Announcement from \m/, Poison Clan, FOK! and New Polar Order

[Comrade Goby]

Good show by the involved parties.

Grub, I believe we both made our points

o/ NpO

o/ \m/

o/ PC

o/ FOK

[uaciaut]

You seem pretty eager to convince us of your 'facts'. I can't imagine TOP would have any reason at all to lie about this.

Seriously though, if you're hoping for a mk declaration on polar you'll have to wait a long time. They're our allies and friends and we take their word over yours any day.

Neah, i don't think Feanor's explicitly lying about this. Rather then that i think that

1. Whatever you got from NpO must've been sketchy at best.

2. Trusting someone who tells you to attack their ally means that they either don't care about their allies (and you shouldn't trust them) or they care about their allies (and you shouldn't trust them).

3. Why did you need Grub's seal of approval when you didn't seem to need a CB? Or when you entered a war that, based on your CB, had no relation with NpO's? It's like saying you'd ask NpO if you could buy tech. Or were you just making 100% sure they have their hands full and won't help us and that we'd be isolated because of it? All this while disregarding all the common treaty partners there were? Or did you think Grub enjoyed more special envoys of bad PR for them when you thought you'd cover this by saying it's under NpO's banner you're entering?

Actually that doesn't even begin to cover the ammount of things that seem so logical to me and that yet you, an alliance which held a good position in CN for so long, didn't think of. And i'm trying to put myself in your place and just force myself to make the decisions you made but i just can't stay in that scenario. It's literally throwing me back into reality saying "are you uaciaut too stupid to imagine bad plans".

Maybe all that inactivity time has broken off my sense of logic in politics. If there ever was one.

[Thomas Jackson]

Those with blue balls are now witnessing said balls turning purple and in danger of falling off...

Mine are just fine, they've gotten to play in both conflicts!

[Nunan]

Bravo. Bravo.

Never have I been so amazed by the possibilities of diplomacy.

[Fireandthepassion]

IF it did, TOP was kinda not too bright as to think an alliance was totally cool with you hitting a MADP partner of theirs.

/just sayin'

It is what happened. If TOP/IRON declared on someone else then c&g would have surely responded either way. No matter what Grub would have said it would not have mattered. Grub knew this and had no choice but to say ok. Anyone in the TOP/Polaris q and a knew what TOP was planning anyway.

[Fireandthepassion]

Oh, wow. Well, what a time to peace out.

But metal alliance did fallow its charter all this time, the $%&@ are you all talking about? This make no sense, at all.

Fair enough.

Well in regards to other tangents, I am sure Polar secured peace for its immediate allies. I of course, as the rest of you except the few individuals, do not know to what extend this is a trap or not.

More likely to me is that, once it was commonly known that TOP and IRON will step in, I am guessing Archon pushed for white peace here for Polaris and their immediate allies because that power specter that he represents just got what it wanted-- TOP and IRON. Grub obviously, doesn't have a issue with that, I suppose why should he he doesn't like them anyway.

Ill be honest and say I dont care for anybody here then for purple alliance, NSO and IRON. The rest can burn for all I care. But even from that my position, this has a rather bad odor to it. Its one of those stinks that sticks with you and you cant do anything about it.

You should read the entire thread because this post makes you look like a moron. Those peace terms have been on the table since day 1. Polaris said that peace will happen when \m/ wants it to since day 1.

[Trout]

Who? NpO fought very well in this war, and certainly proved themselves not be cowards.

Also you changed from \m/ to TPF?

My apologies, cranky in the morning and that was my warmonger side.

I was in \m/ during the UjW but not with this new \m/

[R&R-Viking]

I said full-blown nuclear war.

Hanging out in the lower tiers, and no disrespect meant to the harsh situations of GOONS, Vox and Fark, we can do that for years if we start conserving warchests.

No. No, really, you can't.

[der_ko]

Actually that it the plan. Slide down the ranks with all wonders man can buy and all tech and warchest man can hoard in a year and a half. Then start raiding !@#$ out of middle ranks of target alliances. All those juicy soft targets against our juggernauts. I am finally going to worn out that little red button.

To assist you in executing your master plan I suggest you order all your members to sell off their infra to reach the desired low rank faster.

Edited January 29, 2010 by der_ko

[Seerow]

No. No, really, you can't.

Let them keep their delusions.

And theoretically with good SDI luck, conservation of nukes as well as warchests, and focus firing, they could last that long. I doubt that they would plan that far ahead though and forsee nukes running low within a month, not years.

[thenb]

well this really just sucks. here i thought this was gonna be a real war...

[jstep]

Let them keep their delusions.

And theoretically with good SDI luck, conservation of nukes as well as warchests, and focus firing, they could last that long. I doubt that they would plan that far ahead though and forsee nukes running low within a month, not years.

Lets just say there are certain TOP members who can buy 2000 nukes(at the max price) or more with their current warchests, I know personally mine is nearly as much as I've spent all time on my nation

[Seerow]

Lets just say there are certain TOP members who can buy 2000 nukes(at the max price) or more with their current warchests, I know personally mine is nearly as much as I've spent all time on my nation

Right, I'm not arguing your ability to build and fire nukes for a long time. What I am arguing is the capability of being a serious nuclear threat after a few months. You can buy 2 nukes per day. SDIs block 60% of incoming nukes. Assuming each nation tries to nuke every nation they are at war with every day, assuming each nation is at war with 3 nations, will take on average 7.5 nukes per day. You rebuy 2 nukes per day, leaving a net loss of 5.5 nukes per day. This means after an average of 4-5 days of war, you're running on your daily purchased nukes. At that point it becomes impossible to hit every target every day, and some days you won't hit a target at all (hitting SDI twice in a row has a 36% chance of happening so roughly every 3rd day you do not get a nuke off).

Now if you're more conservative with your nukes, as is the smarter thing to do in your situation, and just make sure to hit the bare minimum, one every 3-5 days to maintain nuclear anarchy on the target, you will last much longer and will remain a nuisance much longer. But at that point the idea that you would inflict equal damage on the way down as you are taking becomes more far fetched, because you're not attacking to your full potential, you're going for the longer game which ultimately results in you doing more damage over a long period of time to the mid ranks, while not decimating the upper ranks as you are capable of.

It's a rough choice, both are viable, but neither ends spectacularly well for your side.

[jaaku]

<snip>

...I doubt that they would plan that far ahead though and forsee nukes running low within a month, not years.

You clearly don't know how bored some of us are. We've been preparing for TOPaggedon for a long time.

[GuMMyWoRm]

Right, I'm not arguing your ability to build and fire nukes for a long time. What I am arguing is the capability of being a serious nuclear threat after a few months. You can buy 2 nukes per day. SDIs block 60% of incoming nukes. Assuming each nation tries to nuke every nation they are at war with every day, assuming each nation is at war with 3 nations, will take on average 7.5 nukes per day. You rebuy 2 nukes per day, leaving a net loss of 5.5 nukes per day. This means after an average of 4-5 days of war, you're running on your daily purchased nukes. At that point it becomes impossible to hit every target every day, and some days you won't hit a target at all (hitting SDI twice in a row has a 36% chance of happening so roughly every 3rd day you do not get a nuke off).

Now if you're more conservative with your nukes, as is the smarter thing to do in your situation, and just make sure to hit the bare minimum, one every 3-5 days to maintain nuclear anarchy on the target, you will last much longer and will remain a nuisance much longer. But at that point the idea that you would inflict equal damage on the way down as you are taking becomes more far fetched, because you're not attacking to your full potential, you're going for the longer game which ultimately results in you doing more damage over a long period of time to the mid ranks, while not decimating the upper ranks as you are capable of.

It's a rough choice, both are viable, but neither ends spectacularly well for your side.

Nice post Seerow.

Dr. Seerow will be available after class till 5pm tomorrow if any TOP or IRON students wish to understand logistics better.

Edited January 29, 2010 by GuMMyWoRm

[AlmightyGrub]

Grub knew and approved.

Grub certainly knew and raised no objections at all. I am sure there is a log between both Chefjoe and I and between Crymson and I that states exactly that and the reasons therefor.

I would find it but I honestly don't care right now, it seems an irrelevant point when I am happy to concede it is true.

I am pleased that some people managed to read my post without gagging, but I see some of you struggle with simple facts laid out in a linear fashion. The preference to accept any nonsense that suits you better really discourages me.

[The AUT]

Grub certainly knew and raised no objections at all. I am sure there is a log between both Chefjoe and I and between Crymson and I that states exactly that and the reasons therefor.

I would find it but I honestly don't care right now, it seems an irrelevant point when I am happy to concede it is true.

I am pleased that some people managed to read my post without gagging, but I see some of you struggle with simple facts laid out in a linear fashion. The preference to accept any nonsense that suits you better really discourages me.

You make me want to take up tech raiding in your name.

Thank you.

[Kaiser]

Right, I'm not arguing your ability to build and fire nukes for a long time. What I am arguing is the capability of being a serious nuclear threat after a few months. You can buy 2 nukes per day. SDIs block 60% of incoming nukes. Assuming each nation tries to nuke every nation they are at war with every day, assuming each nation is at war with 3 nations, will take on average 7.5 nukes per day. You rebuy 2 nukes per day, leaving a net loss of 5.5 nukes per day. This means after an average of 4-5 days of war, you're running on your daily purchased nukes. At that point it becomes impossible to hit every target every day, and some days you won't hit a target at all (hitting SDI twice in a row has a 36% chance of happening so roughly every 3rd day you do not get a nuke off).

Now if you're more conservative with your nukes, as is the smarter thing to do in your situation, and just make sure to hit the bare minimum, one every 3-5 days to maintain nuclear anarchy on the target, you will last much longer and will remain a nuisance much longer. But at that point the idea that you would inflict equal damage on the way down as you are taking becomes more far fetched, because you're not attacking to your full potential, you're going for the longer game which ultimately results in you doing more damage over a long period of time to the mid ranks, while not decimating the upper ranks as you are capable of.

It's a rough choice, both are viable, but neither ends spectacularly well for your side.

True, this is what will happen for the first little while. Eventually however you're going up against 20-40k NS nations, many of whom don't even have SDI's. You can nuke them 6 times, and there are a TON of stagger screwups at those levels, so it's not unlikely that a lot of people will go to peace mode, rebuy 25 nukes and come out again. Sure, it's impossible to nuke constantely at upper levels while staying in war mode, but it's not that hard to send a TON of nukes for a very long time. It's only 4m to buy up to 1000 infra from zero. You're assuming that everyone has a SDI, and that's simply not true. At the lower levels the majority of nations don't have one. MK did this very good during the WoTC.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Kaiser

[Locke]

Trying to remember the last time TOP fought a nuclear war... drawing a blank here.

Did they fire nukes in noCB? I know they !@#$%*ed out in Karma. It may be as long as GW3 since they fought a real war.

They went full nuclear on several alliances during Karma. BAPS comes to mind.

[General Ozujsko]

I dream of the day you rot in hell Polaris.

Rot. In. Hell!

You mad?

Come on, AUT, what happened to all the 'bring on the war' chest-beating?

[Branimir]

You should read the entire thread because this post makes you look like a moron.

Insulting me, will not change how this all played out and in what it all resulted.

The thread contains absolutely nothing to show anything, in my post as "moronic". The thread essentially, is just drivel with the most and only important part of significant value being the--- OP.

I am sorry, but I did not create this situation for you, you can direct some of your build up anger somewhere else.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Branimir

[Watson895]

Actually that it the plan. Slide down the ranks with all wonders man can buy and all tech and warchest man can hoard in a year and a half. Then start raiding !@#$ out of middle ranks of target alliances. All those juicy soft targets against our juggernauts. I am finally going to worn out that little red button.

And you will learn what you taught us. Skill and preparedness only goes so far then third parties are shoveling cash at them unmolested.

[SkyyBerry]

Posting in an epic thread. This is awesome.

Good show.

[Owney OSullivan]

I'm glad to see grub revealed his true, treacherous colors.

Let the festivities begin!

[Luciferi]

Well at least \m/ ins't raiding alliances anymore, and I hope that PC follow their example.

Since when? Did you actually read the OP?

\m/ came to ruin the game and we are going to let them.

We've been trying to tell you people that for a while.

Also, apologies for calling \m/ an 'abortion'. It was more offensive than I intended. My preferred euphemisms are obviously not everyone else's. I apologize for getting folks' panties in a bunch, although I would like to note that I got complaints from everyone except \m/. That's actually made them go up in my book.

That's OK. We're out to ruin the game, not free speech.

Ave \m/.