A Dark Templar Announcement

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298347652' post='2641353']
Yes, it was Gibsonator. It was right after he left the grassy knoll. And right before he finished his research at Area 51.
[/quote]
I do believe he is mocking the conspiracy theories that are being bandied about concerning DT's secret agenda to attack some old friends in Legacy and screw LoSS all while getting away scot free. . . right.

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298347883' post='2641359']
I'm not exaggerating. Their entire AA is getting their butts kicked. As is he.

I do love when we're talking about DT the best the trolls can accomplish is pointing out that maybe one of them isn't getting their butt kicked that badly. Man, you sure showed me.
[/quote]
[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298348889' post='2641377']
CSN is fighting on more than one front. It's amusing that DT wants to push this "yeah, but we were winning at one point" argument.

For a while more than half DT's nations were in peace mode. It was all their largest nations. Now that it's an all out brawl, which it became on the 15th, the damage to DT has been unbelievable. At the current pace, DT won't be have anything but tech left in a few weeks. 8K per nation in 6 days. And no one is going back to peace mode. We're not allowing it. We get to choose our targets. We get to keep them in anarchy. We decide when it's over.

And, DT, the amazing war-making alliance you're so proud of, fought CSN for 6 days before they came to us willing to surrender. A couple days later they offered to pay 30K in reps just to get out of the war. Seems that even the gov of DT didn't consider DT to be capable of beating us. All the rest is just bluster.
[/quote]
It is so impressive that an alliance with 3x the nations of DT is causing damage! Shocking, in fact!
Bluster on, Jocabia, bluster on. We'll see who has the last laugh in this one.

Hint: it's not you, or anyone in CSN. . . probably not anyone in SF, for that matter either. Take it from someone who has been where you are now.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='Fort Pitt' timestamp='1298349022' post='2641379']
You must be a complete noob when it comes to war. One nuke at the medium-large size nations kills off 8k NS.
[/quote]
But they aren't all medium-large nations, that's kind of the point. If they're average NS was 80K and the lost 8K, you might have a point. They've lost 20% of their NS in 6 days. Now perhaps I'm such a noob that I think that's a lot. Maybe I just understand math and know that if that level of loss lasts for a few more days, they simply won't have anything left.

In the first 16 days of war they lost a total of 658K or about 13K per nation. In the last 6 days they've lost 417K or 8K per nation. At that pace, DT will have lost in 9 days what it took them to lose in the first 16 days of war, when they had an average NS that was 20K higher. Comparatively, our alliance while fighting two fronts, losing some nations to deletion, surrender or simply not wanting to fight in a war, has lost only about 3K per nation. Also, for comparison, LoSS has lost less than 1K per nation in that 6 day period.

So to be clear, DT is losing NS by about twice as much (by percentage) per nation from our pace. They've got hardly any nukes left so there isn't the slightest chance of them actually turning that around. LoSS is also outpacing us on the percentage of their NS lost in the last 6 days even with all of their largest nations in PM. They are also essentially out of nukes. I don't know how you define losing and winning, but I define the guys who are losing the most NS and attempting to surrender as losing, and the guys who are setting the terms of surrender as winning. Feel free to correct me if it's common for people who are winning a war to surrender.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298349612' post='2641389']
I do believe he is mocking the conspiracy theories that are being bandied about concerning DT's secret agenda to attack some old friends in Legacy and screw LoSS all while getting away scot free. . . right.



It is so impressive that an alliance with 3x the nations of DT is causing damage! Shocking, in fact!
Bluster on, Jocabia, bluster on. We'll see who has the last laugh in this one.

Hint: it's not you, or anyone in CSN. . . probably not anyone in SF, for that matter either. Take it from someone who has been where you are now.
[/quote]

Yes, we have 3X the nations you do. (2.6X but your point stands.) Do we also have 3X the number of nations that LoSS has. Remember we are also fighting on that front as well. Last I checked, LoSS has us on nations by much greater than 2 to 1 (amusingly, it's about 2.6X as well). Now, of course, they are also fighting on other fronts.

It's not quite accurate to just say we've got you outnumbered. Certainly not 3 to 1. And we both know it. If you're really concerned, perhaps you should get the other third of your alliance involved. That might slow down the bloodshed. Might. Then again, even with them, we'll still have more nukes in CSN that you've got in LoSS and DT combined. But, I say, if you really wanna teach us a lesson about how sore your hands get when you beat someone this badly, you should encourage the rest of your nations to jump in. I mean, then you'd really be giving us whatfor.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Jocabia

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298351257' post='2641417']
Yes, we have 3X the nations you do. (2.6X but your point stands.) Do we also have 3X the number of nations that LoSS has. Remember we are also fighting on that front as well. Last I checked, LoSS has us on nations by much greater than 2 to 1 (amusingly, it's about 2.6X as well). Now, of course, they are also fighting on other fronts.

It's not quite accurate to just say we've got you outnumbered. Certainly not 3 to 1. And we both know it. If you're really concerned, perhaps you should get the other third of your alliance involved. That might slow down the bloodshed. Might. Then again, even with them, we'll still have more nukes in CSN that you've got in LoSS and DT combined. But, I say, if you really wanna teach us a lesson about how sore your hands get when you beat someone this badly, you should encourage the rest of your nations to jump in. I mean, then you'd really be giving us whatfor.
[/quote]
I'm too lazy to count, but I'd imagine that
Legacy + CSN + RnR = 2(DT + LoSS) in member count . . . just a stab in the dark.

I still don't see how you beating your chest about dishing out damage to an outnumbered enemy brings us any closer to peace.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298351418' post='2641421']
I'm too lazy to count, but I'd imagine that
Legacy + CSN + RnR = 2(DT + LoSS) in member count . . . just a stab in the dark.

I still don't see how you beating your chest about dishing out damage to an outnumbered enemy brings us any closer to peace.
[/quote]
When you guys are selling your membership on the idea that you're winning, then making it clear just how out of hand this situation is, is a point that needs to be made.

It's not chest-thumping. You guys are losing. Not maybe. Not kind of. Your position has worsen for the last six days and it wasn't good before that. Your alliance is either going to meet our terms or burn. It's irrelevant what you think it should be or what you wish it was or how you really wanted it to be. There is only what is. And "what is" is that you have no choice but to meet our terms or continue on the path you're on. The sooner that's clear, the better. If you've chosen to burn then stop pretending like it's something else. Stop pretending like you've chosen to beat us. We both know that is not one of the options.

And if you guys are really outnumbered 2 to 1 in the overall count, then what you're doing is all that much more stupid and this is just that much more over.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Jocabia

[Willaim Kreiger]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298351967' post='2641432']
And "what is" is that you have no choice but to meet our terms or continue on the path you're on. The sooner that's clear, the better. If you've chosen to burn then stop pretending like it's something else. Stop pretending like you've chosen to beat us. We both know that is not one of the options.

And if you guys are really outnumbered 2 to 1 in the overall count, then what you're doing is all that much more stupid and this is just that much more over.
[/quote]
There is always another choice. If the terms you offer are absurd, it is totally within their right to reject them, and totally within their right to encourage their membership to fight back tooth and nail. You seem awful bent out of shape for being so certain you're winning.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298351967' post='2641432']
When you guys are selling your membership on the idea that you're winning, then making it clear just how out of hand this situation is, is a point that needs to be made.

It's not chest-thumping. You guys are losing. Not maybe. Not kind of. Your position has worsen for the last six days and it wasn't good before that. Your alliance is either going to meet our terms or burn. It's irrelevant what you think it should be or what you wish it was or how you really wanted it to be. There is only what is. And "what is" is that you have no choice but to meet our terms or continue on the path you're on. The sooner that's clear, the better. If you've chosen to burn then stop pretending like it's something else. Stop pretending like you've chosen to beat us. We both know that is not one of the options.

And if you guys are really outnumbered 2 to 1 in the overall count, then what you're doing is all that much more stupid and this is just that much more over.
[/quote]
Thank you for proving my point. If you had read the OP, you'd know that DT sees no purpose in continuing this war. You'd know that we have been looking for peace since the day that we knew the front closed off. We are quite plain in saying that we want peace, but we want it to be achieved in a manner that is consistent with other peripheral alliances. We do not think that we can achieve an outright military victory. We're not dumb.

However, we do know that CSN's desire to demand reps that would neuter DT have doomed them to stick with just that. You cannot afford to allow us to leave without hampering us militarily because you fear us. You think that if you give us anything but white peace, we'll want revenge. We also know that DT is a very tight-knit alliance that would rather stay together and fight a newly created enemy to the very last penny in our coffers before we gave them an inch of our sovereignty. If you think you're going to kill us, dig two graves, because we're dragging you right down into hell with us.

[nutkase]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298330896' post='2641055']
If in the course of that you're gaining NS, then that means that some other nation is just losing that much harder.

Besides, you're a 8K nation. If you started at 0 at the beginning of the war that wouldn't make up for the damage we did to even one of your top nations in the current strategy. ThePromisedLand has lost 24K since the 15th. That's three times the NS of your entire nation. When it comes to whether your alliance can withstand our assault, your 8K nation isn't even on the radar.

And, for the record, your nation started at 20K NS. It's now less than 8K. If you consider that gaining in NS, then your math needs work. And you've lost 15% of your NS since you stopped ghosting and rejoined your alliance. Again, your math needs work. 15% in 7 days is a beatdown. And in comparison, you're one of the lucky ones.
[/quote]

First part of your sentence here does not make sense, since I'm gaining NS one of our other nations is losing harder? I rather has 150 nations at 8K NS with insane WC's then 50 at 8K and the rest at high levels with all average WC's. The level of harassment and continuation of the war would be immense.

No you are wrong, I was 20K when I went to war against iFOK and Hydra under the AA of TIO, I was at 7k NS when I joined DT and started fighting against CSN. So your whole theory goes out the window

[janax]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298351418' post='2641421']
I'm too lazy to count, but I'd imagine that
Legacy + CSN + RnR = 2(DT + LoSS) in member count . . . just a stab in the dark.

I still don't see how you beating your chest about dishing out damage to an outnumbered enemy brings us any closer to peace.
[/quote]

Not even close to 2 to 1

103 (Legacy) + 130 (CSN) + 202 (RnR) = 435
49 (DT) + 311 (LoSS) = 360

Difference is 75 nations, about 5-4 not 2-1

[MaGneT]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1298353163' post='2641444']
Not even close to 2 to 1

103 (Legacy) + 130 (CSN) + 202 (RnR) = 435
49 (DT) + 311 (LoSS) = 360

Difference is 75 nations, about 5-4 not 2-1
[/quote]
o/

Thanks for doing what I was too lazy to do

[Jocabia]

[quote name='Willaim Kreiger' timestamp='1298352450' post='2641436']
There is always another choice. If the terms you offer are absurd, it is totally within their right to reject them, and totally within their right to encourage their membership to fight back tooth and nail. You seem awful bent out of shape for being so certain you're winning.
[/quote]
They can reject the terms as they like. That doesn't represent another choice. It's one of the choices I gave you. And we can choose to fight until they accept our terms. And we have. Very simple.

I'm not bent out of shape. I'm just explaining where things are at. In public. See, we're not surrendering in public and claiming we're winning in private. I know we're winning. They know we're winning. And they're trying to convince their membership this isn't the case, because they're afraid their membership won't be too happy about sacrificing their nations to pride.

[AuiNur]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298353247' post='2641447']
And they're trying to convince their membership this isn't the case, because they're afraid their membership won't be too happy about sacrificing their nations to pride.
[/quote]

As a member, if i need to, i will gladly sacrifice my nation for my alliance.

Edited February 22, 2011 by AuiNur

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298353247' post='2641447']
I'm not bent out of shape. I'm just explaining where things are at. In public. See, we're not surrendering in public and claiming we're winning in private. I know we're winning. They know we're winning. And they're trying to convince their membership this isn't the case, because they're afraid their membership won't be too happy about sacrificing their nations to pride.
[/quote]
No . . . every nation wearing The Dark Templar AA is well aware of the odds that are stacked against us. Every nation wearing this AA is also well aware of the injustices that have been perpetrated against us. Every nation wearing this AA is committed to every other nation in this alliance and a just end to this war, even if it means paying the ultimate price. There is no propaganda. Just loyalty, which, it seems, nearly 25 CSN members lacked as they faltered in the face of our unwavering resolve.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1298352502' post='2641438']
First part of your sentence here does not make sense, since I'm gaining NS one of our other nations is losing harder?[/quote]

You do know how average works, yes? Do I really have to teach you how to calculate an average? If the average NS is falling and you're gaining, then someone has to be doing much worse than the average to make up for that. Is it really that complicated?


[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1298352502' post='2641438']I rather has 150 nations at 8K NS with insane WC's then 50 at 8K and the rest at high levels with all average WC's. The level of harassment and continuation of the war would be immense.

No you are wrong, I was 20K when I went to war against iFOK and Hydra under the AA of TIO, I was at 7k NS when I joined DT and started fighting against CSN. So your whole theory goes out the window
[/quote]
No, it doesn't. I realize that you were ghosting another NS (something that some of your membership think is totally cheating when we do it) and that a lot of your losses were during that. But I also know when you returned to the NS. You returned on the 14th at 9.1K. I'm sure you'd like to move some of your losses from this front to the other front so it looks like you're gaining, but the fact is that you're trending downward. And you've lost 15% since you started warring under the AA of DT. That's better than some, but it's hardly what you represented.

I also love that your alliance is trying to convince it's members that we're in money trouble. Feel free to attempt to outlast our money. I'm sure it will work. As I say, we're totally considering the offers that myworld gave us. Give us about two weeks and we'll let you know. But because myworld was kind enough to school us on negotiation, remember that we aren't even a little obligated to come toward the middle while negotiation. When you're average NS is the same as LoSS, I'm pretty sure we're not going to feel a whole lot of pressure to settle for less than is on the table right now.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298353799' post='2641457']
I also love that your alliance is trying to convince it's members that we're in money trouble. Feel free to attempt to outlast our money.
[/quote]
Heh. This one is funny.

[Willaim Kreiger]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298353247' post='2641447']
They can reject the terms as they like. That doesn't represent another choice. It's one of the choices I gave you. And we can choose to fight until they accept our terms. And we have. Very simple.

I'm not bent out of shape. I'm just explaining where things are at. In public. See, we're not surrendering in public and claiming we're winning in private. I know we're winning. They know we're winning. And they're trying to convince their membership this isn't the case, because they're afraid their membership won't be too happy about sacrificing their nations to pride.
[/quote]
You implied not accepting terms is synonymous with defeat. It is not unless you wish it to be. There are some great alliances, well respected throughout this game, that were not offered or refused terms and had their community survive. Just because your frame of mind is too small to comprehend life without infrastructure doesn't necessitate that everyone else plays by the same rules.

There's something to be said for keeping your pride in yourselves and those around you. Perhaps if you ever find yourself under the knife, you will understand. Perhaps not.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298353524' post='2641453']
No . . . every nation wearing The Dark Templar AA is well aware of the odds that are stacked against us. Every nation wearing this AA is also well aware of the injustices that have been perpetrated against us. Every nation wearing this AA is committed to every other nation in this alliance and a just end to this war, even if it means paying the ultimate price. There is no propaganda. Just loyalty, which, it seems, nearly 25 CSN members lacked as they faltered in the face of our unwavering resolve.
[/quote]
Oh, ouch, that was such a hurtful thing to point out. a;ls;lkahg;hkasd, sorry, for a second my keyboard was shorting out from the tears. Yes, some of our members do not want to fight in a war for any reason. Instead of allowing 1/3 of our alliance to sit in PM throughout the entire war, we instead tell people who are unwilling to contribute to the war effort to move on. Some of them have. And some people were deleted due to inactivity (some of our people just don't pay attention to bill collection, Fronz, I'm looking at you). We're a large alliance. We gain and lose members for a number of reasons. However, I'm pretty sure you can correct me if I'm wrong, but did you start this war with 49 members? And haven't about 1/3 of your nations not fought a single war? You don't quite have 100% participation, now do you?

You know what the sad bit is? We've lost 25 members according to your numbers in an alliance that now has 130 members. Given that we've lost 20% of our membership, don't you think you guys should have managed to have done more than 40% damage to us in a month? I mean, we did 20% damage to you in 6 days. With the loss of 25 members (I'm fairly certain it's not that much, but we'll use your number), in 30 days we've only lost twice as much as you did in 6? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='Willaim Kreiger' timestamp='1298354140' post='2641465']
You implied not accepting terms is synonymous with defeat. It is not unless you wish it to be. There are some great alliances, well respected throughout this game, that were not offered or refused terms and had their community survive. Just because your frame of mind is too small to comprehend life without infrastructure doesn't necessitate that everyone else plays by the same rules.

There's something to be said for keeping your pride in yourselves and those around you. Perhaps if you ever find yourself under the knife, you will understand. Perhaps not.
[/quote]
No, I implied that being defeated is synonymous with defeat. And you are being defeated. Soundly.

And you're correct, some great alliances have managed to refuse terms and have survived. One of two things happened. Either they were defeated but not destroyed. Or they had a better FA than DT. DT will exist after this war. Frankly, I like most of them I've talked to, even some that are in this thread. I've found almost everyone I've warred with to be reasonable. A couple were pretty pissed at the dismantling of their nation but out of all of them, only one was anything less than cordial. I don't want DT to be destroyed. Unlike some among DT, we've not made a concerted effort to dismantle their AA. It's not even a choice being bandied about. We want their community to survive. But they will not be able to make war in any real sense for a very long time. And that sits well with us.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298354239' post='2641468']
Oh, ouch, that was such a hurtful thing to point out. a;ls;lkahg;hkasd, sorry, for a second my keyboard was shorting out from the tears. Yes, some of our members do not want to fight in a war for any reason. Instead of allowing 1/3 of our alliance to sit in PM throughout the entire war, we instead tell people who are unwilling to contribute to the war effort to move on. Some of them have. And some people were deleted due to inactivity (some of our people just don't pay attention to bill collection, Fronz, I'm looking at you). We're a large alliance. We gain and lose members for a number of reasons. However, I'm pretty sure you can correct me if I'm wrong, but did you start this war with 49 members? And haven't about 1/3 of your nations not fought a single war? You don't quite have 100% participation, now do you?

You know what the sad bit is? We've lost 25 members according to your numbers in an alliance that now has 130 members. Given that we've lost 20% of our membership, don't you think you guys should have managed to have done more than 40% damage to us in a month? I mean, we did 20% damage to you in 6 days. With the loss of 25 members (I'm fairly certain it's not that much, but we'll use your number), in 30 days we've only lost twice as much as you did in 6? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
[/quote]
You really are mad, aren't you? Realizing that we don't play by the same rules as you?

The stats might show that we are losing more of everything militarily, but we are winning this war in the categories that matter. Not because of dishonesty, tears or manipulation, but because of your alliance's own incompetence and pride. Power corrupts. CSN was corrupted by their first taste of it. The world has taken notice and the blood is in the water. You guys can suck up your pride and admit you were wrong, stop spewing stats that prove that you're winning a war of attrition with superior numbers and turn away from certain doom. Or you can continue down your path and when the world catches up with you, I'll be here smiling and laughing about how I told you so. Take it from someone who learned firsthand the same way you will . . .

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298353799' post='2641457']But because myworld was kind enough to school us on negotiation, remember that we aren't even a little obligated to come toward [b]the middle[/b] while negotiation.[/quote]

Just because CSN makes an ambit claim for excessive reps does not make "the middle" a reasonable outcome anyway.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298354061' post='2641460']
Heh. This one is funny.
[/quote]
I fully encourage you to try. I really do. You know what will work? Just lose so much NS that a third of our nations are too big to fight you anymore. That worked for LoSS.

[MaGneT]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298354738' post='2641481']
I fully encourage you to try. I really do. You know what will work? Just lose so much NS that a third of our nations are too big to fight you anymore. That worked for LoSS.
[/quote]
It also worked for FAN.

I'd suggest you read the history books before you doom yourself to the unlearned lessons of the past.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1298354715' post='2641479']
Just because CSN makes an ambit claim for excessive reps does not make "the middle" a reasonable outcome anyway.
[/quote]
It was a reasonable outcome for myworld at one point. But frankly, what you think is reasonable is highly irrelevant. I'm fairly certain you won't be setting the terms.

[Jocabia]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298355124' post='2641482']
It also worked for FAN.

I'd suggest you read the history books before you doom yourself to the unlearned lessons of the past.
[/quote]
Hahahaha. But you don't think you can win. We both know that after 6 days your alliance was surrendering and you were there.

[Willaim Kreiger]

[quote name='Jocabia' timestamp='1298354585' post='2641475']
No, I implied that being defeated is synonymous with defeat. And you are being defeated. Soundly.

And you're correct, some great alliances have managed to refuse terms and have survived. One of two things happened. Either they were defeated but not destroyed. Or they had a better FA than DT. DT will exist after this war. Frankly, I like most of them I've talked to, even some that are in this thread. I've found almost everyone I've warred with to be reasonable. A couple were pretty pissed at the dismantling of their nation but out of all of them, only one was anything less than cordial. I don't want DT to be destroyed. Unlike some among DT, we've not made a concerted effort to dismantle their AA. It's not even a choice being bandied about. We want their community to survive. But they will not be able to make war in any real sense for a very long time. And that sits well with us.
[/quote]
Oh I don't know, we've lost 70% of our total NS pre-war but that isn't really that hard to get back. We've done it before and we'll do it again. VE has managed to somehow lose almost 10% of their nations while fighting a massively lopsided war against us and STA for the most part, so being defeated soundly seems a [i]bit[/i] over the top. Especially considering we're +3 on nation count from where we started in this mess. We are without a doubt losing, though we'll drag VE down with us if they're not careful.

As to your second paragraph, your vast generalizations warping an entire array of options down to either, or choices is funny. My initial point still stands, whether you like it or not, DT will always have a choice besides accepting your absurd reparations, or rejecting them and "burning". Even if you guys don't lose interest in chasing down every last DT nation another war will come along to distract your attention. I would wager that you guys lose interest in "burning" DT far before it ever legitimately happens. But I suppose if DT remains resolute in their decision we shall see, won't we?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Willaim Kreiger