My opinion on the war, the CB, and assorted other things.

[Alterego]

What? So clearly it was a draw because, while RoK, GOD et. al pounded your ally into dust, you guys got a few ground attacks and CMs in for a day and didn't have to pay reps. I don't know why people ever even bother replying to you. You never use any logic.

You really think if peace wasnt announced when it was that there wouldnt have been thousands of nations on both sides in flames at the moment. The continual effort by some to say that nothing was done when a massive coalition was formed, DoWs & DoS were posted and nations were attacked is laughable. Peace wasnt given to TPF by CoC.

so you are stating that TPF losing like 1/3-1/2 of their NS is equal to the 14+ DoWs that ya'll did that garnered a grand total of 20+ actual attacks? seriously.... that is what you are going with. that is your basis that we did nothing to stop the loss of maybe 1k NS amongst 4 alliances versus ya'll allowing TPF to lose like 1 million+. that is your whole friggin comparison? dude, i suggest you stop smoking whatever you are smoking and allow your brain to clear so that you can once again attempt to have at least some coherency about you.

Ive said it already, you guys wanted a small force to rush in so you could crush them with ease. Instead a coalition was properly organised and wars were declared. White peace wasnt offered to TPF by CoC it was offered by supercomplaints.

To be fair here, it would have been politically and militarily imprudent of us to do something when white peace had been agreed to (we were ready to go the night after CoC "moved" though, heck, we were ready to go the second day of the war, as it certainly didn't take us 5 days to prepare, but that's where the aforementioned white peace came in).

Neither side won, I'll at least agree to that.

To be fair here, it would have been politically and militarily imprudent of us to do something immediately when we would have been crushed and no doubt milked for reps. You had the element of surprise the spread of treaties in \m/, Athens and Rok that would have guaranteed a swift defeat if the direct allies of TPF charged in as we wanted to and you lot wanted us to. We were smart and now you lot are fuming that you didnt get to extend the beatdown. You guys wanted a war and when we took the few days to organise after your surprise attack and respond you stepped back. Dont complain now that we did nothing and didnt step up when we did and instead of giving us the fight you wanted you stood back and offered white peace. (by you I mean SC)

Edited January 10, 2010 by Alterego

[rsoxbronco1]

You really think if peace wasnt announced when it was that there wouldnt have been thousands of nations on both sides in flames at the moment. The continual effort by some to say that nothing was done when a massive coalition was formed, DoWs & DoS were posted and nations were attacked is laughable. Peace wasnt given to TPF by CoC.

Ive said it already, you guys wanted a small force to rush in so you could crush them with ease. Instead a coalition was properly organised and wars were declared. White peace wasnt offered to TPF by CoC it was offered by supercomplaints.

To be fair here, it would have been politically and militarily imprudent of us to do something immediately when we would have been crushed and no doubt milked for reps. You had the element of surprise the spread of treaties in \m/, Athens and Rok that would have guaranteed a swift defeat if the direct allies of TPF charged in as we wanted to and you lot wanted us to. We were smart and now you lot are fuming that you didnt get to extend the beatdown. You guys wanted a war and when we took the few days to organise after your surprise attack and respond you stepped back. Dont complain now that we did nothing and didnt step up when we did and instead of giving us the fight you wanted you stood back and offered white peace. (by you I mean SC)

We had 100 million NS ready to go in 24 hours and 200 million NS ready to go in 48-72. I'm sorry you didn't.

[Sunstar]

You really think if peace wasnt announced when it was that there wouldnt have been thousands of nations on both sides in flames at the moment. The continual effort by some to say that nothing was done when a massive coalition was formed, DoWs & DoS were posted and nations were attacked is laughable. Peace wasnt given to TPF by CoC.

Ive said it already, you guys wanted a small force to rush in so you could crush them with ease. Instead a coalition was properly organised and wars were declared. White peace wasnt offered to TPF by CoC it was offered by supercomplaints.

To be fair here, it would have been politically and militarily imprudent of us to do something immediately when we would have been crushed and no doubt milked for reps. You had the element of surprise the spread of treaties in \m/, Athens and Rok that would have guaranteed a swift defeat if the direct allies of TPF charged in as we wanted to and you lot wanted us to. We were smart and now you lot are fuming that you didnt get to extend the beatdown. You guys wanted a war and when we took the few days to organise after your surprise attack and respond you stepped back. Dont complain now that we did nothing and didnt step up when we did and instead of giving us the fight you wanted you stood back and offered white peace. (by you I mean SC)

You seem pretty intent on ramming this point home. Remember also that your coalition cried out for a week about the CB (and the attack on your allies in TPF) being completely unjust. If it was so unjust, why after TPF was brutally beaten for a week over it would your coalition agree to peace and let RoK, GOD, Athens, and \m/ off the hook?

Athens and RoK were wronged by TPF. They sought appropriate retaliation against those who wronged them. From their perspective, 5 days of war and the loss of over 1/3 of TPF's NS seemed appropriate. From their side, white peace at that point made perfect sense.

Can CC really say the same?

[SirWilliam]

To be fair here, it would have been politically and militarily imprudent of us to do something immediately when we would have been crushed and no doubt milked for reps. You had the element of surprise the spread of treaties in \m/, Athens and Rok that would have guaranteed a swift defeat if the direct allies of TPF charged in as we wanted to and you lot wanted us to. We were smart and now you lot are fuming that you didnt get to extend the beatdown. You guys wanted a war and when we took the few days to organise after your surprise attack and respond you stepped back. Dont complain now that we did nothing and didnt step up when we did and instead of giving us the fight you wanted you stood back and offered white peace. (by you I mean SC)

I'm fuming? I'm complaining? Way to overgeneralize and grossly misinterpret my post. I merely stated the facts (which your response does little to dispute).

Yes, white peace was offered the night after CoC's little cavalry charge, just as it was offered the night of shortly before CoC went in after having ignored the offer. This war had more to do with TPF than it had to do with TOP or any other imagined objectives (as much as some of us were absolutely giddy at the possibility of going up against the latter).

[Dochartaigh]

I'm fuming? I'm complaining? Way to overgeneralize and grossly misinterpret my post. I merely stated the facts (which your response does little to dispute).

Yes, white peace was offered the night after CoC's little cavalry charge, just as it was offered the night of shortly before CoC went in after having ignored the offer. This war had more to do with TPF than it had to do with TOP or any other imagined objectives (as much as some of us were absolutely giddy at the possibility of going up against the latter).

but you must realize that CC's 24 wars they actually declared across 14+ total alliances had SG's side wetting itself so badly that that must be the only reason white peace was offered. you have to forget that it was already offered by 3/4 of the alliances against TPF prior to CC finally getting itself together to DoW/DoS and declare a massive blitz of 24 wars. you must forget that SG had their own coalition ready, willing, and waiting for war should it come finally. in other words, you must ignore all the facts so that Alterego can finally be right.

[Alterego]

You seem pretty intent on ramming this point home. Remember also that your coalition cried out for a week about the CB (and the attack on your allies in TPF) being completely unjust. If it was so unjust, why after TPF was brutally beaten for a week over it would your coalition agree to peace and let RoK, GOD, Athens, and \m/ off the hook?

I dont know how things work in ODN but if I have an ally and he accepts white peace I cant tell him to ignore the offer and keep fighting. I'm not a member of TPF let alone one of their leaders.

Athens and RoK were wronged by TPF. They sought appropriate retaliation against those who wronged them. From their perspective, 5 days of war and the loss of over 1/3 of TPF's NS seemed appropriate. From their side, white peace at that point made perfect sense.

Can CC really say the same?

If Athens and/or Rok had only planned a 5 day war only they would have gone in without their allies, after all they were all ready to roll on a few hours notice. They also would have mentioned it in their DoW just as MK did last year.

but you must realize that CC's 24 wars they actually declared across 14+ total alliances had SG's side wetting itself so badly that that must be the only reason white peace was offered. you have to forget that it was already offered by 3/4 of the alliances against TPF prior to CC finally getting itself together to DoW/DoS and declare a massive blitz of 24 wars. you must forget that SG had their own coalition ready, willing, and waiting for war should it come finally. in other words, you must ignore all the facts so that Alterego can finally be right.

The point is that something was done. Contrary to what you are continually implying the war escalated and a coalition entered the war. You can play down the number of attacks all you like but you cant deny that a massive escalation had taken place and TPFs allies had entered the war, we just worked to our timetable and not yours.

I'm fuming? I'm complaining? Way to overgeneralize and grossly misinterpret my post. I merely stated the facts (which your response does little to dispute).

Yes, white peace was offered the night after CoC's little cavalry charge, just as it was offered the night of shortly before CoC went in after having ignored the offer. This war had more to do with TPF than it had to do with TOP or any other imagined objectives (as much as some of us were absolutely giddy at the possibility of going up against the latter).

The fact remains you lot spent 5 days calling us out and when we came out you offered white peace. Only days earlier they were only getting peace if they took a 2 week beating and made a groveling apology. Play down the actual wars all you like but the DoWs and DoS tell the real story of what was happening.

[Hyperbad]

CC's strategy was just horrible in all honesty. the whole waiting 6 days just to have 14+ alliances DoW but only muster around 24 actual war declarations was pathetic.

Is it reasonable for one to expect better with about one-third of the alliances involved and it occurring between two big holidays occuring a week from each other? The 24 declarations was after approximately a week of common knowledge that war was imminent after all. Overall it was a less than ideal situation for anyone and I do believe the indecisiveness of the CC played a central role in later guaranteeing that they would lack the member response they sought. It is theoretically possible that more declarations would have been made if there wasn't a wait but we have insufficient information at this time to make any sort of definitate judgement.

All we have that's posted though is a general peace mode ratio and no idea how many were in it prior to war breaking out. Otherwise is it logical to expect that some may not log in daily due to the period of time in question but sat in war mode? It would make delaying an entry into war the preferable choice rather then having nations sit idle or inactive with declared wars. How long did it take the stated alliances to reach their peace mode ratios after the alert or order was put out?

Really it's a question of activity seen in TPF's attackers and their supporters vs. activity in your own alliances and your supporters. Seeing as how each alliance is a community in itself it is quite possible to see different levels or types of activity or inactivity between them.

[SirWilliam]

The fact remains you lot spent 5 days calling us out and when we came out you offered white peace. Only days earlier they were only getting peace if they took a 2 week beating and made a groveling apology. Play down the actual wars all you like but the DoWs and DoS tell the real story of what was happening.

No, not entirely. Yes, the terms were different days before CoC entered, but the night before and the night of (shortly before CoC entered) terms had already changed. Terms didn't change because or after CoC entered. With TPF having been ravaged I can't exactly blame the alliances engaging them for deciding against another week of war. Play up what little retaliation was eventually summoned all you like but complete, accurate details tell a realer story of what was happening.

[rsoxbronco1]

I dont know how things work in ODN but if I have an ally and he accepts white peace I cant tell him to ignore the offer and keep fighting. I'm not a member of TPF let alone one of their leaders.

If Athens and/or Rok had only planned a 5 day war only they would have gone in without their allies, after all they were all ready to roll on a few hours notice. They also would have mentioned it in their DoW just as MK did last year.

The point is that something was done. Contrary to what you are continually implying the war escalated and a coalition entered the war. You can play down the number of attacks all you like but you cant deny that a massive escalation had taken place and TPFs allies had entered the war, we just worked to our timetable and not yours.

The fact remains you lot spent 5 days calling us out and when we came out you offered white peace. Only days earlier they were only getting peace if they took a 2 week beating and made a groveling apology. Play down the actual wars all you like but the DoWs and DoS tell the real story of what was happening.

Yup, you sure did. You bored us into peacing out TPF. Quite an effective strategy.

[Dochartaigh]

The point is that something was done. Contrary to what you are continually implying the war escalated and a coalition entered the war. You can play down the number of attacks all you like but you cant deny that a massive escalation had taken place and TPFs allies had entered the war, we just worked to our timetable and not yours.

never stated that nothing was done just that CC played very little role in Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/ giving white peace the night of the CC declarations or the day after. to state that CC played any role is quite ridiculous considering:

1) i doubt very many on our side (at least grunts) knew if/when CC was entering considering the fact that it was 5-6 days after the war began that ya'll finally decided to enter.

2) Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/ would have known about the coalition building up on their side and our willingness to enter if/when it became necessary.

3) ya'lls lackluster showing in actual war declarations was laughable and not this awe-inspiring event ya'll think. having DoWs/DoSs without any actual substance behind it is not something to fear more than it is something to pity.

4) fact that there was only ever 1 term on the table to begin with, an admission of guilt (not the groveling apology that you suggested) shows that while not white peace, no other terms were ever offered (to my knowledge as only that term was ever mentioned). so after beating the crap outta TPF and their allies not showing much more than moral support, Athens/RoK/GOD/\m/ took pity on TPF and took that term off the table.

so to sit there and suggest anything other than this is just mere propaganda meant to smear the alliances against you. i will admit i am biased and that my wording could be better but honestly, the facts are there.

Is it reasonable for one to expect better with about one-third of the alliances involved and it occurring between two big holidays occuring a week from each other? The 24 declarations was after approximately a week of common knowledge that war was imminent after all. Overall it was a less than ideal situation for anyone and I do believe the indecisiveness of the CC played a central role in later guaranteeing that they would lack the member response they sought. It is theoretically possible that more declarations would have been made if there wasn't a wait but we have insufficient information at this time to make any sort of definitate judgement.

All we have that's posted though is a general peace mode ratio and no idea how many were in it prior to war breaking out. Otherwise is it logical to expect that some may not log in daily due to the period of time in question but sat in war mode? It would make delaying an entry into war the preferable choice rather then having nations sit idle or inactive with declared wars. How long did it take the stated alliances to reach their peace mode ratios after the alert or order was put out?

Really it's a question of activity seen in TPF's attackers and their supporters vs. activity in your own alliances and your supporters. Seeing as how each alliance is a community in itself it is quite possible to see different levels or types of activity or inactivity between them.

what does peace mode ratios have to do with anything? for that matter what does the timetable have to do with anything? essentially the alliances that declared figured they had more than enough of their members online or capable of being online to make an update blitz. what we got instead was 24 total war declarations spread across 14+ alliances. if they were not ready to actually attempt more of an update blitz, then they probably should not have told TPF they were ready and TPF may damn well have accepted the white peace offer the first time it was offered, rather than taking another beating at update.

honestly, i doubt my allies would ever act as CC has done and would rather be pummeled alongside us than sit back and let us be pummeled just to state they are finally able to enter almost a week later and then only get 24 wars off.

[Hyperbad]

what does peace mode ratios have to do with anything? for that matter what does the timetable have to do with anything?

You've asserted previously in this thread that based upon the percentage of their nations in peace mode they could have instead gone to war due to member activity or attentiveness being relatively high. Said assertion was supported by certain alliances having upwards of half their membership in peace mode. If a large portion of those members were in peace mode prior to the commencement of hostilities or stretched out over the period of time leading up to the CC's direct involvement then it removes the ratio of nations in peace mode as evidence of their being capable of maintaining an effective war effort at that time.

essentially the alliances that declared figured they had more than enough of their members online or capable of being online to make an update blitz.

I've already challenged the legitimacy of this assertion with regards to how accurate it is. Please address the rebuttal previously posted.

what we got instead was 24 total war declarations spread across 14+ alliances. if they were not ready to actually attempt more of an update blitz, then they probably should not have told TPF they were ready and TPF may damn well have accepted the white peace offer the first time it was offered, rather than taking another beating at update.

I find it ironic that you would assert with the number of nations in peace mode they could have maintained an effective war effort with one-third of the alliances participating when with what happened you clearly display contempt for a "pathetic" showing. One would think if their members were active like you suggest then they would have declared more then a mere 24 wars.

honestly, i doubt my allies would ever act as CC has done and would rather be pummeled alongside us than sit back and let us be pummeled just to state they are finally able to enter almost a week later and then only get 24 wars off.

Please note that I'm not judging anyone on their willingness or lack there of with regards to being "pummeled". I'm merely discussing the merits in the assertion that a percentage of nations in peace mode at a later date in time gives any sort of indication as to an alliance's readiness with two holidays around the moment open hostilities commence. Such is as far as my interests in this thread go.

[Dochartaigh]

You've asserted previously in this thread that based upon the percentage of their nations in peace mode they could have instead gone to war due to member activity or attentiveness being relatively high. Said assertion was supported by certain alliances having upwards of half their membership in peace mode. If a large portion of those members were in peace mode prior to the commencement of hostilities or stretched out over the period of time leading up to the CC's direct involvement then it removes the ratio of nations in peace mode as evidence of their being capable of maintaining an effective war effort at that time.

how is this a rebuttal? fact is, they could have maintained a war effort given the number of nations moved into PM throughout the war. they could have made several waves instead of one gigantic blitz and that would have been better than what they ended up doing.

I've already challenged the legitimacy of this assertion with regards to how accurate it is. Please address the rebuttal previously posted.

fact is, they obviously felt they had enough members back from RL and online to make a DoW. that means they should have had far more nations ready and able to declare wars than just 24 total especially given the total members of all 14+ alliances. fact that they did not have this shows that they were not ready at all or that they only wanted to show the very most minimum of actual military support as possible.

I find it ironic that you would assert with the number of nations in peace mode they could have maintained an effective war effort with one-third of the alliances participating when with what happened you clearly display contempt for a "pathetic" showing. One would think if their members were active like you suggest then they would have declared more then a mere 24 wars.

what is ironic is that their members were more than ready to jump into PM than they were ready to actually attack and defend TPF. and if their members were not active, then they should not have DoWed and allowed the war to end instead of having it drag on one more day just so CC could DoW/DoS.

Please note that I'm not judging anyone on their willingness or lack there of with regards to being "pummeled". I'm merely discussing the merits in the assertion that a percentage of nations in peace mode at a later date in time gives any sort of indication as to an alliance's readiness with two holidays around the moment open hostilities commence. Such is as far as my interests in this thread go.

actually the merits are right there if you choose to actually look at them. you have not refuted anything i stated before or in your reply to me. instead you have attempted to shift around facts to make it look like you have refuted anything i have said.

fact is, that most of the alliances were able to muster members to go into PM but were seemingly incapable of mustering them to actually attack Athens/GOD/\m/.

fact is, that TPF could have gotten peace a day earlier had it not been for CC either thinking they were ready to attack or just wanting to DoW/DoS to throw off the stigma of throwing TPF under the bus to save themselves.

fact is, 24 wars declared spread over 14+ alliances is just outright pathetic and nothing you state will make that any different. 24 wars spread over a single alliance is usually pathetic unless said alliance has under like 30 members.

fact is, the timing plays a huge role but again if that was such an issue then why DoW until you are able to muster more members. if an alliance is able to get more members into PM by a far larger margin than they can get to attack, they may as well not attack.

[Hyperbad]

how is this a rebuttal? fact is, they could have maintained a war effort given the number of nations moved into PM throughout the war. they could have made several waves instead of one gigantic blitz and that would have been better than what they ended up doing.

The rebuttal was in post #207. Post #211 was nothing more then a brief explanation as to the relevance that way you might go back to the original post and respond to it as appropriate. It's been questioned how many actually went into peace mode after hostilities commenced; the time frame which those that went into peace mode after they commenced; and how active they were outside of that. I've raised questions relevant to the statistics you use to support your argument, thus the foundation of it. Restating your position without addressing them does nothing to further this discussion.

fact is, they obviously felt they had enough members back from RL and online to make a DoW. that means they should have had far more nations ready and able to declare wars than just 24 total especially given the total members of all 14+ alliances. fact that they did not have this shows that they were not ready at all or that they only wanted to show the very most minimum of actual military support as possible.

You're right, I misread your previous statement. They apparently did believe their members could make an adequate follow-up to the official statements and apparently they were wrong. I do not see what relevance this has or how it supports you however with regards to your asserting they could have made an effective war effort if they had declared sooner.

what is ironic is that their members were more than ready to jump into PM than they were ready to actually attack and defend TPF. and if their members were not active, then they should not have DoWed and allowed the war to end instead of having it drag on one more day just so CC could DoW/DoS.

Again, you're making assumptions as to their level and type of activity the alliances in question experienced. I've brought up the question of how quickly their membership switched to peace mode as a legitimate question in illustrating how active their membership was but it also provides a potential explanation as to how many of them could have declared. Being that your life on Bob has been so long I'm most certain you are a ware of the 5 day delay in switching between the war and peace modes. As such I expect that you woudl recognize the potential delay in switching to peace mode, if more then 3 days, would also delay their declarations when the time was right. Being that as it may, those who didn't switch out of war mode conceivably have been inactive for the holidays and those active would be the more likely to be in peace mode. The CC potentially shot themselves in the foot depending upon how many returned from their holiday vacations immediately before their counter declarations to make the jump into peace mode. I don't have the raw data therefore these are just things I have thought up which could significantly impact the picture and have nothing to do with your assertion that they could have put up an effective war effort if they declared almost immediately. This only concerns the effectiveness of their counter attacks as they happened.

actually the merits are right there if you choose to actually look at them. you have not refuted anything i stated before or in your reply to me. instead you have attempted to shift around facts to make it look like you have refuted anything i have said.

I have looked at the information presented to me and nothing of it deals with any of the points made in post #207, my first post in this thread. The response I received to my counter points was a questioning of their relevance. Upon clarification there was no further response from you except in restating your position without further details and discussing events as they turned out rather then how effective a war effort started earlier by them would have been.

fact is, that most of the alliances were able to muster members to go into PM but were seemingly incapable of mustering them to actually attack Athens/GOD/\m/.

fact is, that TPF could have gotten peace a day earlier had it not been for CC either thinking they were ready to attack or just wanting to DoW/DoS to throw off the stigma of throwing TPF under the bus to save themselves.

fact is, 24 wars declared spread over 14+ alliances is just outright pathetic and nothing you state will make that any different. 24 wars spread over a single alliance is usually pathetic unless said alliance has under like 30 members.

fact is, the timing plays a huge role but again if that was such an issue then why DoW until you are able to muster more members. if an alliance is able to get more members into PM by a far larger margin than they can get to attack, they may as well not attack.

This all is moot. I had put forward a few thoughts which might explain why a few players didn't declare but am not arguing events as they went. I'm arguing your assertion that they could have put together an effective war effort from the start. None of the information presented thus far paints such a picture.

[Penkala]

You really think if peace wasnt announced when it was that there wouldnt have been thousands of nations on both sides in flames at the moment. The continual effort by some to say that nothing was done when a massive coalition was formed, DoWs & DoS were posted and nations were attacked is laughable. Peace wasnt given to TPF by CoC.

What does that have to do with what I was just talking about? Why are you so bad at this? It's not even hard. Present a logical argument for once, please.

The fact remains you lot spent 5 days calling us out and whenbefore we came out you offered white peace.

Fixed that to properly reflect the facts. Something you are continually failing to do. If SG backed down due to your attacks, why did they offer white peace before your attacks?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Penkala

[Ivan Moldavi]

I have skimmed over parts of this "debate" (hardly worthy of the word but meh) and I have a question. I may have missed the answer and if so I apologize in advance. But it seems that a large number of nations from the TPF side of things are complaining that RoK and Athens offered White Peace to TPF. What required those alliances that had already declared to accept it? Just curious. If it was such a sticking point then why did everyone stop? The declarations were already made so if TPF got peace, good for them, since they had been left out to dry for almost a week anyway, why not carry on? I don't really have a "side" in this argument because I stated from the beginning I thought the whole thing was pretty shoddy but after certain parties did finally come to the aid of a bleeding ally, why not extract some form of vindication for them?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi

[Kzoppistan]

I have skimmed over parts of this "debate" (hardly worthy of the word but meh) and I have a question. I may have missed the answer and if so I apologize in advance. But it seems that a large number of nations from the TPF side of things are complaining that RoK and Athens offered White Peace to TPF. What required those alliances that had already declared to accept it? Just curious. If it was such a sticking point then why did everyone stop? The declarations were already made so if TPF got peace, good for them, since they had been left out to dry for almost a week anyway, why not carry on? I don't really have a "side" in this argument because I stated from the beginning I thought the whole things was pretty shoddy but after certain parties did finally come to the aid of a bleeding ally, why not extract some form of vindication for them?

I believe accepting white peace was urged by TPF.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Ivan Moldavi]

I believe taking white peace was urged by TPF.

Right, as well they should have. TPF deserved it, for lack of a better word. Their allies, through careful planning or whatever, left them to fight alone for 5-6 days. That specifically is between them and their allies but my question is why did the allies feel the need to accept the white peace as well?

Or are you saying TPF urged them collectively to accept it with them?

[Kzoppistan]

Or are you saying TPF urged them collectively to accept it with them?

That is correct.

[Alterego]

What does that have to do with what I was just talking about? Why are you so bad at this? It's not even hard. Present a logical argument for once, please.

Fixed that to properly reflect the facts. Something you are continually failing to do. If SG backed down due to your attacks, why did they offer white peace before your attacks?

Following me around like a stray dog is becoming very funny.

[Seerow]

Right, as well they should have. TPF deserved it, for lack of a better word. Their allies, through careful planning or whatever, left them to fight alone for 5-6 days. That specifically is between them and their allies but my question is why did the allies feel the need to accept the white peace as well?

Or are you saying TPF urged them collectively to accept it with them?

One could argue TPF didn't want to see their allies in the same state they were, weakening their total position down the road even further.

But then CoC was so confident they were winning, so that couldn't possibly be it...

[Dochartaigh]

The rebuttal was in post #207. Post #211 was nothing more then a brief explanation as to the relevance that way you might go back to the original post and respond to it as appropriate. It's been questioned how many actually went into peace mode after hostilities commenced; the time frame which those that went into peace mode after they commenced; and how active they were outside of that. I've raised questions relevant to the statistics you use to support your argument, thus the foundation of it. Restating your position without addressing them does nothing to further this discussion.

i am talkin about the whole PM thing itself. that is not a rebuttal in regards to my stating that CC had a pathetic showing of 24 war declarations spread across 14+ alliances. honestly, nothing is really a rebuttal for that as that is 1.7 war declarations per alliance (at 14 total alliances, less if there were more alliances that DoWed).

my argument in regards to their PM and hitting sooner have nothing to do with the argument that their actual war declarations in game were just downright pathetic.

so again. this is not a rebuttal at all just a mashing of facts in an attempt to rebuttal something that honestly is a laughingstock.

You're right, I misread your previous statement. They apparently did believe their members could make an adequate follow-up to the official statements and apparently they were wrong. I do not see what relevance this has or how it supports you however with regards to your asserting they could have made an effective war effort if they had declared sooner.

again, you are mixing two arguments into one. the arguments over the PM was the fact that even Haf stated that those alliances managed to get certain percentages of their nations into PM during the waiting period. i stated that if they were capable of getting them into PM, they were capable of launching an attack a lot sooner than they did even with just the 4 alliances he mentioned. the fact that they could not raise enough members to actually launch a full-scale attack when they DoWed is completely irrelevant since an alliance like IRON was most likely between 250-334 (334 is 68% of 492 sub-85k NS nations) that responded to the order to dive into PM. going with just 250 members, IRON could hit 1v1 (in terms of nations) basically all of Athens and either GOD or \m/. with 334 it would basically be all of Athens/GOD/\m/. that is just one of the 4 alliances that Haf mentioned. if i included Invicta, NATO, and FEAR they most likely could have done 2v1 versus Athens/GOD/\m/ (considering they did not hit RoK in order not to draw in Polaris). all this while Athens/GOD/\m/ were still attacking TPF and TPF was far more fresh and able to fight back.

so i am unsure what point you keep stating is rebutting either of my two arguments as you just don't.

Again, you're making assumptions as to their level and type of activity the alliances in question experienced. I've brought up the question of how quickly their membership switched to peace mode as a legitimate question in illustrating how active their membership was but it also provides a potential explanation as to how many of them could have declared. Being that your life on Bob has been so long I'm most certain you are a ware of the 5 day delay in switching between the war and peace modes. As such I expect that you woudl recognize the potential delay in switching to peace mode, if more then 3 days, would also delay their declarations when the time was right. Being that as it may, those who didn't switch out of war mode conceivably have been inactive for the holidays and those active would be the more likely to be in peace mode. The CC potentially shot themselves in the foot depending upon how many returned from their holiday vacations immediately before their counter declarations to make the jump into peace mode. I don't have the raw data therefore these are just things I have thought up which could significantly impact the picture and have nothing to do with your assertion that they could have put up an effective war effort if they declared almost immediately. This only concerns the effectiveness of their counter attacks as they happened.

i would assume that it would be a similar level in PM as there is now. so for IRON there are 507 nations of which 480 are in war mode and only 26 in PM. i am gonna assume (yes assume) that most alliances do not have much more than 5-10% of their alliance in PM during peace time mainly due to the economic affects this has on a nation. now given the 26 in PM, most are under 20k NS with only 2 being between 60k NS and 67K NS (i.e. 24 under 20k NS) again, i am gonna assume that this is true for most alliances since PM is just not something any alliance does unless absolutely necessary. so we have the vast majority of IRON (and basically all on the CC side) not in PM. which means that for IRON they had 68% (Haf's %) of their sub-85k in PM by Dec 30th. which means in 3 days, a total of 308 IRON nations essentially hit PM in 3 days. that is a lot of nations that could have hit Athens/GOD/\m/ instead.

so yes, i do make assumptions but my assumptions are basically assuming that IRON and others are either not completely imbecilic in terms of economic affairs or pre-cognitive and knowing that there was a war coming.

I have looked at the information presented to me and nothing of it deals with any of the points made in post #207, my first post in this thread. The response I received to my counter points was a questioning of their relevance. Upon clarification there was no further response from you except in restating your position without further details and discussing events as they turned out rather then how effective a war effort started earlier by them would have been.

because what you went on about had nothing to do with what i was talkin about for the most part. as stated before the PM situation was a different situation unrelated to the actual DoW/War declarations later on.

as for activity, every alliance always experiences different activity levels. this should always be taken into account when it comes to declaring war. if you do not have the activity level required to actually commit your alliance into a war, why would you declare it?

"if they were not ready to actually attempt more of an update blitz, then they probably should not have told TPF they were ready and TPF may damn well have accepted the white peace offer the first time it was offered, rather than taking another beating at update."

which i believe i stated essentially right there. thus, i responded to the portion of your post that was relevant to what i was discussing.

This all is moot. I had put forward a few thoughts which might explain why a few players didn't declare but am not arguing events as they went. I'm arguing your assertion that they could have put together an effective war effort from the start. None of the information presented thus far paints such a picture.

look at the first reply in this post. it will show you that this is true. and just to show you others. Invicta has 142 nations out of 157 nations in war mode. Invicta has 152 nations in the sub-85k NS range. out of the 15 in PM, 12 are under 7k NS, 1 is 10k NS, 1 is 23k NS and the last is 30k NS. that means that there was 80 nations that hit PM during that 3 day period. for NATO we have these numbers: 171 out of 191 nations in war mode. 163 nations that are sub-85k NS. 19 of the 20 nations in PM are under 7k NS, 1 is 17k NS. 61 or 62 of those nations hit PM during that 3 day period. now for FEAR: 89 out of 93 in war mode. 88 nations under sub-85k NS. their nations in PM are 1 11k NS nation, 1 14k NS nation, 1 23k NS nation and 1 52k NS nation. so that means that 62 nations dove into PM during that 3 day period.

so that means that we have these numbers:

308 IRON

80 Invicta

61/62 NATO

62 FEAR

total: 511/512 nations that were obviously capable of being online and declaring war.

total nations in Athens/GOD/\m/ was 339. not including those in PM by the 30th. which means that by the 30th, those four alliances alone could have mounted a more than effective hit on Athens/GOD/\m/ since i am not including any nations above 85k NS nor am i accounting for those who were online but may not have jumped into PM for whatever reason.

so again, if you are gonna question something, you should perhaps do some research behind what you are saying yourself but i did it this time for ya.

[Ivan Moldavi]

One could argue TPF didn't want to see their allies in the same state they were, weakening their total position down the road even further.

But then CoC was so confident they were winning, so that couldn't possibly be it...

Far be it from me to question the prowess of certain parties but it seems that a whole lot of nations would have been glowing, even if the end result seemed clear, if the war had continued. Nukes in large numbers tend to hurt both sides ultimately, it all comes down to who has the resolve to bleed through it until the end if the sides are more or less even, as they seemed to be lining up overall.

Unless you think the coalition would have been able to arrange to isolate and attack each alliance on the other side individually for 5-6 days before another one stepped up to take their beat-down in succession?

[Dochartaigh]

Right, as well they should have. TPF deserved it, for lack of a better word. Their allies, through careful planning or whatever, left them to fight alone for 5-6 days. That specifically is between them and their allies but my question is why did the allies feel the need to accept the white peace as well?

Or are you saying TPF urged them collectively to accept it with them?

honestly i am curious about this as well since 3 outta 4 alliances gave TPF white peace the day of the DoWs and TPF seemed far to impatient to wait a few more minutes for Athens to come back with the same answer. cuz it seems the moment that TPF knew that CC was finally coming in, diplomacy was no longer important. yet, the next day when the same white peace was offered TPF jumped all over it. i honestly wonder if the 24 total war declarations impacted TPF's decision way more than it did SG's side.

[Kindom of Goon]

Have to agree with Ivan. After a whole week of going on about how weak the CB was and how the delay was all part of a cafeful strategy and that TPF were being sacrificed for it, it was a little surprising to see you accept peace. In the end it basically meant TPF were sacrificed for nothing, other than maybe avoiding a global war.

[Kzoppistan]

Far be it from me to question the prowess of certain parties but it seems that a whole lot of nations would have been glowing, even if the end result seemed clear, if the war had continued. Nukes in large numbers tend to hurt both sides ultimately, it all comes down to who has the resolve to bleed through it until the end if the sides are more or less even, as they seemed to be lining up overall.

Unless you think the coalition would have been able to arrange to isolate and attack each alliance on the other side individually for 5-6 days before another one stepped up to take their beat-down in succession?

Everyone that I spoke to was ready and willing to go in for the long haul. In fact, the strategy was designed for a long term engagement. In essence the CC and Super-whatever-they're-called-now were going place their collective hands around each others throats and starting squeezing and see who passed out first.

Why mhawk agreed to white peace at that moment, I do not know. I suppose we won't know his thoughts on it until he returns from his sabbatical.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Kzoppistan