Lafayette Escadrille Declaration

[StevieG]

So this whole thing started with OP not being happy that LE interfered in their AA war, and its led us to this. SoT, you are in the wrong, read my sig

[StevieG]

Also, I would add that down declares are part of the game. Strategy plays a bigger part than merely proclaiming on the forums that you declared up etc. Anyone willing to argue my points, go right ahead. But you wont win.

[mtndew]

To all the players of all the alliances.............I would just like to say the End of Days has been fun. It reminds me of a bar fight where everyone is swinging at everyone for the sole purpose of saving the beer. In the end we all pick ourselves up off the floor, mend our wounds and begin drinking together again.

Salute!!

[Clash]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1287109743' post='2484934']
Also, I would add that down declares are part of the game. Strategy plays a bigger part than merely proclaiming on the forums that you declared up etc. Anyone willing to argue my points, go right ahead. But you wont win.[/quote]
Well, I shall take a shot anyways.

Of course down-declares are part of the game. No one has argued against this yet that I have seen, anyways. I certainly won't argue it - and yes, it's certainly a strategy where you're likely to win. So? You're [u]supposed[/u] to win on a down declare - that's the reality of a "down"-declare. You're getting the blitz in. You're picking the first offensive wars and usually getting in free shots on those you're hitting. Hell, you're probably less likely to have nations slotted-clogged with raids, if you prepare right. Plus you've more nations, more total ns or more ns avg, or a majority of the three. You're bigger than they are in most ways - or it's not a down-declare, is it?

Why does any of that make you any good? Imho, TE is a war game first and a flag-chase second. There's no peace mode and you even get warred on during a flag chase. Down declare wars do not mean you're any good at war. Even if you win on this downhill battlefield you've picked for yourself - so what? Weren't you supposed to?

You are not pushing yourselves to get any better, either. You generally get better by waring when you are NOT supposed to win. I think that's usually the case, no matter what the competition is - no matter what the battlefield. Be it pro sports, badminton in the backyard or in Scrabble. You can never reach great heights by climbing small obstacles.

If you up-declare - and at least do better than you probably should have done - that proves better strategy than a curbstomp down-declare by far. You gain more respect that way as well, overall, and deservedly so. You don't even always have to win, just do better than the situation says you should have. That gets respect too - at least from me.

As long as you game within the inherent rules of TE, you're "part of the game."
Those standards are rather low tho, aren't they?

Just like down-declares

[Judge X]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1287163718' post='2485310']
Well, I shall take a shot anyways.

Of course down-declares are part of the game. No one has argued against this yet that I have seen, anyways. I certainly won't argue it - and yes, it's certainly a strategy where you're likely to win. So? You're [u]supposed[/u] to win on a down declare - that's the reality of a "down"-declare. You're getting the blitz in. You're picking the first offensive wars and usually getting in free shots on those you're hitting. Hell, you're probably less likely to have nations slotted-clogged with raids, if you prepare right. Plus you've more nations, more total ns or more ns avg, or a majority of the three. You're bigger than they are in most ways - or it's not a down-declare, is it?

Why does any of that make you any good? Imho, TE is a war game first and a flag-chase second. There's no peace mode and you even get warred on during a flag chase. Down declare wars do not mean you're any good at war. Even if you win on this downhill battlefield you've picked for yourself - so what? Weren't you supposed to?

You are not pushing yourselves to get any better, either. You generally get better by waring when you are NOT supposed to win. I think that's usually the case, no matter what the competition is - no matter what the battlefield. Be it pro sports, badminton in the backyard or in Scrabble. You can never reach great heights by climbing small obstacles.

If you up-declare - and at least do better than you probably should have done - that proves better strategy than a curbstomp down-declare by far. You gain more respect that way as well, overall, and deservedly so. You don't even always have to win, just do better than the situation says you should have. That gets respect too - at least from me.

As long as you game within the inherent rules of TE, you're "part of the game."
Those standards are rather low tho, aren't they?

Just like down-declares
[/quote]

What he said.

You can't claim to be a chess champion by beating the Special Ed class but never playing the Chess club. Unless at your school they're the same thing. Are they?

[StevieG]

Perhaps I didnt clarify well enough.

What Im referring to in a down declare is merely on an individual basis, not an AA basis. In an equal AA battle there may be strategical aspects that can be utilized to win the war, rather than just total NS. Also, what may be the case in some wars is that the attacking AA has a higher top tier (maybe 3 or 4 nations over the enemy) but the defending AA has a stronger middle tier. In this case, the attacking AA has no choice but to down declare.

I will also give you one example from the OP/DR vs PS/RD war to highlight my point. Before I do though, I do recognize that there may be debate on whether that was a fair war or not. This is not to debate that particular issue.

For the blitz I was at 8838 ns, my partner was at 7819, increasing to 9374 and 8266 NS for Military build up respectively. Us 2 blitzed 3 nations at 7310, 6340, and 6236 NS. I guess you could call that a down declare. There was one stronger nation that DR was allocated that we could have hit instead, but there were a couple of factors that lead us to hit these 3 instead.

First of all, we were relatively confidant that we could get 3 anarchies, which we did. Secondly, those 3 nations were carrying 9, 7, and 5 nukes, so anarchies against them would mean they cannot counter and drop nukes on anybody else. Also, only the nation with 7 nukes had the HNMS, and I had the best spies in DR at the time. By declaring on all of these 3, that meant that I could spy 5 vulnerable nukes per day, which I did. Then when the guy with the HNMS was at 5 I could only get 2 off each of the others per day which I did until they were out.

So as you can see, there is more thought that goes into declarations other than just mere NS.

[paul711]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1287186956' post='2485530']
Perhaps I didnt clarify well enough.

What Im referring to in a down declare is merely on an individual basis, not an AA basis. In an equal AA battle there may be strategical aspects that can be utilized to win the war, rather than just total NS. Also, what may be the case in some wars is that the attacking AA has a higher top tier (maybe 3 or 4 nations over the enemy) but the defending AA has a stronger middle tier. In this case, the attacking AA has no choice but to down declare.

I will also give you one example from the OP/DR vs PS/RD war to highlight my point. Before I do though, I do recognize that there may be debate on whether that was a fair war or not. This is not to debate that particular issue.

For the blitz I was at 8838 ns, my partner was at 7819, increasing to 9374 and 8266 NS for Military build up respectively. Us 2 blitzed 3 nations at 7310, 6340, and 6236 NS. I guess you could call that a down declare. There was one stronger nation that DR was allocated that we could have hit instead, but there were a couple of factors that lead us to hit these 3 instead.

First of all, we were relatively confidant that we could get 3 anarchies, which we did. Secondly, those 3 nations were carrying 9, 7, and 5 nukes, so anarchies against them would mean they cannot counter and drop nukes on anybody else. Also, only the nation with 7 nukes had the HNMS, and I had the best spies in DR at the time. By declaring on all of these 3, that meant that I could spy 5 vulnerable nukes per day, which I did. Then when the guy with the HNMS was at 5 I could only get 2 off each of the others per day which I did until they were out.

So as you can see, there is more thought that goes into declarations other than just mere NS.
[/quote]
Stevie is correct their are strategic considerations when assigning targets during an inter AA war.

Edited October 16, 2010 by paul711

[StevieG]

Silly me, I just went and declared on the top 3 LE nations I could find

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000084

Welcoming counters btw. You dont need to have nukes, just soldiers and tanks will do

Edited October 16, 2010 by StevieG

[Ferrie]

WTG Stevie! Bout' time we got some good counters.

Salute!

[kongland]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1287213758' post='2485778']
Silly me, I just went and declared on the top 3 LE nations I could find

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_war_information.asp?Nation_ID=1000084

Welcoming counters btw. You dont need to have nukes, just soldiers and tanks will do
[/quote]

Stevie, you gave link with my 5 wars.
Please explain

[paul711]

[quote name='kong' timestamp='1287225710' post='2485810']
Stevie, you gave link with my 5 wars.
Please explain
[/quote]
Because he loves you. I am fighting 3 LE as well along with 2 PS but it makes for a great time as we are all in anarchy, its one big party in the streets.

[paul711]

[quote name='kong' timestamp='1287225710' post='2485810']
Stevie, you gave link with my 5 wars.
Please explain
[/quote]
Hmmmm that is funny when I click the link it shows my wars. Must be a glitch or something crazy.

[Judge X]

Hate to bother you guys in another AA's DoW but I got another defensive slot open. Can I get some happy time?

[url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001385"]PLEASE?![/url]

[StevieG]

[quote name='Ferrie' timestamp='1287221240' post='2485802']
WTG Stevie! Bout' time we got some good counters.

Salute!
[/quote]
Well, I finally got out of Nuke Anarchy, and there is no route to the flag for me anyways. I thought Id pay the #1 AA for this round a little visit. I did have to spend cash to reach up that high though

[StevieG]

Eh, forgot that would send you to your own screens

[StevieG]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1287238110' post='2485856']
Hate to bother you guys in another AA's DoW but I got another defensive slot open. Can I get some happy time?

[url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001385"]PLEASE?![/url]
[/quote]
Warmonger Alert

[Confusion]

o/ LE

You guys are what every alliance aspires to be.

Also, Son of Taeper, you're my role model.


Confusion. Edited October 17, 2010 by Confusion

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1287186956' post='2485530']
Perhaps I didnt clarify well enough.

What Im referring to in a down declare is merely on an individual basis, not an AA basis. In an equal AA battle there may be strategical aspects that can be utilized to win the war, rather than just total NS. Also, what may be the case in some wars is that the attacking AA has a higher top tier (maybe 3 or 4 nations over the enemy) but the defending AA has a stronger middle tier. In this case, the attacking AA has no choice but to down declare.

I will also give you one example from the OP/DR vs PS/RD war to highlight my point. Before I do though, I do recognize that there may be debate on whether that was a fair war or not. This is not to debate that particular issue.

For the blitz I was at 8838 ns, my partner was at 7819, increasing to 9374 and 8266 NS for Military build up respectively. Us 2 blitzed 3 nations at 7310, 6340, and 6236 NS. I guess you could call that a down declare. There was one stronger nation that DR was allocated that we could have hit instead, but there were a couple of factors that lead us to hit these 3 instead.

First of all, we were relatively confidant that we could get 3 anarchies, which we did. Secondly, those 3 nations were carrying 9, 7, and 5 nukes, so anarchies against them would mean they cannot counter and drop nukes on anybody else. Also, only the nation with 7 nukes had the HNMS, and I had the best spies in DR at the time. By declaring on all of these 3, that meant that I could spy 5 vulnerable nukes per day, which I did. Then when the guy with the HNMS was at 5 I could only get 2 off each of the others per day which I did until they were out.

So as you can see, there is more thought that goes into declarations other than just mere NS.
[/quote]

I am sorry to be doing a mini-gravedig on what is now whater under the bridge, but I have been out of town the last week.

What Stevie said is totally correct. Looking at a small part of a much bigger picture will always lead to bad conclusions about the bigger picture. Not going to go into it in any more depth so as to not risk giving away TMI.

Some people play for their personal goals/stats and some play for their alliances' interests. Neither are wrong.