total Loses for WotN- 29 (You received more damage than you gave)

Total Damage Overall- 316,839
WotN Damage Received- 142,506

WotN Damage Given - 174,332

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/194XIGU-Ld1iJtPqyteE24zX0IUlkRX0r_gOxrRolRe0/edit?usp=sharing

 

Good job all!

Al Bundy

Edited by AL Bundy
Figured out Google hahaha and mine has perdy colors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2018 at 6:12 AM, HiredGun said:

Your stats are missing RE

 

If the Wolves focused solely on the UN then they'd have dealt more damage to the UN.

 

Here you go my young padawan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/107EAKEhHQ9kXY70-sv_BKFyM-H0N4h9Mh2k-fmrzg7I/edit?usp=sharing

wrong. we take the real stats. UN vs wolves. you can also compare wolves vs re. but 30k damage to 0 tells the tail. they did not do anything at all as far as I can see because let's face it they are garbage and probably weren't at all interested in doing damage. they just sat there and took it.

and no they did not even need to "focus" RE as there was no fight.

wolves still beat us by 10k was a good war.

 

However, in our position you would be saying UN plus RE had more NS to lose thus it's even haha. you have argued this point before.

 

if 2 AAs are coordinating in war and using each other's strength as if they were 1, then yes it is fair to compare the total. example being when war doves have been dragged to war with us. we have together put out more damage.

in RE s case, was it actually 0 damage put out? not it was close to that. and that's ridiculous really.

 

is bundy your padawan now? keep losing them and you keep having to find more. perhaps take in some RE as your new padawans instead of insulting bundy 😀😎

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, StevieG said:

wrong. we take the real stats. UN vs wolves. you can also compare wolves vs re. but 30k damage to 0 tells the tail. they did not do anything at all as far as I can see because let's face it they are garbage and probably weren't at all interested in doing damage. they just sat there and took it.

and no they did not even need to "focus" RE as there was no fight.

wolves still beat us by 10k was a good war.

 

However, in our position you would be saying UN plus RE had more NS to lose thus it's even haha. you have argued this point before.

 

if 2 AAs are coordinating in war and using each other's strength as if they were 1, then yes it is fair to compare the total. example being when war doves have been dragged to war with us. we have together put out more damage.

in RE s case, was it actually 0 damage put out? not it was close to that. and that's ridiculous really.

 

is bundy your padawan now? keep losing them and you keep having to find more. perhaps take in some RE as your new padawans instead of insulting bundy 😀😎

 

 

It doesn't matter if RE did nothing (RE were inactive) , they still took away WotN offensive war slots and in turn potential damage the UN would've received. You may not like facts but tough luck.

 

Also why are you trying so hard to put Bundy against me? I never insulted him but I'm sure you'd like the old feuding to kick start again so you'd have no one making you earn the precious flags you love so much to the point where you'd even watch your alliance burn two wars in a row. Smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All moot now. Next TE is in a couple of months according to the in game announcement. 

Why wait so long?

Just another nail in the CN coffin IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice if the wait is so long because there will be changes to the game......fixing a few things would be worth the wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HiredGun said:

It doesn't matter if RE did nothing (RE were inactive) , they still took away WotN offensive war slots and in turn potential damage the UN would've received. You may not like facts but tough luck.

 

Also why are you trying so hard to put Bundy against me? I never insulted him but I'm sure you'd like the old feuding to kick start again so you'd have no one making you earn the precious flags you love so much to the point where you'd even watch your alliance burn two wars in a row. Smh

and by being inactive RE and UN weren't able to do as much damage with utilising those slots.

your point is not a fact you are merely theorizing to potential damage.

the fact is they did not have to focus RE and could focus the UN nations who were not receiving coordination assistance from RE. they could merely launch nukes as they pleased. and probably could get easy wins and damage on RE with remaining deploys after hitting UN with the focus of AA GA and nuke attacks.

I'm not even trying. merely pointing out your belittling of bundy by calling him your "padawan"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StevieG said:

and by being inactive RE and UN weren't able to do as much damage with utilising those slots.

your point is not a fact you are merely theorizing to potential damage.

the fact is they did not have to focus RE and could focus the UN nations who were not receiving coordination assistance from RE. they could merely launch nukes as they pleased. and probably could get easy wins and damage on RE with remaining deploys after hitting UN with the focus of AA GA and nuke attacks.

I'm not even trying. merely pointing out your belittling of bundy by calling him your "padawan"

The fact is we tally the damages of the inactives in every war where the stats have been recorded, we're not going to change that for this war cos you didn't like the result having more inactives fighting on your side.

 

I was calling Bajor my young padawan which isn't hard to figure out if you had noticed that was in response to him trying to spin the same BS you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go ahead and tally the total. nothing wrong with that. we also tally the break downs. you know kind of like in a DoW we don't just use total ns vs total ns. we break it down.

considering RE took 30k and put out as close as you get to 0. it is not only fair but the correct way to gauge our war with the wolves.

carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StevieG said:

go ahead and tally the total. nothing wrong with that. we also tally the break downs. you know kind of like in a DoW we don't just use total ns vs total ns. we break it down.

considering RE took 30k and put out as close as you get to 0. it is not only fair but the correct way to gauge our war with the wolves.

carry on

If RE weren't attacked as well then the UN would've taken a lot of that 30k damage which is the point you continue to miss.

Edited by HiredGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 1:08 PM, HiredGun said:

If RE weren't attacked as well then the UN would've taken a lot of that 30k damage which is the point you continue to miss.

Thats not at all necessarily true.

You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE.

 

Firstly once nuked, a nation cannot be nuked again, and its likely the nuke levels we had resulted in most of our nations being nuked daily.(So you cant nuke us again) In addition ive already explained how its easy to get damage against someone not fighting by "using the left overs" Air raids Ground attacks. And nukes if you have enough.

 

Granted "usage of slots" its most likely your strongest argument for Wolves being able to do more damage had they not attacked "some" RE nations. How many slots did they even use on RE? Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes. But likewise the UN could have done more damage in return through coordination and utilization of those exact slots as well. I myself was in this exact situation. I think only 1 or 2 nations hit me, and I hit out on 3. So had they not used slots on RE but had "filled me up" I could have done more damage back as well.

 

For some reason, you do not feel that RE not fighting back at all is not valid enough reason for us to compare damage dealt by UN to Wolves and vice versa. You use this as a reason why Wolves didnt do more damage to UN. Thats funny really, considering we were statistically fighting uphill.

 

We can just agree to disagree on this point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StevieG said:

Thats not at all necessarily true.

You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE.

 

Firstly once nuked, a nation cannot be nuked again, and its likely the nuke levels we had resulted in most of our nations being nuked daily.(So you cant nuke us again) In addition ive already explained how its easy to get damage against someone not fighting by "using the left overs" Air raids Ground attacks. And nukes if you have enough.

 

Granted "usage of slots" its most likely your strongest argument for Wolves being able to do more damage had they not attacked "some" RE nations. How many slots did they even use on RE? Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes. But likewise the UN could have done more damage in return through coordination and utilization of those exact slots as well. I myself was in this exact situation. I think only 1 or 2 nations hit me, and I hit out on 3. So had they not used slots on RE but had "filled me up" I could have done more damage back as well.

 

For some reason, you do not feel that RE not fighting back at all is not valid enough reason for us to compare damage dealt by UN to Wolves and vice versa. You use this as a reason why Wolves didnt do more damage to UN. Thats funny really, considering we were statistically fighting uphill.

 

We can just agree to disagree on this point.

 

 

"

Quote

You are just making a silly assumption, that damage dealt to RE could be transferred to UN if they were not fighting RE.

and then you go on to say this..

Quote

Could Wolves have done more damage had they used slots on UN only and not RE? Yes.

 

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×