Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I doubt anyone has enough money to buy back to 14k infra for 0 infra. I think you would be wrong. Edit: Its not like people are going to name names, but based off some of the ones from the last war, people could. Edited October 13, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 He's also 1,000 days old. Did he ever state that he was ZI'd literally yesterday? Casualties indicate nothing about military experience or prowess, and it's stupid to brag about or criticize them. Did i ever suggest as such? Again feel free to re-read my posts; i was only using casualty counts in correlation to infra losses, but by all means continue skimming through this thread, just make sure you read all applicable posts before responding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Mmm and how's that feel? Its quite interesting. Actually upon revisiting my posts I have not done that to you, so I am quite amused. However, this is quite offtopic, so I'll quit a line of discussion that leads nowhere. Edited October 13, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You declared on me Anyway, Bob PMed me about this thread, I told him I couldn't really verify that you went to ZI; however, I went back through ye olde STA forum and did find such evidence (sorry STA, I hope you don't kill me for leaking this!). I know I was in the 5-6k range at the time, so you couldn't really have been much lower at all. I would call this story true! By the end you certainly didn't have any soldiers left, but I really wouldn't call it turtling, as we were all basically broke at one point or another in the war. The thread with battle reports has plenty of ground battles back and forth up until that point (I'm not sure exactly when it was). Oh wow, that brought back memories... Good time we had eh? I remember I almost bill locked you at one point. Then someone ground attacked you and lost, dropping a couple mils for you to pay off bills and came back out swinging Looks like you're doing just fine there, Moridin P.S. I would love to see the full report of the war, for memory's sake. It would be awesome...If not possible, it's totally cool. Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Someone already answered that: OH I GET IT NOW. His TOP mandated war chest was so awesome that not only could he buy back up to 2000 infra ( about what 200,000 casualties equates to on average, although probably alot less given your nuke policy in the last war), he could buy an ADDITIONAL 12,000 infra! Silly me, i have trouble understanding some of the finer aspects of game play that our TOP overlords have clearly mastered and patented already. Edited October 13, 2009 by willirica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I think you would be wrong.Edit: Its not like people are going to name names, but based off some of the ones from the last war, people could. I know Matt Miller went from near-ZI to +10k infra with his billion dollar warchest. edit: but as you can imagine that warchest wasn't built overnight Edited October 13, 2009 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Did i ever suggest as such? Again feel free to re-read my posts; i was only using casualty counts in correlation to infra losses, but by all means continue skimming through this thread, just make sure you read all applicable posts before responding. You are, however, correlating casualties to infra losses (and therefore ZI) and war experience. The CN war system is not complex. It doesn't take 1000 days (or ten million casualties) to figure it out. The biggest casualties are gained by attacking with the max amount of soldiers you can and then receiving a nuke. Hardly difficult material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Oh wow, that brought back memories... Good time we had eh? I remember I almost bill locked you at one point. Then someone ground attacked you and lost, dropping a couple mils for you to pay off bills and came back out swinging Looks like you're doing just fine there, Moridin I believe Bossk was to blame for dropping money for me That war was tons of fun, as far as I could tell both STA and Genmay went into the war without much of a clear plan or warchests, just declared on a bunch of people and duked it out Good to see you again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 TOP are cowards, what would they know of war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) OH I GET IT NOW. His TOP mandated war chest was so awesome that not only could he buy back up to 2000 infra ( about what 200,000 casualties equates to on average, although probably alot less given your nuke policy in the last war), he could buy an ADDITIONAL 12,000 infra! Silly me, i have trouble understanding some of the finer aspects of game play that our TOP overlords have clearly mastered and patented already. I didn't actually want to defend TOP here, but your horrifically flawed arguments almost beg for rebuttal. Edited October 13, 2009 by Quiziotle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I just wanted my own stats thread, everyone else is making them. Survivalist alliances are something I hate, so here we are. I find that your hatred is selectively applied in this case. Why didn't you bring previous "stats"? This is just for the Karma war, as it was the easiest to get statistics on. When the next global war happens, all new sanctioned alliances are added, there is also a chance of neutrals becoming politically relevant so I added them in just in case. Why did you start at the karma war? Im pretty sure alliances that are still alive ditched friends on the past in order to survive. That adds survivalist points. Are we being selective here? So we have allies on both sides of a conflict that was really muddied and, remember people, we were trying to prevent happening because we wanted peace on Planet Bob and yes we had allies both sides. How mind you could we have fought on both sides? I'm just wondering. Divide the alliance in half and have civil war. I mean, im pretty sure the OP would like to see that. Who is to say which is more normal? If i wanted to spare my allies from looking bad in this thread, I wouldn't of made it in the first place. Crushtania who is a triumvir of MHA and a very close friend to me is ranked 2nd, Sparta is right up there, ODN who I respect a lot is also up there.5 digits on my hand so I chose 5, simple. Why did you begin with the karma war and intend to continue with these "stats" in the next wars, then? Knowing Jack Diorno I'm not taking this that seriously.Otherwise, I think Working_Class_Ruler has it covered pretty well. He seems to have a realistic view of the situation, yes. Not really. I just like to encourage people to take proper responsibility for their actions. I think thats what Jack is trying to do as well. If that was the case, this would be a realistic depiction of alliance's actions, not just the last war because it looks good in a paper. Alliances were not formed during the karma war, and surely they had (or avoided) conflict before it. Far from it; however that is not the topic of this thread. I seem to remember it being something about a list of cowardly survivalist alliances, with TOP being on top (hah!) of said list. Its only valid for the last war. Which is why this thread was made. You're just mad Jack saw through your cover story.HE IS NOT A MAN TO CONTAIN THE TRUTH, MR. TANIA Since this thread is all about half truths, he must also be a man that does not work with the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The next global war will give us the next stats, the last global war was the NoCB, and it was too difficult to get reliable stats for, so I left it out.best i could do Gov'ner If you cant do the job properly, dont do it at all. Otherwise im going to say that you are intentionally omitting stats in order to promote an agenda. This is only for global wars. Anything prior to the NoCB war is irrelevant by now. One of the many purposes of establishing a government in an alliance is establishing continuity of policy. That being, an alliance usually follows a line unless some internal change takes place and that line is changed. Given that you are specifically targetting alliance policies ( "A survivalist alliance, is an alliance that signs high level treaties with many other alliances, and when war is imminent, will selectively drop its allies to ensure that it remains on the winning side of the battle, minimizing damages but causing some allies to basically die alone." ) with these stats, i'd say that the entire lifetime of an alliance is relevant for it. Clearly you are quite intelligent and can make the distinction between warchests and warchests at obscene levels. Warchests: for war, not for rebuilding and preparation (in the standard alliance setting this is correct). Obscene Warchests: for war and rebuilding. Does that make it clearer what I meant? I hope so, since you just completely ignored the whole point of what was said and went off on a small tangent. Obscene warchests: for prolonged war and rebuilding. You know, for that kind of war that is really hardcore and none of the sides is willing to give up. Good fighters are the ones that are prepared for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smacky Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It's amusing whenever I see that my little nation that's never been !@#$ has double or triple the casualties of nations 7x bigger and 3x older. Some people just play different ways then others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 On a more on topic note from my previous posts, I don't really get the point of the thread. Is it for bragging that one alliance is better at following "friends > infra" than others, or just to call out alliances and trying to find some category by which you can do so? Just looking at the NpO citation in particular, you noted that Polar failed to defend Valhalla and NPO in the Karma War, despite the fact that there were explicit non-chaining clauses in those two treaties - we had no obligation to defend either. So unless not activating what was in that situation essentially an ODP counts as abandoning your friends, I would politely request that you refrain from dragging our name through the mud, even if it was not your intent. I suspect that the lack of research done in the OP skews more than just Polar's 'stats' as well; in the future I would suggest collecting each alliance's side of the story before making blanket statements about abandoning their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It's amusing whenever I see that my little nation that's never been !@#$ has double or triple the casualties of nations 7x bigger and 3x older. Some people just play different ways then others. You mean like how nintenderek has been at 4,000 nation strength for the past 3 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm just going to say i'm quite disappointed with many people in this thread. Either just being dumb in their arguments or just going about reacting (or starting) wrong. /is completely inconsequential Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) TOP are cowards, what would they know of war? There are two possibilities here: 1) You're being facetious, which seems unlikely considering your role in this thread. 2) You really haven't spoken with those with whom we've fought. Your behavior in this thread certainly points to one very obvious thing (aside from your apparent lack of ability to take responsibility for actions and admit to errors): you know very, very little about TOP and equally little about the CN political community and its history. In any event, you've slowly responded to the confrontations of your allegations by a gradual resort to simple, standard trolling. If that isn't a sign of a sense of personal defeat as regards this discussion, I'm not sure what is. o7 OH I GET IT NOW. His TOP mandated war chest was so awesome that not only could he buy back up to 2000 infra ( about what 200,000 casualties equates to on average, although probably alot less given your nuke policy in the last war), he could buy an ADDITIONAL 12,000 infra! Silly me, i have trouble understanding some of the finer aspects of game play that our TOP overlords have clearly mastered and patented already. I'll respond to this simply for the purposes of information and clarification: Ice's reference to being ZId regarded his experience during the Unjust War; he was part of Gen[m]ay at that point. This was indeed something he did not specify; however, he also did not claim that he was ZId during the Karma War. For the record, the Unjust War was over two years ago. In reference to your argument, however, I argue that it is certainly possible to buy back from ZI to 10,000+ infra if one has a sizable warchest. Matt Miller is proof enough of that. Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smacky Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You mean like how nintenderek has been at 4,000 nation strength for the past 3 years? Something like that. I'm sure hes had more fun in this game then most of the garden variety infra collectors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timberland Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I doubt anyone has enough money to buy back to 14k infra for 0 infra. LOL, you obviously don't know us then, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 you know very, very little about TOP and equally little about the CN political community and its history. ... If that [trolling] isn't a sign of a sense of personal defeat as regards this discussion, I'm not sure what is. You obviously havn't seen CYBERNETYUNS HISTERY! Also I take offense, trolling certainly does not imply defeat in an argument. There are many different types and styles of trolling, and many different times and places for which they can be applied. This 'simple, standard' trolling seems to fit the discussion pretty well to be fair. It's a simple stats thread that isn't taking into account anything other the amount of times alliances have not defended allies at war. Arguing about chaining treaties and how long people discussed canceling treaties beforehand does not really refute anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I know Matt Miller went from near-ZI to +10k infra with his billion dollar warchest.edit: but as you can imagine that warchest wasn't built overnight Actually he still had about 3k infra left when peace was declared, but he did buy back to like 10k or whatever the asinine amount was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 There are two possibilities here:1) You're being facetious, which seems unlikely considering your role in this thread. 2) You really haven't spoken with those with whom we've fought. Your behavior in this thread certainly points to one very obvious thing (aside from your apparent lack of ability to take responsibility for actions and admit to errors): you know very, very little about TOP and equally little about the CN political community and its history. In any event, you've slowly responded to the confrontations of your allegations by a gradual resort to simple, standard trolling. If that isn't a sign of a sense of personal defeat as regards this discussion, I'm not sure what is. o7 I've actually corrected all mistakes that people have brought to my attention, you can see that on the first page, but I've yet to see TOP claim anything false that I actually stated. I also fail to see how I feel any kind of personal defeat, a lot of notable people are enjoying this, i made it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortale Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 FOK, due to an incoherent FA direction, they hold treaties with alliances from Citadel, SuperFriends and C&G, as well as many independent alliances, it would be close to impossible for all these treaties to be upheld. We just want to win this race. On a more serious note. These statistics are fun, the conclusions people draw from them are dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This should have been done in cartoon form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Ha, a good entertaining topic, which will probably serve it's purpose well. Congrats Jack, one of the better jab topics I've seen in quite a while.Unless it's purpose is clogging up the OWF with condensed stupidity, then no this topic doesn't serve it's purpose.On a more on topic note from my previous posts, I don't really get the point of the thread. Is it for bragging that one alliance is better at following "friends > infra" than others, or just to call out alliances and trying to find some category by which you can do so? Just looking at the NpO citation in particular, you noted that Polar failed to defend Valhalla and NPO in the Karma War, despite the fact that there were explicit non-chaining clauses in those two treaties - we had no obligation to defend either. So unless not activating what was in that situation essentially an ODP counts as abandoning your friends, I would politely request that you refrain from dragging our name through the mud, even if it was not your intent.I suspect that the lack of research done in the OP skews more than just Polar's 'stats' as well; in the future I would suggest collecting each alliance's side of the story before making blanket statements about abandoning their friends. I'm sure we're just being used as a throwaway reference point in a lame, and biased "study" designed to make TOP seem even more evil. Not something I'm particularly pleased to see, but also not really something that upsets me. I'm really pretty apathetic about it. Edited October 13, 2009 by Fallen_Fool 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.