Sal Paradise Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I thought they would declare tonight with the BRILLIANT strategy of delaying a counter attack due to New Year's Eve. But I guess that's why I'm not a war strategist. We really do need a name for this that captures how incredibly silly this has gotten.Staring Contest is OK. Do-Nothing war? NO U War? The War of No Combat? Boring War? Sitzkrieg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Sitzkrieg And once again, Sal wins the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Sitzkrieg Sold! To the fine gent in Jedi robes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eesmith4 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I thought they would declare tonight with the BRILLIANT strategy of delaying a counter attack due to New Year's Eve. But I guess that's why I'm not a war strategist. Sitzkrieg Dammit, I was going to post that. Very apt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Sitzkrieg We have a winner Edited December 31, 2009 by SynthFG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I'm talking about the guys with their 85k NS+ nations in peace mode. Many who have been calling TOP and Citadel alliances as infra huggers. All of a sudden with a 2 to 1 advantage, they peaced out. Agreed. They have completely crippled themselves in terms of wartime aid for lower nations, vital upper tier growth...and of course, by showing their true colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I for one do not welcome this Paradoxian siege on Planet Bob politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 You think MHA is that easy a call? MDoAPs with Fark, Ragnarok and Sparta vs MDoAPs with TOP and NATO.Unless Citadel acts as a cohesive bloc unit (which has never happened), I would be surprised to see Gremlins involved, and without them I'm doubtful of MHA joining. If you include all of Citadel+satellites then yeah, the numbers look much more even. Anyways I'm way too tired for this. Enjoy my 2:30am speculations! I think you would be surprised by the effect of public opinion. They weren't fans of Karma, and here comes round two? Ehhhh I would put my money on black this time. Black, of course, being that they enter with TOP. *I am not a good gambler.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 What's all this about TPF getting owned? Oh, you mean that bit of infra they're losing? Meh, it's just infra. I don't see what the big deal is. Does SF/CnG hold infra in high regard or something? Best post of the day so far I lol'd, then I lol'd some more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 One thing this analysis misses (and most would-be commentators on these boards consistently miss) is that you cant just lump these "sides" out as if all the combatants merged into two alliances. It doesnt work that way. Even if on paper you are figuring a dozen alliances together can put together enough high end nations to take TOP on - they arent going to hit all those alliances. They will pick one and open a front where they have an overwhelming advantage. If they force a dozen different alliance to counterdeclare in response, that gives them much better chances of pulling in allies of their own. If the PM stats presented here are correct it might be more a matter of uncertainty provoking a bunch of better safe than sorry responses - no one in range to their high end is going to want to be the ones that get hit with their initial blitz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Its a decent strategy, but "Neo hegemony" waited to long to carry it out and broadcasted what was going to happen, allowing Neo Karma the relatively easy counter of putting their nations above 85K into peace mode. Before even beginning to carry out this plan, you should have had one of TPF's allies agree to sacrifice themselves and basically have their 85+ nations hurl themselves at the coalition currently attacking TPF. Yeah, this alliance would be royally screwed, but by declaring war they would have prevented those nations from escaping into peace mode and have been able to act as a anvil to TOP's hammer. Yes, that would have been the obvious strategy but there is still a nice trick waiting. PM nations coming out, point is when they come out and how organized they coming. The more nations in PM have to be organized the difficult it gets. One thing this analysis misses (and most would-be commentators on these boards consistently miss) is that you cant just lump these "sides" out as if all the combatants merged into two alliances. It doesnt work that way. Even if on paper you are figuring a dozen alliances together can put together enough high end nations to take TOP on - they arent going to hit all those alliances. They will pick one and open a front where they have an overwhelming advantage. If they force a dozen different alliance to counterdeclare in response, that gives them much better chances of pulling in allies of their own. If the PM stats presented here are correct it might be more a matter of uncertainty provoking a bunch of better safe than sorry responses - no one in range to their high end is going to want to be the ones that get hit with their initial blitz. Love you Sigrun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 We really do need a name for this that captures how incredibly silly this has gotten.Staring Contest is OK. Do-Nothing war? NO U War? The War of No Combat? Boring War? The Great Staredown. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiL3nT Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Cold War. Plain, simple, tells the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 What's all this about TPF getting owned? Oh, you mean that bit of infra they're losing? Meh, it's just infra. I don't see what the big deal is. Losing a proportionate amount of infra means you're losing. Losing poorly means your getting owned. Now it's a pretty retarded word, I'll give you that. But it's still happening. Oh and the idea that TPF has any kind of advantage is rather laughable considering the potential for forces against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratar Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Sitzkrieg Perfect name, I thought of it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Honestly, my respect for TPF has gone up. They are sitting there taking it on the chin while their allies are playing chess. It may stun the general audience, but I cocnur with this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watson895 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Well, to be honest, were I them, I'd rather be alone for a week and have a proper counterattack to relieve them, than a half assed thing because everyone is on holidays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Well, to be honest, were I them, I'd rather be alone for a week and have a proper counterattack to relieve them, than a half assed thing because everyone is on holidays. Indeed, so attacking on New Years Eve makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Indeed, so attacking on New Years Eve makes perfect sense. It could, depending on the level of activity of their members. That said, I doubt any alliance will have enough active on Dec 31st to declare, much less to blitz. On the other hand, considering who is in right now, if IRON and then TOP want to declare AND draw people to them, they only need a handful of targets and fighters since they will most likely declare on a single alliance (my guess is Athens) Ball will be in their court to call reinforcments on NYE, which means their own counter-attack will take at least a day or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Honestly, my respect for TPF has gone up. They are sitting there taking it on the chin while their allies are playing chess. I don't know ho you figure that warrants praise. They don't really have to do much to be attacked. Just exist really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watson895 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 With the levels warchests are at, this war could last months without any side gaining any advantage. A week taking a pounding isn't too significant if it fits into the bigger plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commisar Gaunt Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Agreed. They have completely crippled themselves in terms of wartime aid for lower nations, vital upper tier growth...and of course, by showing their true colors. Look at this guy with his claims of "showing their true colors." It's almost like you forgot that all of the nations on the opposite side under 85k NS are in peace mode. Unless this little game goes on for more than three weeks, there won't be much growth affected at all. I can't speak for the rest of my allies, but here at MK our lower tiers are pretty much self sufficient. Having a bigger nation throw $3 million at them would be a drop in the bucket. It's not like the lower tiers would need aid anyways: who would they fight, everyone on the opposite side that they could is in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 With the levels warchests are at, this war could last months without any side gaining any advantage. A week taking a pounding isn't too significant if it fits into the bigger plan. Possibly. I have to admit it's not like the Karma War situation where Hegemony was allowing NPO to fight alone for several days, since TPF obviously holds a much lesser strategic importance than NPO did. I'm curious however as to what the thinking behind the delay is. Are they waiting for the 5 days to elapse so that their nations can leave peace mode at will? Perhaps waiting for the initial round of wars to expire in an attempt to disrupt the 2nd wave? Maybe they have a lot of nations that need to build up their navy and nuclear stockpile. Or are they just incompetent and slow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) I guess the amusing thought is that, instead of attacking who you know will be your enemies, everyone is waiting and giving their opponents all the time they need to do whatever they want. This looks more and more like a carefully planned waltz, where each step counts. It would be interesting to see preemptive strikes on some of TPF's allies, to force their hand. At least, that's probably what I would do, on an ally or two. Edited December 31, 2009 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Preemptive strikes have only ever been used in the Coalition War as far as I know (against BLEU), I think they're pretty widely condemned nowadays. 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.