A Statement from Doomhouse

[the rebel]

[quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1300888175' post='2673789']
Firstly, and taking a step back from the usual thrash talk, I am not here to question GOONS attitude towards this war. Most (if not all) of my GOONS opponents were determined and taking into consideration the circumstances (small WC) their war effort was good (of course I am not a fierce warrior or anything). On the other hand bringing together some rough numbers it seems that about [b]150 members of the GOONS alliance departed Bob since the start of this war.[/b] I don’t believe that these nations departed only due to the war, but it doesn’t matter as the result is the same, some relative developed nations departed.
[/quote]

Yeah thats pretty spot on, 196 GOONS are younger than the war, that 201 original members left, so that leaves around 90 GOONS that have either left them/world/re-rolled.

[Thrash]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1300881459' post='2673751']
just like there's members of NPO on EoG.
[/quote]

Who from NPO is on EoG and why? Unless you're referring to therebel, which is only one person.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='steodonn' timestamp='1300889422' post='2673793']
When I joined Vox I was told by NPO that I will never get to play this game again
[/quote]

When I came back and joined Vox, I remember distinctly an NPO member telling me that I'd "better enjoy Vox Populi because its the only alliance you'll ever be a part of."


[b]heh[/b]

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300813527' post='2673195']
Since he added me to the alliance !@#$ list for comments about GOONS failures, then he should know the reasons given.
[/quote]

Yes, we get it, the only thing you have to show for your time on Bob is that you've been EoGed, but do you have to bring it up so incessantly?

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
GOONS are stuck. They are barely able to stay alive at the lower levels, and that's only with billions and billions of aid getting thrown at them.
[/quote]

I could've sworn we've been over this before, and that you ceded this point - or at least a very similar one - the last time around. The frequency (evidenced by number of continuous offensive wars) and effectiveness (evidenced by the fact that, despite what's been predicted or hoped for, we're not a bill-locked alliance of sitting ducks) of our wars doesn't back up claims that we're "barely alive" (or other such euphemisms; I feel like I'm rehashing my response to Vols Navy here).

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
They can't grow or capitalize on their position, and once MK gets enough of their (middle tier) members to hippy, our focus will go back to GOONS simply because we're out of targets.
[/quote]

Whereas, like our opponents actively at war, we're individually unable and unwilling to grow (even if our alliance NS has increased since bottoming out), I'm not sure how you figure we can't and haven't capitalized on our position. Your uppers are forced to remain in PM and incur penalties while we have the advantage in the lower ranks (where wars aren't won, admittedly, but where the war is actually being fought with the most frequency) due to our resources. We have a continual influx of fresh nations able to fight, and with the Polar front wrapped up alliances will be shifting over. As well, as is no surprise, we have the money at our disposal to continue for as long as you wish.

(Cue funny math about how the aid will dry up, as if all Goons need it, as if those allies are under a great deal of pressure, and/or as if we only have two allies to begin with, or how the aid won't be as sustainable the longer this conflict draws out, as if aid goes a shorter way the smaller a nation is. Bottom line is, money won't be a problem for [i]us[/i] no matter how long you decide to draw this out, simple as that.)

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
Second, we can't fight *forever* without aid (well, a few probably could, but let's assume they are the exception). Most of the lower tier can't do much. But the middle tier has full control, and they *can* fight forever because they are big enough. Once the middle tier gets cleared out, they can start helping the lower tier. Will that change things, I don't know. But it's an unknown variable.
[/quote]

I think you may be forgetting or ignoring the fact that with alliances soon shifting over our tactical advantage will only be reinforced. Full control, whether perceived or actual, is not something you can rely on.

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
First, your post can easily be applied to GOONS, lol. Second, that's teh point I'm trying to make! We can cap GOONS, ruin MK and then cap them, and tie up aid slots indefinitely.
[/quote]

Given the above, I again don't see how you feel it's in your abilities to cap us or MK (or for that matter what exactly you mean by capping; neutralize?).

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
Winning? Of course not. Losing? Of course not. Permanently stuck with the majority of DH going nowhere? ...yeah. Like I said, Pyrrhic victory. Sure, your large nations are free. Our middle tier (and eventually, lower tier) nations will be free. Longterm solution? No, for both sides.
[/quote]

As long as we have primarily met our objectives and as long as we have forced the enemy to capitulate we will have won.

And no, your mids and lowers won't be free on much of a scale any time soon, as long as we're at war (we won't be neutralized for reasons stated above and we have the resources at our disposal - including additional alliances - to continue as is for as long as needed).

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
Again, as addressed above, I would glossing over details to show a point, which seems to have been fully absorbed by people given that no one is going after the math. So Let's extend your example to the logical conclusion. GOONS wins at the 1-10K NS range. NPO&Co. win at the, um, let's say 15-50K range. GOONS continues to receive an infinite aid flow. Do they take down the NPO&Co. nations? Obviously the answer is no. So no solution for both sides. It's a stalemate.
[/quote]

Two things wrong with this analysis: First, your side doesn't have things wrapped up and won in any ranges, and certainly won't the longer this draws out; second, although this may very well be a drawn out conflict it will be far from a stalemate (stating as much ignores present and impending circumstances).

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300852414' post='2673565']
AND YES I KNOW! I know I'm glossing over the big nations, and growth of our side, and lack of nukes by GOONS and all that. It's an example! Take the point from it! The point is the aid flow does not work past a short period of time, either because the nation receiving the aid is dead (the example in my wall'o'text), or because they are so small they can't do anything. Aid flows no longer work in modern battles. They are as outdated as banks, for almost the same reason.
[/quote]

For as long as a nation receives aid, no matter how small they are, they can wage war. If a nation is truly dead (and not just turtling) it will be because of the ruler's inactivity and not because of the longevity of aid or because of their size. Aid is outdated? Please.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1300891474' post='2673807']
When I came back and joined Vox, I remember distinctly an NPO member telling me that I'd "better enjoy Vox Populi because its the only alliance you'll ever be a part of."


[b]heh[/b]
[/quote]
I also remember being told that I was on perma ZI/EZI forever.

[Wu Tang Clan]

tl;dr:
Doomhouse is evil.
Umbrella is going to slowly die because it has to aid GOONS.
NPO's "side" is horrible at making any shred of an argument.


OOC: holy hell, 137 pages? Go outside.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300890495' post='2673799']
Yeah thats pretty spot on, 196 GOONS are younger than the war, that 201 original members left, so that leaves around 90 GOONS that have either left them/world/re-rolled.
[/quote]

Which is meant to prove what?

(Or are we just sharing numbers here for the fun of it?)

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1300892110' post='2673812']
OOC: holy hell, 137 pages? Go outside.
[/quote]

[OOC]I will not. It's snowing. [/OOC]

Edited March 23, 2011 by SirWilliam

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1300892270' post='2673815']
Which is meant to prove what?

(Or are we just sharing numbers here for the fun of it?)



[OOC]I will not. It's snowing. [/OOC]
[/quote]


Didn't you know sirwilliam? sharing random statistics is all the rage these days

[ooc]Its rather nice here, sunny, breezy...[/ooc]

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1300882966' post='2673761']
Terms for anyone on this side are unfair and not really justified given the nature of how it started, regardless of treaty connections.
[/quote]
"Nobody on our entire side should pay reps no matter how we entered the war, even with a twice removed treaty or even not at all. It's just not fair."

I respectfully disagree.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1300881459' post='2673751']
Roq has been saying that if NPO refused to enter the war, they were going to be attacked once the war was over. That's why he expected them to defend Polar.
[/quote]

I imagine they would have been attacked--and by a far larger coalition--if this war had come and gone and they'd decided to sit the whole thing out. Given how incredibly obvious it is, the whole "NPO would not have entered at all!" argument effectively establishes NPO's government as morons. Had NPO & allies found a tactically advantageous time to enter, they could have made a difference. The alternative to entering would have been to sit back a couple of months and then have no chance as a massive coalition came to knock.

So yeah, feel free to continue arguing that NPO's leaders are naive imbeciles. You're not doing them any favors, but whatever.

[Sabcat]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1300892270' post='2673815']
Which is meant to prove what?

(Or are we just sharing numbers here for the fun of it?)



[OOC]I will not. It's snowing. [/OOC]
[/quote]

It's a pretty grim figure (if correct, I haven't checked for myself) - 90 nations have disappeared from your alliance. You're in a war that's older than almost half of all you.

[KingShibby]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1300897682' post='2673840']
It's a pretty grim figure (if correct, I haven't checked for myself) - 90 nations have disappeared from your alliance. You're in a war that's older than almost half of all you.
[/quote]

And your point is what? Because you seem to be missing the point that while we may have lost 90 nations, we have more than made up for that number in new nations that have joined us. For an alliance to legitimately gain such a large number of new nations during a large scale war is almost unheard of. You're just upset that your alliance is bleeding nations most likely due to sheer boredom from sitting in peace mode for such a long time and watching your economy die.

[nippy]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1300897682' post='2673840']
It's a pretty grim figure (if correct, I haven't checked for myself) - 90 nations have disappeared from your alliance. You're in a war that's older than almost half of all you.
[/quote]

You're apparently not familiar with our recruiting standards. We actually tell people to reroll quite often if their resources aren't something we can use. Combine that with the average goon's tendency to quite easily lose interest in anything, and there are the reasons for those numbers. We're certainly not concerned with those stats, as we're expecting a lot more people to lose interest and leave after this war is over.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1300896872' post='2673836']
I imagine they would have been attacked--and by a far larger coalition--if this war had come and gone and they'd decided to sit the whole thing out.
[/quote]
You're probably right.

There wouldn't have been a CB when that happened either.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1300896872' post='2673836']
I imagine they would have been attacked--and by a far larger coalition--if this war had come and gone and they'd decided to sit the whole thing out. Given how incredibly obvious it is, the whole "NPO would not have entered at all!" argument effectively establishes NPO's government as morons. Had NPO & allies found a tactically advantageous time to enter, they could have made a difference. The alternative to entering would have been to sit back a couple of months and then have no chance as a massive coalition came to knock.

So yeah, feel free to continue arguing that NPO's leaders are naive imbeciles. You're not doing them any favors, but whatever.[/quote]

It's pretty clear at this point that NPO was in a "no win" situation regardless of what they did. A quick counter attack against VE and its allies however would have at least given them (and Polar) the initiative in the fight and placed them in a much better position. As it happened, VE's allies acted first and the initiative continued with them. I wouldn't say the end of this is totally written (Pacifica and its allies are still in a position to cause long term damage to DH and its allies...which makes holding out for more "reps" a poor decision), but the ultimate "winner" looks pretty clear overall.

Looking forward, this war has already been the beginning of the end for some things. History will tell us if it was the beginning of the end of a great many more.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1300897682' post='2673840']
It's a pretty grim figure (if correct, I haven't checked for myself) - 90 nations have disappeared from your alliance. You're in a war that's older than almost half of all you.
[/quote]
If you like interesting statistics, here's an interesting statistic:

GOONs is [b]up[/b] 119 members since the end of January
NPO is [b]down[/b] 39 members since the end of January
Legion is [b]down[/b] 77 members since the end of January

EDIT:

Also, NPO has 79 young (45 days or less) nations, and Legion has 32. That means NPO has lost 118 nations and Legion has lost 109.

It's a pretty grim figure.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Beefspari

[Crymson]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1300898461' post='2673850']
You're probably right.

There wouldn't have been a CB when that happened either.
[/quote]

I'm sure there would have been a CB. Maybe it would have been good, or maybe it would have been of roughly the same validity of those that the NPO used for years for its own purposes.

[eyriq]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300857555' post='2673619']
I'm not seeing what's "gold" about it. I am giving preferential treatment to the ally of my treaty partner, as well as NSO because of their will to fight. I have no interest in letting CoJ off easy, as they have done nothing to earn it.

OOC: Signing your posts is moronic.
[/quote]

And what would you call insulting IC behavior with OOC tags? Does that even make sense? Face it, you continue to act like [s]grievers[/s] griefers (love* [s]that[/s] that word) or brats, so yeah, there is some "gold" in that sort of stunt for the viewing community.

*not enough to actually spell it right, apparently. So maybe it is more like I love how it captures a certain spectrum of behaviors correlated with causing others grief, but don't love it in the sense that I use it or am completely comfortable using it. Or something.

Edited March 23, 2011 by eyriq

[KingBilly1]

Been sitting under 1k ns for the past 10 - 20 days but I aint surrendering to no one Had a few messages with surrender terms LMAO it aint gonna happen stop asking

[Sardonic]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1300904674' post='2673887']
And what would you call insulting IC behavior with OOC tags? Does that even make sense? Face it, you continue to act like grievers (love that word) or brats, so yeah, there is some "gold" in that sort of stunt for the viewing community.
[/quote]
OOC:

The word you are looking for (that you love so much, apparently) is "Greifers". "Grievers" are people who are mourning the loss of something or in intense emotional pain, a description that better fits our enemies. I don't consider us to be either.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Sardonic

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300900788' post='2673869']
If you like interesting statistics, here's an interesting statistic:

GOONs is [b]up[/b] 119 members since the end of January
NPO is [b]down[/b] 39 members since the end of January
Legion is [b]down[/b] 77 members since the end of January

EDIT:

Also, NPO has 79 young (45 days or less) nations, and Legion has 32. That means NPO has lost 118 nations and Legion has lost 109.

It's a pretty grim figure.
[/quote]

When you count ghosts...and we'll assume that [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=303244"]this guy is a ghost[/url] (if not, then he has the discipline of a rabid coyote)...you guys are doing remarkably well, yes. Of course how many of your "new" members (most likely people who were previously hanging around in your 'Stupid Newbie' AA) actually stick around 30 days after the war is over is another question.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1300905627' post='2673896']
When you count ghosts...and we'll assume that [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=303244"]this guy is a ghost[/url] (if not, then he has the discipline of a rabid coyote)...you guys are doing remarkably well, yes. Of course how many of your "new" members (most likely people who were previously hanging around in your 'Stupid Newbie' AA) actually stick around 30 days after the war is over is another question.
[/quote]
Not all of them obviously, but that's the point. GOONs doesn't have a high retention rate. Let's be honest, this crap is boring for most of the people who fit the GOONs bill. So they leave. We get new ones. Arguing over us having lost a bunch of people is pointless -- we're always losing people, to boredom and disinterest. (OOC: plus, at least three guys I know of got deployed overseas) The point is, GOONs has the ability to recruit anew and have a net profit. Unlike the people who were berating us for having lost people (who incidentally have lost as many or more than we have).

And I seriously doubt we have a significant number of ghosts. Much less, more than our opponents do (already seen a few, there were 3-4 in Sanitarium that I know of).

[eyriq]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300905536' post='2673895']
OOC:

The word you are looking for (that you love so much, apparently) is "Greifers". "Grievers" are people who are mourning the loss of something or in intense emotional pain, a description that better fits our enemies. I don't consider us to be either.
[/quote]

Well that is just embarrassing. Glad to hear you're not grieving for anyone or griefing anyone (though those logs look like you've indeed targeted CoJ for some 'griefing', which brings full circle to my initial point).

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1300900788' post='2673869']
If you like interesting statistics, here's an interesting statistic:

GOONs is [b]up[/b] 119 members since the end of January
NPO is [b]down[/b] 39 members since the end of January
Legion is [b]down[/b] 77 members since the end of January

EDIT:

Also, NPO has 79 young (45 days or less) nations, and Legion has 32. That means NPO has lost 118 nations and Legion has lost 109.

It's a pretty grim figure.
[/quote]
Glad someone mentioned this. It's one of just a few objective ways we can really decide who is losing/winning if NPO and co. never come out of peace mode. I think it's clear that DH/FAN/NoR are winning this war by this metric. NPO does have some very loyal people, but no alliance has 100% membership retention if they have to sit in PM for months and months. No matter how loyal you are, the NPO and co. will lose members, and lots of them. That causes more membership to leave, even when alliances like NPO threaten their own members with the "deserter" tag. I have to think morale is very low for those lower end members who are seeing their enemies get 15m every 10 days while they get nothing. I can't image how many newer nations are complaining on their forums about lack of aid and needing aid. NPO and co. have claimed otherwise and that their members loving the fight, but I find that laughable. I know of only a few nations who love to fight for 60+ days straight with no breaks and no aid. And NEW and PC aren't merging into NPO anytime soon.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300875107' post='2673722']
This is getting a bit repetitive, but they were jumped because they would enter the war and not for other reasons. That's why Roq has been saying if they had posted a DoN we wouldn't have gone after them.

I can try to explain it slower if reading fast is a problem for you.
[/quote]

If that what you are saying was true, and the only reason to attack them was that you were convinced they were going to enter the NpO war, then there would be no reason for the war on NPO to continue, since the war on NpO is over.