PrideAssassin Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well, that's for us to know and the peanut gallery to blindly assume. Up to now, it is long established historical fact. Of course, blind assumptions on future actions would indeed be foolish. For instance; I assume you have no choice but to fight to the bitter end, even if you end up on the wrong end of the gun. Best o' luck to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 One thing missing from that page is stomach. Do your members have the stomach to lose it all and fight to the bitter end. The allies you have now will expect it, but it can only be genuinely answered after the fact. Um... cool. If you actually read the post I was quoting you would see it was about stats :/ As for "stomach" .... please- you can't do better than that? Our allies don't expect it- if they didn't think we would back them in a fight- they wouldn't have signed treaties with us. Today- we have only 3 MDPs that were signed before Karma or before we broke our treaty with Polar. These allies retain these treaties with us because they know we have 'reformed' (or at least- sorted out our FA policy). Our new allies know our history- they would not have signed with us if they thought history would repeat. But by all means- keep on making baseless assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 ODN, you guys should really stop with the whole "Guys, we've totally changed whhhhyyyyy don't you believe us?" thing that you got going on. People will believe it or they won't, constantly repeating it is silly and doesn't prove anything. Be content that you will prove it, or prove their point in the next war and let it rest for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm willing to bet that all the alliances on the receiving end of the "you never follow through on your treaties" line are so worried about further mocking that they'll be making a TPF-style stand next time they get into a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) People will believe it or they won't, constantly repeating it is silly and doesn't prove anything. Be content that you will prove it, or prove their point in the next war and let it rest for once. I do believe the same could be said to our detractors and for that matter, pretty much all of the OWF. Unfortunately I can't see either of us stopping before the other does. Edited December 10, 2009 by Sunstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 ODN, you guys should really stop with the whole "Guys, we've totally changed whhhhyyyyy don't you believe us?" thing that you got going on. People will believe it or they won't, constantly repeating it is silly and doesn't prove anything. Be content that you will prove it, or prove their point in the next war and let it rest for once. Then stop bringing it up the fact we haven't changed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Then stop bringing it up the fact we haven't changed It's true, ODN has every right to defend themselves when people pull that "optional" stuff on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Someone asked for this......i did a pretty shabby job of it though... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tmJ...amp;output=html MHA, GPA, TDO and UPN have a negative difference..... OMFG wins this with a difference of 95 Surprising to see that alliances like NATO, NoR, TTK etc did not get picked.....they do have a pretty good military... Edited December 10, 2009 by raasaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Corrupt Teacher Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Some of the Drafter sucked. I'd like to see Londo draft against Essiena with TOP and NpO as starting alliances and a better rotating draft system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'd rather have 4 drafters and then combine teams somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Okay. Go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Go Polar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) I would take Essania's team all day long over Kaisers team. Kaiser has some really weird picks.Also no ODN and no Nordreich? You are severely underestimating Nordreich, they are a strong militairy alliance. ODN has 2000 nukes and should be picked before TOOL and ROK. Very True NoR would be an excellent pick up to crush the mid tier. Not sure how their wonders are but they are definatly military minded Lack of Valhalla makes me chuckle WE were picked very late then got left off the roster. I swear we werent using steroids We'd just go into peace mode to save our stats.Also, Londo's fake-draft team would own the rest. LONDO YOU DO LOVE US Someone asked for this......i did a pretty shabby job of it though...http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tmJ...amp;output=html MHA, GPA, TDO and UPN have a negative difference..... OMFG wins this with a difference of 95 Surprising to see that alliances like NATO, NoR, TTK etc did not get picked.....they do have a pretty good military... NATO and NoR i could understand being picked TTK not so much. Great alliance fantastic people and Im very happy to have a treaty with them but I would not have picked them either. Lack of War Experiance or even desire to go to war. Maybe they have changed but IMO TTK would have been a bad pick for this scenerio. Its good to see Valhalla falling off the radar should make for some interesting times in the future. Edited December 10, 2009 by Buds The Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Woot for Team Polar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepiB Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Someone asked for this......i did a pretty shabby job of it though...http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tmJ...amp;output=html MHA, GPA, TDO and UPN have a negative difference..... OMFG wins this with a difference of 95 Surprising to see that alliances like NATO, NoR, TTK etc did not get picked.....they do have a pretty good military... um, you forgot that each round has two picks, so an allianced ranked 10 would expect to be in round 5. Halve the rankings or double the pick round before subtracting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 um, you forgot that each round has two picks, so an allianced ranked 10 would expect to be in round 5.Halve the rankings or double the pick round before subtracting? This also, where you stand by score doesn't indicate that you are more valuable (or less) in a war situation. For example, Molon Labe is #70 for total alliance NS. Guru Order is #69 GO has 2.5 more score and 5x as many members, but 20% the nukes and about 2/3rd the amount of tech. Which do you think is more prepared to war? Sure, if you need to counteract someone like wF, you might draft GO before ML, but based on taking the largest alliances first, a good number of larger NS nations would be needed, compared to the 8-10K range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 All of these alliances agreeing to do it is unrealistic. Would be freaking awesome, but, won't happen, heh. Buuuuuut.... why don't all the people in here pushing the idea group up and divide up equally? Seriously, there is no reason that that can't happen. Let's do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 All of these alliances agreeing to do it is unrealistic. Would be freaking awesome, but, won't happen, heh.Buuuuuut.... why don't all the people in here pushing the idea group up and divide up equally? Seriously, there is no reason that that can't happen. Let's do it. Okay, you go first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uralica Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Surprising to see that alliances like NATO, NoR, TTK etc did not get picked.....they do have a pretty good military... TTK are pretty good, I'll say that much I do agree that the sides are a bit skewed in terms of who likes whom I don't think TOOL would like to fight IRON, FEAR, Argent, or WAPA. Not to mention Polaris. And I kinda like Rab's idea too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Someone asked for this......i did a pretty shabby job of it though...http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tmJ...amp;output=html OMFG wins this with a difference of 95 My E-Peen feels HUGE now. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Okay, you go first. Thought it was obvious from my post's content that I'm in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Those are pretty bad picks kaiser in my opinion. You could have done a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 war doesn't stop until everyone has 0 nukes, ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm wondering if I should make a new thread with the groups-of-individual-players idea. I just want to know if there is enough interest in the idea for me to get real about it though? Because I'm very serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted December 11, 2009 Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Those are pretty bad picks kaiser in my opinion. You could have done a lot better. Well in my defense we were picking like 1 every 15 seconds. It's hard to think that fast. I've seen my mistakes and think I would do a lot better next time. Hindsight is 20/20 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.