Letum Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1296423433' post='2611515'] He's actually fighting on your side, believe it or not. [/quote] Hence the "mostly" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296423512' post='2611519'] Please, you're not FAN or Vox. You've had a year (without reps in TPF's case) since the last war to rebuild. [/quote] You don't remember the beat down during Christmas, followed a few months later by the bipolar war? Then of course there was Karma where we went from 9m NS to under 1m ns. You can't replace some of those high end guys very fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1296423505' post='2611518'] Yeah because the entire war is decided in one week. [/quote] I don't see where I said that. My point is, unless you're going to declare on MK or Umbrella later (even by then Pacifica will have been destroyed) attacking GOONS will do nothing since they'll just rebuild quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296423512' post='2611519'] Please, you're not FAN or Vox. You've had a year (without reps in TPF's case) since the last war to rebuild. [/quote] A solid upper tier is not built in a year. Especially in TPF's case, where they were in a very damaging war a month prior to the Bipolar War, I would presume that after Bipolar they had very little left in the way of warchests with which to rebuild. Getting nations from ZI to 70k or 80k NS, with solid tech ratios and strong warchests, is not something that can feasibly be done in a year. Edited January 30, 2011 by Moridin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Taking suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Luckily we can just sell off our infrastructure to hit them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1296423690' post='2611523'] You don't remember the beat down during Christmas, followed a few months later by the bipolar war? [/quote] TPF peaced out last February. You've had about a year (minus about fifteen days) to rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1296423770' post='2611526'] Getting nations from ZI to 70k or 80k NS, with solid tech ratios and strong warchests, is not something that can feasibly be done in a year. [/quote] They could have easily gotten their nations to 50k ANS (MK's ANS) within a year. Alliances do it all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296424148' post='2611535'] They could have easily gotten their nations to 50k ANS (MK's ANS) within a year. Alliances do it all the time. [/quote] There are 7 alliances of over 50 members that have an ANS at that level or above, and 2 of them are neutral. Edited January 30, 2011 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) On one hand, I can say that the Order's side doesn't have the top end to stack up against the CnG/PB/whatever they call themselves side. So limiting the ability to be countered at those levels is a sound move. yet... It's not possible to win the war that way. My opinion is that at most this is a holding action. Someone decided that the math doesn't work out for victory, and made the choice to not fully commit to the war. They'll pay lip service to honouring their treaties by posting DoW's about how evil the other side is, but they're only sacrificing their noobs and little guys to the cause. They're waiting for NPO/NpO to say they've had enough and bow out, so they can rebuild their little guys and what top end they do have will remain intact. I'm not vilifying the action, it's extremely pragmatic and sensible. The DoW's that were offered to go with it though are what bothers me. If they're going to mouth off like that, they should have damned the torpedoes and gone all in. If their intention was to treat this in a business like cold hearted manner, then the DOW's should have been presented in a more professional manner. Edited January 30, 2011 by Lord Levistus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296424148' post='2611535'] They could have easily gotten their nations to 50k ANS (MK's ANS) within a year. Alliances do it all the time. [/quote] We did a hell of a job rebuilding, going from 2m ns at end of bipolar to 4.5m ns + warchests. what you're saying is we should have rebuilt to 6.2m NS and warchests in about 11 months? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1296424620' post='2611544'] I'm not vilifying the action, it's extremely pragmatic and sensible. [/quote] Not to mention cowardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I have a good idea of whats going on actually. But you will have to tune in to the podcast this week for my hypothesis. Don't worry I am sure it will generate some negative propaganda from someone because it isn't what they want to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296424029' post='2611531'] TPF peaced out last February. You've had about a year (minus about fifteen days) to rebuild. [/quote] It is a lot harder to rebuild like alliances used to in the old days. NPO wasn't rebuilt yet either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296425097' post='2611555'] It is a lot harder to rebuild like alliances used to in the old days. NPO wasn't rebuilt yet either. [/quote] They were still rebuilt enough to combat MK and Umbrella (somewhat) not to mention they had to pay huge reps too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 It's ~strategy~. I can see this being more about mitigating damage in the collective's upper ranks and protecting Daddy Dearest post-war than about protecting NPO's uppers and winning this war. [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1296423145' post='2611505'] Also, if it really bothers any of you, are we going to see another "pre-emptive" strike? [/quote] Yes, declaring on the Invict-o-Sphere's peace mode warriors would be most wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296424937' post='2611550'] Not to mention cowardly. [/quote] I don't think cowardly goes into it much, but then again I'm not in those alliances so I don't know how the discussion went. It's not cowardice to know when you're overmatched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Judging by NPO's desire to make this war last for awhile, and the ineptitude of some of their allies (let's be realistic, most of their allies) one can only assume NPO plans to take the bulk of the damages until enough MK/Umbrella/FAN are dropped down into ranges that would lend 'saftey' towards Pacifica's allies' upper tiers leaving peace mode and engaging then. The strategy is of poor design, and I admit that it's more likely they won't pull that off very well and most will hold peace mode rather than fight, but it's about the only 'logical' thing left. The real problem with that plan is that all MK/Umbrella have to do is shed some infra and they can pound the lower tiers of these allies' and then rebuild infra at will to become part of the upper tier again, especially with the game update to enable half the clicks to build infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296425169' post='2611557'] They were still rebuilt enough to combat MK and Umbrella (somewhat) not to mention they had to pay huge reps too. [/quote] Not really. Not when you take into account that MK and company were building at the same time without having to waste slots on paying reps. Either way you slice it, nation by nation MK and co. were able to get farther ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Corrupt Teacher Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1296424620' post='2611544'] On one hand, I can say that the Order's side doesn't have the top end to stack up against the CnG/PB/whatever they call themselves side. So limiting the ability to be countered at those levels is a sound move. yet... It's not possible to win the war that way. My opinion is that at most this is a holding action. Someone decided that the math doesn't work out for victory, and made the choice to not fully commit to the war. They'll pay lip service to honouring their treaties by posting DoW's about how evil the other side is, but they're only sacrificing their noobs and little guys to the cause. They're waiting for NPO/NpO to say they've had enough and bow out, so they can rebuild their little guys and what top end they do have will remain intact. I'm not vilifying the action, it's extremely pragmatic and sensible. The DoW's that were offered to go with it though are what bothers me. If they're going to mouth off like that, they should have damned the torpedoes and gone all in. If their intention was to treat this in a business like cold hearted manner, then the DOW's should have been presented in a more professional manner. [/quote] Speaking of pragmatic and sensible but not exactly the peak of honor, Exodus continues to fight w/o DR help. Ditto for the other DR allies. If our side had any unity or coordination, which we don't do to year long e-peen measuring contests and old grudges it would have been smart to pile all alliances onto Umbrella, MK, PC, and FOK to cripple their top tier via attrition and let the others do what they may since that is really the core of the "Neo-Hegemony" (possibly throw VE in there as well). Instead we gang-bang iFOK, Sparta, and GOONs who while evil are not main players in this. Even it was near impossible to win you have to find a way to drag down those alliances to make it possible to win a war in the future. But that didn't happen so I expect PB/DH to run this game for awhile as they are vastly more coordinated and intelligent in regards to strategy for fighting major wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296425169' post='2611557'] They were still rebuilt enough to combat MK and Umbrella (somewhat) not to mention they had to pay huge reps too. [/quote] NPO didn't fight in the TPF war or in the Bipolar War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1296425600' post='2611573'] Speaking of pragmatic and sensible but not exactly the peak of honor, Exodus continues to fight w/o DR help. Ditto for the other DR allies. If our side had any unity or coordination, which we don't do to year long e-peen measuring contests and old grudges it would have been smart to pile all alliances onto Umbrella, MK, PC, and FOK to cripple their top tier via attrition and let the others do what they may since that is really the core of the "Neo-Hegemony" (possibly throw VE in there as well). Instead we gang-bang iFOK, Sparta, and GOONs who while evil are not main players in this. Even it was near impossible to win you have to find a way to drag down those alliances to make it possible to win a war in the future. But that didn't happen so I expect PB/DH to run this game for awhile as they are vastly more coordinated and intelligent in regards to strategy for fighting major wars. [/quote] Coming from the guy who had "Screw Valhalla" in his nation bio when you were our protectorate I find your sudden turn of opinion rather ironic. DR can't and never could win this war for you, even if we ever had any intention to get involved. Our stance from before this war officially started has been that NpO and VE are both about the worst AA's in Cybernations and watching them both burn is about the greatest thing ever. ALL of our allies knew of our stance before they entered the war. ALL of our allies were told that we WILL NOT chain in to this war on optional clauses before they entered the war. We advised ALL of our allies to take the same stance. We made ourselves crystal clear long before Exodus or MCXA decided to get involved, that they thought our position would change AFTER you did what we advised you to NOT do, well tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296423248' post='2611510'] It'd make sense if you were actually able to keep GOONS down for longer than a few months. (Hint: You're not) [/quote] Damsky, you are literally a tard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296423114' post='2611502'] Please, don't feed me the bull about your side's great military strategy. The last time you tried to put together a plan you failed miserably (see TPF war). [/quote] Actually I thought that was LM's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 [quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1296424148' post='2611535'] They could have easily gotten their nations to 50k ANS (MK's ANS) within a year. Alliances do it all the time. [/quote] No, they don't. Let me ask you this, who is it easier for to rebuild to say 50k ANS, somebody who starts at 30k ANS or even less and is receiving reps, or somebody who starts at say 15k and has to deal with paying a ton of reps? 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.