Bilrow Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Yes, because it's not like Ragnarok has far more nations in the range of most active NPO nations compared to the rest of us or anything. Seriously, when this war started the VE had about 90% of its nations fighting wars. They've since dried up because people can't find a target in the upper NS ranges. On May 7th, a good seventeen days into the war, VE only had 152 wars on New Pacific Order with a percentage of 9.67% of your alliance's offensive slots. Defensive Wars - 90 (10.10%) Anarchy Nations - 28.46% Nations in Peace Mode - 21.01% On May 19th you did peak at 15.55% of your offensive war slots. Edited: Added more info Edited July 17, 2009 by Bilrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michaels Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 On May 7th, a good seventeen days into the war, VE only had 152 wars on New Pacific Order with a percentage of 9.67% of your alliance's offensive slots. This doesn't even take into account that we had about 250 by the end of the FIRST NIGHT against the NPO. By the second night that number had escalated to about 300-350 offensive wars on the NPO, plus being engaged by the MCXA on the night of April 22nd. Did you miss the fact that we entered the war on April 21st, which is a full 16 days before May 7th? That's room for two whole rounds of all-out nuclear war. I don't think I need to remind you how much damage Karma could do to an NPO opponent during those two rounds, especially considering you've been whining about it since that 200 page monstrosity of a thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 As an alliance, we fully expected to be decimated, when on the eve of the war it was whispered that there would not be enough Big Guns to take on Q. People tend to forget, NPO, and the others in the erstwhile Q, are not pansies. They are not some lame alliances that one can brushed aside with a wave of the hand. Q was on top for a reason. It has been a wild ride, we got to fight with some of the best warriors on Planet Bob, what more can one wish for, to test your mettle against some of the very best? Standing with your friends? Seeing as we expected to go down in flames by end of week three of the war [this belief did not last too long though] when we decided that come what may, we would be going in to have the backs of our allies and friends, i think we have done rather well. The best part? Our people, got to love em all, both past and present. Yes we did have some desertion and that was a bit depressing, but nothing major. This war also showed us something, something that i always suspected but now have seen it proven to me. Ex-Rokkers from all over Planet Bob came home. Stood with us, and bled with us. The bond is true and we truly are brothers. Once a Rokker, you simply cannot stop Rokking. To all those that wish us well, to all those that share in our joy to be together on the front lines, to all those that send us messages of support and offer help, you are noted, and you are loved. You are talked of by Rokkers, and thanked. All those that have been with us in this war, not just on the NPO front, but on others, those that have bled with us, be it against IRON or Legion, those that have had our backs so long at a heavy cost to yourself, I thank you. It has been a wild ride, I have seen folks from all sides of this planet come together, give up their time and expend their energy, to make this effort worthwhile and a success. Gremlins, our brothers the Hitchhikers, CnG, i could mention a whole lot of folks here, but you get my point. ThankYou all, for being there, and staying with us. To those that stand with us today, and fight the NPO on our common front, "Awesome dudes!!!, lets break some more stuff" To NPO - Cool!!! Good War. To Rokkers? Keep em axes swinging, you war crazed fools, God love ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 April 23rd you had 227 total offensive wars (on all fronts) with 400 members. That still does not equate to 90% of your nations fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberSpion Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 April 23rd you had 227 total offensive wars (on all fronts) with 400 members. That still does not equate to 90% of your nations fighting. So how many tactically adjusted preferences did Pacifica have in the beginning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh and....on April 23rd you had 64 nations in peace mode (16%). So unless you have some new math...there was NO WAY you had 90% of your nations fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michaels Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh and....on April 23rd you had 64 nations in peace mode (16%). So unless you have some new math...there was NO WAY you had 90% of your nations fighting. I concede that we didn't have 90% of all our nations fighting. But to claim that we sat back and did nothing is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh and....on April 23rd you had 64 nations in peace mode (16%). So unless you have some new math...there was NO WAY you had 90% of your nations fighting. I don't have the stats to hand, because I've been banned from the VE forums, but I remember a thread where it was displayed that at one point, 67% of NPO's wars were with VE. Whether this is correct or not, I'm not sure, and I don't have the specific dates. Perhaps VE could provide the records? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michaels Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) I don't have the stats to hand, because I've been banned from the VE forums, but I remember a thread where it was displayed that at one point, 67% of NPO's wars were with VE. Whether this is correct or not, I'm not sure, and I don't have the specific dates. Perhaps VE could provide the records? I have a release from the Defense Department which I got most of my numbers from (except the 90% figure, which was apparently drawn from my imagine). If you want specifics you'll have to get in touch with someone who has more access. EDIT: I would love to continue this debate but unfortunately sleep calls. Edited July 17, 2009 by John Michaels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Republic of Roma Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 As far as I know, Ragnarok is winning this war. They're the ones setting the terms for NPO and I think they still have a very influential input in the fate of NPO. So regardless of NS, Ragnarok still has taken NPO's 600+ nations hostage along with the other Karma alliances officially at war with NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Adam Olivier Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 We all have ups and downs. I find that it is nothing to be worried over. B) It is like stock in my oponion. :] The biggest of all issues is started by one simple thing. That one thing spreads threw the company like a virus. If it is not delt with properly it can turn into a cancer and destroy the buisness as quick as the idea was made to start it. I think they have some smart people running that alliance and it will be delt with. ~Hath Said The King~ King Adam Olivier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Greetings, Some are saying NPO isn't causing any significant damage at all, its the other factors. Then some come and say, they are bleeding for the 17 other alliances and since they're warrior alliance, its all cool. Doesn't anyone think thats kind of contradicting each other? Edited July 17, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 People always flame against each other during a war. RoK members are pissed at NPO and vice versa for no reason. Its a freakin' war. Battle each other. Stop arguing. Its stupid. And now, my neutral/Swiss opinion.. You do mean the 18 alliances against you right? Because if it's just RoK (which is actually the topic of this thread), we have less total nations than you have in war mode. tbh, I didn't know that until now. kinda funny I wasn't aware that they still had war chests to speak of. If I said that someone has given me a link to a screeny of NPO warchest, and if i were to click on it, would it cause a 2nd war to spark? I've still got a lot left in my warchest. One man doesn't make an alliance (and one-man alliance aren't alliances) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Greetings,Some are saying NPO isn't causing any significant damage at all, its the other factors. Then some come and say, they are bleeding for the 17 other alliances and since they're warrior alliance, its all cool. Doesn't anyone think thats kind of contradicting each other? Simple answer: No. Long answer: Constant wars can be very stressful for people. I give props to NPO to keep up the pressure this long. A lot of people do not like fighting for months on end. On the other hand it would be ignorant to deny NPO hasn't done damage to us throughout the war. They did a lot of damage and are still keeping up the pressure. That is a fact. It is also true, however, the war has been going on for a very long time and some individuals are tired of it, others want to move on with plans they had from pre-war. I do not think anyone expected the war to take this long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I do not think anyone expected the war to take this long. This is my first war on CN, and with no war experience, I expected to go on for longer than 3 months. NPO had strong allies and Karma was massive (even though the bonds were weak). What I didn't expect is so many Hegs (especially legion and IRON) to fall out so quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayEagle Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Before every 'Great War' CN reminds me of Europe in the run-up to WWI. Eager, happy, chomping at the bit and 100% assured that the war will end soon, 'our' side will win and The Boys Will Be Home By Christmas. And as sure as that sentiment is expressed a few times per year, the same sense of amazement follows if things get 'messy'. Once the wars enter a trench warfare stage or an asymmetric warfare stage, folks seem somehow surprised that AAs are still taking heavy damage. RoK seems, to this un-involved outsider, to be fighting as a Warrior-themed AA should. And NPO... well they apparently paid attention to FAN's tactics over the past two years, just as FAN paid attention to FARK and FransJosef (bless his soul). If NPO has decided to concentrate on RoK alone, then RoK will lose NS until their Allies decide to help with counter-attacking the NPO hitters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 if NPO concentrated on Us that would be epic win..id love to reach 1.5mil casualties before my time is up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Oh and....on April 23rd you had 64 nations in peace mode (16%). So unless you have some new math...there was NO WAY you had 90% of your nations fighting. I don't know about the dates but I went into peace mode after the second round finished, and when I came out 5 days later all your guys were beaten down or fled to permanent peace mode. Sorry our stats weren't high enough because you guys ran away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't know about the dates but I went into peace mode after the second round finished, and when I came out 5 days later all your guys were beaten down or fled to permanent peace mode. Sorry our stats weren't high enough because you guys ran away Ran away? Don't you mean let go? People going to hippy is the fault of those who let them go there. Why should they not use that tactic if you let them? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) I don't know about the dates but I went into peace mode after the second round finished, and when I came out 5 days later all your guys were beaten down or fled to permanent peace mode. Sorry our stats weren't high enough because you guys ran away Don't blame us for failed staggers Edited for Kingzog: Don't blame us for not keeping up with staggers* Edited July 17, 2009 by Elendil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Don't blame us for failed staggers Thats true I have been in PM to get nukes about 3 times for the entire war. But at least RoK have the balls to declare war on me even though the people who attacked me had no nukes or SDI's. Not to mention they're having internal issues. What's the excuse for the rest of Karma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Don't blame us for failed staggers Here's the thing....in many cases, the staggers weren't failed at all. I think they just let a lot of you guys get away. I've been asking 'why' for a while now, but answers have not been forthcoming. This has left me with only two options: 'pixel cowardice' or ineptitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ran away? Don't you mean let go? People going to hippy is the fault of those who let them go there. Why should they not use that tactic if you let them?-Bama So I'm to blame for the, continuing to cower in peace mode. I'm sorry D: I'm not blaming them for anything, I know its a tactic. And its a tactic to stay there. Whats the point you are trying to get across to me here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 So I'm to blame for the, continuing to cower in peace mode. I'm sorry D:I'm not blaming them for anything, I know its a tactic. And its a tactic to stay there. Whats the point you are trying to get across to me here? The point is that you shouldn't complain about them being in peace mode when you guys didn't have the coordination and/or testicular fortitude to keep them out. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 The point is that you shouldn't complain about them being in peace mode when you guys didn't have the coordination and/or testicular fortitude to keep them out.-Bama I was responding to Bilrow who was commenting on our lack of wars. Is it to much of a stretch to say that with less nations in war mode, there is less wars. Now where was I complaining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.