Address from Commanding General

[Rafael Nadal]

Heh, I'm not saying there weren't mistakes made on both sides. I probably know more than you do about that in fact.

I do think the initial point, which was that Echelon helped you guys out, and now they're getting fragged, is unquestionably true though.

Are you conceding that Vanguard didn't make any counter-offer terms?

Right, those terms acknowledged both Legion's and Uni's diplomatic failures. Legion refused to apologize for the initial attack, which is why those terms weren't accepted.

Really trying to drive home some point about Echelon and ourselves are we? Our treaty has been effectively suspended ever since Echelon joined 1V. Echelon was quite aware of our disdain for their close company, and that we would not fight to help 1V. Echelon also knows that they're disliked by pretty much all of our other allies. Despite this, we did not cancel our treaty, only informally suspended it, understanding that we were so opposite ally-wise that it was virtually impossible for us to fight a war on the same side. Btw, the terms offered to Echelon kept our treaty, just as a fyi.

[Kryievla]

I'm going to call bs on that. All indications were that it would be dead even going in. 151 mil vs. 156 mil. 25,726 nukes vs. 31,118 nukes.

May I ask how you got those indications? Because by my assessment, there was a pretty good chance of us losing. That would in fact be the contents of a post made months ago in our forums, for general members, that we needed to gear up for a possible war on the horizon in which we stood a very good chance of losing. (which anyone who was a member of Valhalla at the time of post can attest to) There was simply no way this was ever even or in our favor. At best we were only a slight underdog. At worst, well, you can see how that worked out. To be honest, this was pretty much my nightmare scenario. I really didn't think it would be *this* bad. Just bad

I suspect a lot of people had similar ideas about what was coming. It's not like people exactly hid their feelings or intentions you know For evidence that was accessible to anyone, I would refer you to either the Hoo logs, or perhaps Sparta and the alliance names they dropped during their 'Valhalla spy' accusation. Or perhaps even just the general demeanor of folks in owf.

If your numbers were so even, I figure your number-maker most likely erred on the side of caution. Which imo is wise. Better to count someone out and maybe be pleasantly surprised, would you not say?

[KingSuck]

You had a "side" weeks before the war? Weren't you still allied to them "weeks before" the war?

They were. You're not really doing yourself any favours in this thread Sparta, to say the least.

May I ask how you got those indications? Because by my assessment, there was a pretty good chance of us losing. That would in fact be the contents of a post made months ago in our forums, for general members, that we needed to gear up for a possible war on the horizon in which we stood a very good chance of losing. (which anyone who was a member of Valhalla at the time of post can attest to) There was simply no way this was ever even or in our favor. At best we were only a slight underdog. At worst, well, you can see how that worked out. To be honest, this was pretty much my nightmare scenario. I really didn't think it would be *this* bad. Just bad

I suspect a lot of people had similar ideas about what was coming. It's not like people exactly hid their feelings or intentions you know For evidence that was accessible to anyone, I would refer you to either the Hoo logs, or perhaps Sparta and the alliance names they dropped during their 'Valhalla spy' accusation. Or perhaps even just the general demeanor of folks in owf.

If your numbers were so even, I figure your number-maker most likely erred on the side of caution. Which imo is wise. Better to count someone out and maybe be pleasantly surprised, would you not say?

This. I was doing some number crunching for our side and only the most optimistic predictions put us even, we were pretty sure we'd lose this one.

[Choader]

May I ask how you got those indications? Because by my assessment, there was a pretty good chance of us losing. That would in fact be the contents of a post made months ago in our forums, for general members, that we needed to gear up for a possible war on the horizon in which we stood a very good chance of losing. (which anyone who was a member of Valhalla at the time of post can attest to) There was simply no way this was ever even or in our favor. At best we were only a slight underdog. At worst, well, you can see how that worked out. To be honest, this was pretty much my nightmare scenario. I really didn't think it would be *this* bad. Just bad

I suspect a lot of people had similar ideas about what was coming. It's not like people exactly hid their feelings or intentions you know For evidence that was accessible to anyone, I would refer you to either the Hoo logs, or perhaps Sparta and the alliance names they dropped during their 'Valhalla spy' accusation. Or perhaps even just the general demeanor of folks in owf.

If your numbers were so even, I figure your number-maker most likely erred on the side of caution. Which imo is wise. Better to count someone out and maybe be pleasantly surprised, would you not say?

You are missing the point that you would have won, or been in an even sided battle of wills grinder, if your allies didn't cut and run at the start. The CoC doomed the hegemony, not Karma.

[Choader]

We are still with you and will always remain there. Our balls are made of steel and our bodies powered by Energizers.

(Btw, I have not had people attacking me for several days now, you guys should get on that. Just sayin.)

Maybe it just makes us feel bad to keep beating on a four man alliance.

Magicman, you were an honorable opponent and have showed tremendous resolve throughout this war. It's a shame the rest of 64Digits didn't follow your lead.

[KingSuck]

You are missing the point that you would have won, or been in an even sided battle of wills grinder, if your allies didn't cut and run at the start. The CoC doomed the hegemony, not Karma.

Firstly we'd already lost by then, without a shadow of a doubt. The cancellations probably didn't help but to pretend they were what lost the war is ludicrous.

Secondly our allies didn't cut and run. The CoC is a term used by those who don't have a !@#$@#$ clue what actually happened. Seriously.

[Matthew Conrad]

They were. You're not really doing yourself any favours in this thread Sparta, to say the least.

It was abundantly clear we wouldn't endorse an aggressive war with SF. Your actions severed the ties, not ours. The fact you try and blame us for not backing your agenda is laughable at best. I wonder if you would still whine had you won because the only thing you really have to say about us is that we found ourselves on the winning side. You should actually made better tactical decisions than whine that you never stood a chance.

It would be amusing if we could compare the war chatter before the war, because I know many of us were talking about going to ZI in the impending conflict.

[Gruthenia]

Firstly we'd already lost by then, without a shadow of a doubt. The cancellations probably didn't help but to pretend they were what lost the war is ludicrous.

Secondly our allies didn't cut and run. The CoC is a term used by those who don't have a !@#$@#$ clue what actually happened. Seriously.

Whatever your motivations it certainly looked cowardly as hell and wasn't a very well thought out move. I mean, either it was a shameless PR stunt to repudiate your sugar daddies in Pacifica, blatantly trying (and failing) to save your own skin, or maybe you actually were merely signalling your displeasure with NPO (for getting you rolled ) in probably the stupidest way possible by throwing a really easy talking point to your enemies and signalling your coalition was even more fragmented and conflicted than ours. I mean, at least everybody in Karma wanted to kick your asses. You guys? It looked like you barely even wanted to fight, and certainly had no idea how you would go about it.

[KingSuck]

It was abundantly clear we wouldn't endorse an aggressive war with SF. Your actions severed the ties, not ours. The fact you try and blame us for not backing your agenda is laughable at best. I wonder if you would still whine had you won because the only thing you really have to say about us is that we found ourselves on the winning side. You should actually made better tactical decisions than whine that you never stood a chance.

It would be amusing if we could compare the war chatter before the war, because I know many of us were talking about going to ZI in the impending conflict.

Valhalla had (suspended at the moment due to peace terms) MDoAPs with both Ragnarok and MA; two SF alliances. Your accusation that we had an agressive agenda towards SF is just plain stupid. Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or are you just spouting more of your rubbish?

And yeah in the future Valhalla should just pick the bigger side.

Edited June 24, 2009 by KingSuck

[Roadie]

It would be amusing if we could compare the war chatter before the war, because I know many of us were talking about going to ZI in the impending conflict.

If that's the case, then the chatter was similar on both sides.

I haven't spoken to anyone in Karma about events before the war, but from the impression I get from the posts in the OWF is that Karma is the only people that didn't know Karma would win long before the war started. Either that or a refusal to accept that Hegemony would be willing to enter a war they knew they would lose. Which I suppose is also possible. After all, it had been so long since they lost a war it could be hard to believe. Couple that with many of those on the Karma side having prided themselves on willingly entering a losing war could feasibly make them more reluctant to accept that coming form their enemy. It's only human to not want to see in our enemies that which we pride ourselves on.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Roadie

[Matthew Conrad]

Valhalla had (suspended at the moment due to peace terms) MDoAPs with both Ragnarok and MA; two SF alliances. Your accusation that we had an agressive agenda towards SF is just plain stupid. Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or are you just spouting more or your rubbish?

And yeah in the future Valhalla should just pick the bigger side.

Wow, your posts have sure deteriorated as of late. I see you have resorted to putting words in my mouth, nice. Please tell me where I said better tactical decisions meant picking the bigger side (I'll address that abomination of an argument here in a second). Better tactical decisions most often mean better allocation of resources (planning out who fights on what fronts) and picking the right time to attack. I'm sorry, but it is clear that both of those points were not addressed well by your military organizers.

Let's look at the facts.

Initial pre-war projections had about even sides, with the Hegemony with a slight advantage. Well damn, I guess we picked the bigger side huh? If Sparta, MHA, and TOP wanted to choose the bigger side and keep a position of pure political dominance, we would have joined NPO and quite possibly turn the tide of the war.

The fact NPO pulled that CB out of their $@! is about as much proof as I need. Anyways, I would hope you knew tension was already at an all time high between NPO's sphere and SF. At least, I would expect that much from someone of your position.

[Kryievla]

You are missing the point that you would have won, or been in an even sided battle of wills grinder, if your allies didn't cut and run at the start. The CoC doomed the hegemony, not Karma.

The point here is merely to address those who didn't think it possible that anyone on our side might have thought there was a chance of losing. Nothing more and nothing less.

There is no way to know what 'would have' been, there is only what was. And what was, is what was anticipated. The early stages perhaps made it into the worst-case scenario instead of merely bad, I'll grant you that. That anyone thought we had an advantage was interesting to me. Which is why I asked how you all came up with that; I really am curious and should like to know. If any of you have time and would not mind going over it with me, I would welcome such, though would rather private comms or irc, so as not to derail the original discussion.

[Roadie]

Wow, your posts have sure deteriorated as of late. I see you have resorted to putting words in my mouth, nice. Please tell me where I said better tactical decisions meant picking the bigger side (I'll address that abomination of an argument here in a second). Better tactical decisions most often mean better allocation of resources (planning out who fights on what fronts) and picking the right time to attack. I'm sorry, but it is clear that both of those points were not addressed well by your military organizers.

Let's look at the facts.

Initial pre-war projections had about even sides, with the Hegemony with a slight advantage. Well damn, I guess we picked the bigger side huh? If Sparta, MHA, and TOP wanted to choose the bigger side and keep a position of pure political dominance, we would have joined NPO and quite possibly turn the tide of the war.

The fact NPO pulled that CB out of their $@! is about as much proof as I need. Anyways, I would hope you knew tension was already at an all time high between NPO's sphere and SF. At least, I would expect that much from someone of your position.

Initial pre-war prejections put together by Hegemony alliances did not have the sides about even or with a slight Hegemony advantage.

This might be where some of the disbelief that hegemony enetered a war they knew they would lose comes from.

If the Karma projections reflected what you say, then I can state as fact that the Hegemony projections were more accurate.

Edit: A new level of bad spelling and grammar. Gotta slow down when I type.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Roadie

[Bob Janova]

Your accusation that we had an agressive agenda towards SF is just plain stupid. Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or are you just spouting more or your rubbish?

What about the fact that you entered a war in support of an aggressive proxy attack on SF?

I remember running the numbers the day before the initial attack on OV (when it was pretty clear a war was on the cards) and they were roughly even. TOP and MHA were not certainties for us, and nor was NpO's neutrality.

[NoFish]

The ironic thing is, we went into peace mode due to the aggressive anti-NPO tone on here and all the signs that war was going to be declared on them, thus on us as well.

Wait, wait, wait.

Wait.

You heard people saying aggressive things on the forum and you decided that would be a good sign to drop into peace mode. Seriously? And then you decided to help orchestrate an offensive war against us? Wow. I don't want to accuse you of lying out your $@!, but the only other option is that mhawk is the worst alliance leader in this game since Terry Howard left us.

Edited June 24, 2009 by NoFish

[Matthew Conrad]

The point here is merely to address those who didn't think it possible that anyone on our side might have thought there was a chance of losing. Nothing more and nothing less.

There is no way to know what 'would have' been, there is only what was. And what was, is what was anticipated. The early stages perhaps made it into the worst-case scenario instead of merely bad, I'll grant you that. That anyone thought we had an advantage was interesting to me. Which is why I asked how you all came up with that; I really am curious and should like to know. If any of you have time and would not mind going over it with me, I would welcome such, though would rather private comms or irc, so as not to derail the original discussion.

I agree with you in that I think both sides were preparing for the worse. The only alliance I said I thought for sure didn't go into the war with such an outlook was NPO. I'm sure you had valid viewpoints also. Also, taking this to IRC

[KingSuck]

Wow, your posts have sure deteriorated as of late. I see you have resorted to putting words in my mouth, nice. Please tell me where I said better tactical decisions meant picking the bigger side (I'll address that abomination of an argument here in a second).

I wonder if you would still whine had you won because the only thing you really have to say about us is that we found ourselves on the winning side. You should actually made better tactical decisions than whine that you never stood a chance.

I interpreted the tactical decisions you were referring to there as 'side-picking' because in reality all CN tactics really come down to is who has the bigger side.

Let's look at the facts.

Initial pre-war projections had about even sides, with the Hegemony with a slight advantage. Well damn, I guess we picked the bigger side huh? If Sparta, MHA, and TOP wanted to choose the bigger side and keep a position of pure political dominance, we would have joined NPO and quite possibly turn the tide of the war.

heh, those sure are some convenient 'facts' for your argument. Our predictions (and most predictions I've heard of) had you guys on top, so I'm not really sure where you're getting that from.

Also seeing how the war turned out, I'm thinking our predictions are slightly more reliable than yours.

What about the fact that you entered a war in support of an aggressive proxy attack on SF?

We both know we entered the war due to defensive agreements. The CB doesn't change the fact that our ally was attacked.

[Matthew Conrad]

I interpreted the tactical decisions you were referring to there as 'side-picking' because in reality all CN tactics really come down to is who has the bigger side.

Well I would have preferred if you had clarified with me before you assumed what I meant, because I would never advocate joining the larger side just to save infra and leave friends.

Anyways, it is true numbers are king when the margin is large enough. However, our initial projections pinned a close war where numbers were even. That's when tactics come in.

[NoFish]

We both know we entered the war due to defensive agreements. The CB doesn't change the fact that our ally was attacked.

By that logical weren't you obligated to attack Echelon, too, since Rok was attacked by them?

Edit: Oh, and IRON, too.

Edited June 24, 2009 by NoFish

[Magicman657]

You guys have always amazed us Magic, hero would be proud.

The thing Hero is upset about most is that he didn't make it long enough to be by our side right now. It really bothers him and just goes to show what he's really made of, so to all those who would write him off as simply a former part time troll, you guys know nothing.

Maybe it just makes us feel bad to keep beating on a four man alliance.

Magicman, you were an honorable opponent and have showed tremendous resolve throughout this war. It's a shame the rest of 64Digits didn't follow your lead.

The easiest way to explain this is "it's complicated". Half of our guys are under TPF's AA due to some kind of miscommunication (not that it matters too much). I hold nothing against any that choose to leave though.

[kingzog]

....our initial projections pinned a close war where numbers were even.

Your projections were terrible, then.

I was in a Karma-affiliated alliance at the start of this war and put together various sets of numbers before the NPO's war declaration. Karma's advantage varied from an extremely pessimistic "considerable" to a much more realistic "overwhelming."

[astronaut jones]

Your projections were terrible, then.

I was in a Karma-affiliated alliance at the start of this war and put together various sets of numbers before the NPO's war declaration. Karma's advantage varied from an extremely pessimistic "considerable" to a much more realistic "overwhelming."

There were only a few unknowns amoungst the top alliances, and those unknowns eventually sided with karma, although they all sided after the war was decisively won and over.

Even removing those few unknowns, you're absolutely right. The advantage for karma was considerable at worst, and overwhelming at the very best.

[shahenshah]

We were too told that we're outnumbered in build up to the war, and that prediction became stronger and stronger with each passing day and until it finally happened. Saying otherwise was a major miscalculation...and one alliance in particular will unfortunately or fortunately carry the most consequences.

People forecasting 'even-sides' numbers...I guess they were being very very conservative or perhaps didn't have as much information as those whose predictions ended up closer to reality. Its not really the fault of an analyst, its all about having access to quality information, after that the model is really simple.

Regarding the unknowns, just prior to the war, it was pretty certain they would at least not be fighting for Hegemony..and strong indications that there wont be any major neutral alliances apart from the usual hippies...that pretty much set the odds in Karma's favor...

When all is said and done, it comes down to information upon which assumptions are being made in the model to get the math and forecasts closest to real scenario.

Edited June 24, 2009 by shahenshah

[ModusOperandi]

You realize that by defending Pacifica you are defending E-ZI, disbanding communities, creating war using lies and the right to install viceroys right?

Congrats on your supposed honor I guess.

[pericles8th]

O/ TPF,

It has been an honor fighting your protectorates (ahem, 64digits)... and now fighting you. Follow blindly your leadership for ruin and poverty are their bedfellows...