R3nowned Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 This is outrageous. How dare Athens harbour those who would fight during war! (p.s. LOL at those who think this is srz bzns) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I must reiterate this, when DE and Athens merged there were no nations we could attack apart the tinsy little ones who couldn't hit peace mode, there was not much the extra 100 or so members could add to our offensive war count. Plus we had a lot of lousy members between us who were too lazy to attack in the lower ranks, so the 219 members at the end of the war fell to 180 after a month of ghostbusting and trimming the fat. All in all, Athens and Londo Mollari played a critical role in the war, our allies and everyone from the NPO front know this and they are the only people we need to prove ourselves to. This feeling...so strange...I'm...agreeing with...an intelligent rejoinder made by...Jack DIORNO? Someone call the doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Most Epic post I've read in a long while! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I did find some of the bottom four surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The thing I found most hilarious was the number of people Sir Paul fooled, nicely done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 haha...nice one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Nicely done Sir Paul. I was able to look behind the mask, so I wasn't fooled. Very amusing topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) We started the war with about 115 members. However, after adding another 100 members, you would expect wars to spike toward the end of the conflict, not peeter out to virtually nothing. Londo, you're forgetting things would be stable enough for a merger in middle of the most epic war ever. As you are the expert, is it in some way related to Athenian Paradigm as well? Edited October 31, 2009 by shahenshah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I was thinking as I read it, where is the part that you would want to announce? Then I checked the name and realized. Nicely done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaone Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I must reiterate this, when DE and Athens merged there were no nations we could attack apart the tinsy little ones who couldn't hit peace mode, there was not much the extra 100 or so members could add to our offensive war count. Plus we had a lot of lousy members between us who were too lazy to attack in the lower ranks, so the 219 members at the end of the war fell to 180 after a month of ghostbusting and trimming the fat. So survivalist means cancelling treaties and actually fight? Instead when you name Athens a non-survivalist alliance it just means: "declare and let your allies do the fighting". That's clear to me then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Still quite happy with Vanguard's performance in that chart, particularly considering we received very few offensive wars from Pacifica. We started the war with about 115 members. However, after adding another 100 members, you would expect wars to spike toward the end of the conflict, not peeter out to virtually nothing. Yes, you would expect that against an opponent that had only a handful of nations above 10k nation strength, and even less that were above that level and outside of peace mode Edited October 31, 2009 by Revanche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Good show New Londo, your wisdom will guide generations of Nations to come. (SP you continue to surprise and delight, thank you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) This is pure pettiness, unlike the fake Cortath thread which was in a good spirit. Edit: According to my records, the numbers are not far out, with Athens declaring 23 wars on NPO during July. But we all know that slots on NPO were almost impossible to find at that time. Edited October 31, 2009 by Bob Janova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) I must say this is one of the better pieces of propaganda I've seen, the blatant disregard for facts, the attempts to question Athens' dedication to the Pacifican front, the admission of focusing attacks towards Rok and VE in a petty attempt to cause a divide, etc. Furthermore, many are aware of the difficulty of getting slots after the first few days. Especially with the number of nations that were cycling in and out of peace mode mostly exiting to attack a specific target. Which by your own admission would increase the number of wars fought in any one alliance depending on who was targetted. That is to say since you admit to not targetting Athens and that the member count had changed it totally destroys this piece of propaganda. Singling out two alliances of which a significant proportion of their total member count had changed (Rok/Athens) is misleading. It isn't even misleading in the same way that the correlation between Athens fighting wars and recovering/attracting new members does not neccessarily make it the cause for this fact. Edited October 31, 2009 by Blacky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyyBerry Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 This is pure pettiness, unlike the fake Cortath thread which was in a good spirit. Hey! I agree with Bob Janova! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akama Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Damn, this is the first time I got tricked by a halloween costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 unlike the fake Cortath thread which was in a good spirit Good spirit would be not to "go there" in the first place, nothing good comes from it and no love was gained out of it, but that boat has sailed so here we are now. Deal with it. I always thought any serious alliance has to have its own paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 So survivalist means cancelling treaties and actually fight?Instead when you name Athens a non-survivalist alliance it just means: "declare and let your allies do the fighting". That's clear to me then. You do realize that Athens was heavily engaged on GGA right? Also, hilarious as always Sir Paul. I almost laughed at how wrong quite a few sentiments were and how you ignored the reasoning for a few of the end results. Good show as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Good stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Excellent post, Sir Paul. Hail Greeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Heh... you seem to have forgotten a number of things SirPaul. One of those is that, in addition to NPO, that membercount you gave also engaged GGA, NEW, Echelon, and Old Guard.. for a total of 700 some wars if I remember correctly. I don't have the stats on me anymore, so I'm not completely sure. But we definitely hit NPO with 2nd and 3rd waves with everything we could get out of nuclear anarchy. And yeah, we were at 115 nations during this time. After that, there wasn't a lot left in range - due to peacemode and whatnot. Our blitz rate was 72%, which was considerably higher than the NPO's 4% blitz rate - as you can see by the charts below. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55164 We fought plenty of wars - we fought until there were no NPO nations left in our range. Hegemony leadership apparently decided the 5.8M NS GGA would make a good matchup for the 2.5M NS Athens, but while some of them individually were pretty decent fighters, the alliance as a whole wasn't very effective at engaging us. Thus, our NS didn't really drop that fast and we were regrettably unable to keep declaring on you much after the 4th week or so of the war. If you want to address our performance in the war, why don't you use real statistics? Or if you really think we have some ground to make up as regards warring NPO... well. Get in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Nemesis 102% edit: must have missed that the first time around, but epic nonetheless. Edited October 31, 2009 by Blacky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 As Londo pointed out, Athens was engaged mainly against GGA, and not Pacifica. If anyone can find a picture of what GGA's alliance strength charts looked like, I'm pretty sure we can be done with this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I lol'd. Well played Sir Paul. I completely forgot this was coming...though I realized it wasn't Londo after about 3 words in. The stat selection was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts