Jump to content

Curufinwe

VIP
  • Content Count

    324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Curufinwe last won the day on October 13 2016

Curufinwe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

661 Politician

7 Followers

About Curufinwe

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Canada
  • Alliance Pip
    Black Knights
  • Leader Name
    Curufinwe
  • Nation Name
    Eregion
  • Nation ID
    22102
  • Alliance Name
    Black Knights

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Curufinwe

Recent Profile Visitors

1729 profile views
  1. I, for one, welcome our new TC overlords. May all their indiscretions be private.
  2. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Well, BK has never had many large nations - that's not a new thing or even a specifically IQ issue. Even under Yoso and Strum we had difficulty retaining higher tier members, both because our growth policies were heavily slanted towards new recruits (based on the reasoning that it was more cost effective to invest in smaller players than large ones) and due the fact that our relative lack of big nations encouraged those who did grow past a certain point to leave, since we couldn't adequately defend them (Zoot got rolled into the ground every war he fought in BK, for example). But that being said, I don't really follow your point. How does the fact that we've identified an issue with our tiering make our opinion on the subject invalid? I mean TGH apparently decided that your sphere would be well served by adding the upper tier heft that Guardian and GOB represent to your mostly upper middle tier and lower upper tier nations. Does that mean that we should ignore your opinion when you talk about whales? Or is your argument that we should just grow our own upper tier and not sign anyone that can help support us in an area where we're weak? If so, couldn't the same be said of any AA that signs someone who has different strengths than they do? Third time's the charm?
  3. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Actually, BK is solidly upper middle tier. We currently have 35 nations below 17 cities, versus 84 at 17/18 and 24 at 19 and up. So calling us a lower tier AA or suggesting we have a horde of tiny nations to throw at our opponents isn't really accurate. Now, I do agree that upper mid tier folks can score compress to avoid the largest players, but they're still vulnerable to sell downs (Ripper managed to sell down to hit a couple of BK guys in an 11 city downdec not too long ago, for example) or getting sniped from below by people that are actually in the low tier (think Pantheon if it was organized a bit differently and coordinated better). This means that having some upper tier support (an advantage that every other sphere enjoys by the way, including your own) fills a capability gap that BK has traditionally been lacking and only grows in importance now that we no longer enjoy IQ-style dominance in the mid tier. After all, NPO currently has 72 nations at 17 cities and 28 at 18 cities (a higher number than BK) and significant upper tier support in the form of tS. BK's 108 17 city and up guys can't exactly score compress to avoid getting hit by someone like that, now can they?
  4. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    In fairness, reading 30 percent of what Sketchy and I just wrote is about 25 percent more than a reasonable person has any right to expect, so that's actually pretty good. That being said, having read 15 percent of the bottom 50 percent of your post, I can wholeheartedly agree that Yui does seem soothing and applesauce is tasty, which as far as I know is the only thing that was brought up in the text I just quoted.
  5. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    I completely agree - I recall Yoso saying back in the day that wars were won by the diplomacy beforehand and the fighting is just an afterthought (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it) and I think time has definitely proven him right on that. On the upside, if Sketchy sticks to his claim that IQ never fought an offensive war, that also means we've never lost an offensive war, so we dodged a bullet there I guess 😛
  6. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    I'll just ahead and respond to your points separately, since you've managed to squeeze a lot of problematic arguments into your response again. As I recall, your side denied that a war was in the offing and claimed IQ was the aggressor (rather than preempting an incoming war), so I'm just using the frame of reference your side (and by extension, you) advanced at the time (particularly during the peace negotiations, where it was put forward that a surrender would be required since we were the aggressor in the conflict). Unless you're retroactively changing things up, the coalition you helped lead is on record as stating that IQ's actions in Tiers were unjustified aggression, so it's kind of strange you're changing your tune 2 years later. Actually, I used offensive in the conventional sense, since I'd hazard to say most people regard the offensive side in a war as the people who struck first, rather than limiting the scope of what constitutes an offensive war with preconditions are your definition appears to do. But hey, even if we take your definition as the standard, TGH has still only managed one major war where it was on the offensive which, if we use the argument your side made that Tiers was offensive on IQ's part, ties us at one. Of course, it also means that the Sketchy-as-gov period has only seen an AA you played a high gov role in engage in one legitimate offensive war between 2017 and the present (cuz remember, Paperless doesn't count), so I'm not still not sure why you feel that you're in a position to criticize BK for its war record during our time in IQ. IQ nations weren't in a position to take on the EMC whales during Knightfall. As I'm sure you noticed in AC, upper tier capacity wasn't exactly our strong point and I'm not sure why you think max building 15 city nations so they needlessly eat a downdec from a Guardian or GOB whale would have contributed to the allied war effort. We did do our best to help out our allies where we could by gutting TKR's mid and lower upper tiers nations on the first wave, expanding to Guardian to help out CoS and TEst when they started taking hits from the unengaged whales and taking down individual larger nations once slots started to clear out. Plus, if you look at Frawley's stats... https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/conflict/1 ...you'll see that BK/NPO/GoG/Acadia collectively took about 115b in damage (BK has the second highest absolute damage received total by the way), so we were hardly sitting at the sidelines doing nothing while our allies fought. In fact, I'm sure you could find some people in the coalition who would cheerfully attest that BK's enthusiasm for slots got on some nerves. So yeah, unless you seriously think that four AAs that collectively took 115b in damage through the course of 4390 offensive wars was trying to minimize its contribution, I don't think your argument there is all that tenable. I mean you're the one who brought up BK's performance in the bloc before the bloc we recently left. I'm not sure why you felt the need to discuss Syndi-OO (which has been defunct for about 26 months), but since we were taking a trip down memory lane, I figured I'd take the opportunity to rebut your claim that BK was the worst AA in Syndi-OO (which I notice you haven't produced stats to substantiate, so I guess you're letting that go) and compare it to the AAs you were involved with during the time. If you read what I wrote, you'll also notice that I pointed out that you weren't gov during that period, but I thought you'd like some context on the wars you and I were fighting back then. My bad about the 168 thing though - I must have misread the dates on your nation page. Actually, if you consult what I wrote, you'll see I did mention that you were the leader of Rose during Tiers, in the context of Tiers being a defensive war on your part, as well as mentioning that BK was defeated in Tiers. I just wanted to address that so you don't feel that I'm minimizing your accomplishments, since you felt the need to point it out and all. I do something that Seeker doesn't appreciate at least once a week, so I imagine he's used to it by now. Although you're right - UPN was definitely scarier back in late 2017 than it currently is, though of course not as scary as it was in Oktoberfest. More importantly, the lack of a solid BK upper tier allowed them to get some nice downdecs on our handful of larger guys (our initial counter for them was CS, which traditionally didn't have the best military record), while Polaris, HBE and NPO squeezed us from the bottom and middle. I see you haven't disputed the fact that BK got hit a bit harder than other AAs in the initial blitz (Mensa also took some heat from Alpha and FARK, but got bailed out fairly quickly by a joint blitz from the coalition that a few of us organized), so I assume that means you're dropping your point that BK was the worst AA in Syndi-OO because of our performance in Silent. I'm glad we managed to clear that up. I do realize that, although I also realize that BK has shed far more treaties than it has picked up during the past two weeks so, again, while you're free to criticize us if you like, the fact remains that we've cut a significant portion of our ties in a short period of time and signed fewer treaties than TGH has during the same period (since you've signed two to our one during the past few weeks). So again, you don't seem to be in a position to criticize us about forming new ties during a transitional period in Orbis politics. Interesting. Didn't you criticize Leo earlier for presuming to be aware of discussions that he wasn't privy to regarding AC? Seems a bit strange you're now claiming to know the ins-and-outs of the factors that led to the dissolution of IQ, but we'll just let that statement be what it was and move on. As for your point regarding IQ versus BK & Co, if you take a look at the math you'll notice that BK has ended seven direct treaties worth a total of 655,535 points, while signing one direct tie worth 182,748 points. So unless you're saying that a difference of 472,787 points worth of aggregate score (which is more than the score of KT, TGH and Empyrea combined, by the way) is only a slight difference, if appears that your statement that BK & Co is only slightly smaller than IQ was at its height is unfounded. Of course, TGH has added 274,471 points worth of direct ties during the same period (increasing the size of your sphere by about 50 percent), so it appears you're well ahead of BK in terms of net score gain for your sphere. As for secondary ties, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that cross-sphere ties don't necessarily result in AAs fighting on the same side when war breaks out. If you recall, both HS and TFP had an MDP with Guardian during the last war, meaning they were both indirectly tied to TKR. However, HS fought against TKR and its allies and TFP remained neutral until they were attacked later on in the war. While we're on the topic, I'll also cite the infamous BK/UPN treaty, which is definitely proof that having a cross sphere tie doesn't necessarily translate into people fighting as part of the same sphere. So yeah, while you're correct to point out that there's still some second- and third -order linkages, it's still a big leap to assume that 'ally of an ally of ally' is the same thing as 'you're all tied together in a cohesive sphere like IQ was before its dissolution.' I'm not particularly interested in where your criticism is coming from. My only interest is debating the points you raise on their merits, which I'm doing using public data that is available to both of us. I encourage you to do the same, since I notice that you're making sweeping claims without presenting much in the way of data to back them up. As you can see, I'm more than willing to debate the merits of the points you're raising, so the reasons why you may be raising said points is of secondary importance as far as I'm concerned. As for your point about 'pure power grabs,' by which I assume you're referring to the BK/TCW treaty, I'm not sure that the facts really bear out your argument. As I've pointed out above, BK has voluntarily ended treaties worth considerably more points than we've signed in the past couple of weeks, so if we're grabbing for power we're not doing the greatest job of it (you'll have to bring the 'BK FA' meme back from the grave at this rate). Moreover, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the only treaty that we have signed bolsters our strength in an area that we have traditionally been lacking (the upper tier), rather than strengthening us in an area where we're already fairly strong (the lower and mid part of the middle tier). Presumably, if we were actually 'grabbing for power' in the manner IQ was frequently accused of doing by its critics, we'd be seeking to solidify our hold on an area where we're strong when, in fact, we did just the opposite by splitting our tier cohesion between two spheres by dissolving IQ. Instead, we've signed one treaty (in lieu of the 7 we've dropped) in an area where we're historically weak, pushing us from slightly above Pantheon in terms of upper tier nation count to slightly below Rose. The relatively small increase in upper tier nation count we've achieved certainly doesn't put us in the league of Chaos or KETOG, which collectively have about half of the largest nations in the game and dwarf the other four spheres when we start looking at the largest nations. Again, I'll leave up to others to decide whether that does actually represent any sort of consolidation in the upper tier, but trying to claim that BK is engaging in 'a power grab' by signing an AA with a fraction of the upper tier heft of the two AAs TGH has recently signed isn't the strongest argument you can make regarding our revamped FA. I think the graphs/tier breakdown Theodosius provided are accurate, so I'm not sure why you would feel the need to duplicate his work. Aside from the initial mistake he made in double counting TC, the discussion isn't so much about what the numbers are but what they mean. If you'd like to engage with my points regarding the bottom heavy nature of BK's current FA relationships (which, again, doesn't really compare to the situation that prevailed under IQ and which you don't seem to touch on in your response), you're of course welcome to do so, but I don't think you need to replicate the work your spheremates have already put in to illuminate the current nation breakdowns of the various spheres. Anyways, this was another long post (sorry if I bored you, Keegoz), so here: TLDR: Despite furiously typing, Sketchy still hasn't substantiated his arguments, so Leo isn't the only person triggered, I guess. Score another win for BK/TCW?
  7. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Well I'm just discussing the numbers your spheremates so helpfully provided and responding to a few points your ally made - if you read the wall of boredom you'll notice I confine myself to the arguments Sketchy raised without veering off into any weird tangents. Unless I misunderstood its intent, the purpose of the lovely graph (and the accompanying chart) Theodosius provided was to educate OWF readers on where the various spheres stand relative to each other following the recent FA changes, so I feel we'd be doing a disservice to the people who compiled them if we didn't discuss the facts they've presented. I do agree that it's important to take victories where you can find them though, so we've already found a point of agreement between our positions. Could that be yet more evidence that Orbis is moving away from the quarrels of the past in the brave new world we're all creating?
  8. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Huh. And people are accusing Leo of getting triggered. I'm just going to break this down since there's a lot to unpack here: There's been three major wars since BK left Syndi-OO; Tiers, AC and Knightfall. In Tiers BK was on the offensive (though of course we lost that one), in AC we preempted (so technically we did hit first, but as you say, it was coming anyways) and in Knightfall BK was on the offensive as well (but I guess that doesn't count, since you say dogpiles don't count). Meanwhile, Rose was on the defensive during Tiers (and I seem to recall you were running it at the time), CKD didn't participate in any major conflicts during your time there, TGH entered against Vanguard following our preempt (so I guess we'll call that 0.5 offensive wars each, since technically we both struck first), was on the defensive against TKR during DDR, hit TRF for a couple of weeks when no one was looking (which hardly qualifies as a major war, but we'll count it as another 0.5 since we're keeping score) and sat out the main war against TKR and friends entirely. So by that reckoning, BK following the formation of IQ engaged in 2.5 offensive wars in the traditional sense of the term (Tiers and Knightfall, plus preempting during AC) and alliances you occupied a leadership role in engaged in 1 (0.5 for AC and 0.5 for NRF, though again the latter wasn't exactly a ground shaking move on your part). So while, sure, according to the very narrow definition you've put out, I guess BK didn't engage in more than a few wars during that period, but I'm not sure why you feel you're in position to criticize others for a supposed lack of going on the offensive. As for your tiering comment, BK is currently averaging 16.36 cites per player, compared to 13.86 for TGH, so it appears we that we are building higher on average than your AA is, although you guys have a higher proportion of small players than we do at the moment. Still, if you run the stats, you'd notice that BK is primarily tiered in the 17-18 range, compared to the 18-20 range for TGH and KT, so again I'm not sure why you feel you have grounds to criticize an AA with tiering only slightly lower than your own. The topic of upper tier consolidation re:TKR was already talked to death in the run up to the last war, so we'll just let the record show that Sketchy feels that TKRs upper tier consolidation totally was a thing that a bloc whose largest member was 24 cities prior to the last war should have been able to handle completely on its own and all the AAs that felt threatened by it (which is why the coalition came together, by the way) should have stood aside, apparently. By what measurement was BK the worst AA in Syndi-OO? I'm sure we can find stats from Oktoberfest, 168 and Pacifica in Orbis Central to demonstrate that we more than pulled our weight in those wars, as well as in Paperless. And I don't recall Rose (which you were a part of at that time and gov in after October 2017) covering itself in glory in any of those conflicts; 1) Looks like you all had a separate peace in Pacifica, leaving your allies to surrender later: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/13543-announcement-from-the-coalition-known-apparently-as-the-leeroy-jenkaaylmao-coaltion-and-the-empire-of-rose/ 2) Surrendered in Silent: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/16718-roses-surrender/ Though of course your nation page says you were only lower Econ gov, so Rose's not-great blitz against TKR that war probably wasn't your fault. 3) And, of course, 168 was a war initiated by your side that ended in white peace, so you can't really say the AA you were a part of achieved its goals there either. Then, as I recall, when you actually became upper gov in Rose you guys switched sides courtesy of a tie with Mensa and played a fairly peripheral part in Paperless (although I'm sure we can dig up stats for that as well if you like), though according to your definition of what constitutes an acceptable 'offensive' war (IE not a curbstomp), I guess that really can't count as a mark in favour of Sketchy-in-gov era Rose as well, since that was most definitely an example of everyone coming together to take down TEst. Meanwhile, while it's true that BK did have a tough first round in Silent, that was mostly because we were prioritized by NPO, UPN, Polaris and HBE due to our performance against NPO in Pacifica, rather than getting the famous two-man blitz treatment like some other people did. Fortunately, we did manage to keep them busy enough that they couldn't switch to other fronts while our allies mopped up the rest of the enemy coalition (including the AA you were fighting for at the time) and ended up with a win for our side. For the record, I did take the time to dig up the stats for Silent and, while it definitely wasn't our finest war, we did do okay considering we took a harder hit than many of the AAs in our coalition early on. But yeah, Silent stats for those who are curious: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BVOQv4r2MYPZEfQoJgcokGrZagxqL1oeJxNMSdZsnh0/edit#gid=5604508 At any rate, perhaps someone else can dig up stats on Oktoberfest, 168, Pacifica and Paperless (the stats pages aren't as clearly marked for those wars as they are nowadays), but if you're talking performance wise, I don't think you have much ground to stand on, especially since it was Sketchy-in-gov era Rose that people had doubts about performance wise after you switched sides, rather than BK (or at least that's what I recall from the coalition servers where we discussed you guys coming over to our side - someone who was Syndi-OO gov back then probably has logs from the relevant server, since I didn't bother keeping them). As for your meatshield comment, you'll notice that BK & Co is one of the weaker of the six spheres upper tier wise, which is the same issue IQ had prior to the split. If we look at Theodosius' stats... ...you'll see that the upper tier is concentrated in Chaos/KT spheres, with the two combined having 48/120 of the 24-26s, 50/89 of the 27-33s and of the 10/12 34-39s, meaning almost 50 percent of the larger nations in the game, and virtually all of the largest ones, are in two of the six spheres. You'll also notice that signing TCW (which by and large has more high city count folks than BK) only brings BK & Co to fifth place in the number of higher tier nations (behind Rose but above Pantheon), so rather than 'stacking meatshields' it provided us with a capacity that we have traditionally lacked relative to other spheres (and which certainly was an issue for IQ). So it's up to other people to decide if having half of the largest nations in two of the six spheres constitutes consolidation, but it is hardly an overwhelming advantage that BK & Co has acquired. I'm sorry that an upper AA being willing to work with us is so upsetting to you though, I guess. BK has actually cut 7 of its 16 treaties (which I believe is the largest amount cut in-game so far, though I suppose it also says something about the number we'd signed) and signed 1 since IQ dissolved, which is a 7:1 ratio for dropping versus retaining ties. More importantly, the BK/NPO treaty was ended which, at least according to its critics, was the single worst treaty ever and almost solely responsible for stagnating the game due to our cohesion in the middle tier, so you're welcome for that. While I realize that it may feel odd to not complain about BK FA constantly (that was a scary week or so for us, too - we had feared you'd forgotten about us), the fact remains that BK, NPO and GoG voluntarily broke up a sphere that most people outside it felt was problematic and that created a space for new politics to take place: whatever you might feel about BK as an AA, I doubt even you can argue with the fact that IQ voluntarily dissolving has changed the FA environment we're all operating in. And yeah, much like TKR, tS, NPO, CoS, Guardian, GoB, SK, TGH and KT, BK has made a new friend after shedding some old ties. Maybe more will go in the future (that's not my decision to make any more, thankfully), but for the second time in two years BK has completely reoriented its FA, making Orbis a different place in the process. You can complain about the pace of the change if you like, but we've done more than most to shake things up during our time as one of the larger AAs in Orbis. So again, I'm not sure you have a lot of ground to criticize us when we've more than once taken the lead in making big changes in our FA, even if the pace or form it takes isn't necessarily to your liking. Wasn't the whole point of everyone dropping previous ties to make friends with new people, including former enemies? Guardian was allied to TKR during DDR (and GoB was informally aligned with EMC in general) and I don't recall anyone ranting in your treaty thread about how you signed someone who formerly wasn't in your immediate sphere of influence. If we're serious about trying new things people are going to have let go of beefs from past wars, so criticizing BK for burying the hatchet with TCW while many other AAs as busy signing former opponents (or in TGH's case, people who were allied to your most recent major opponent) seems a bit baseless coming from you. As for the 'BK & Co is OP' numbers, looking at them shows that we don't dominate any particular tier in the manner IQ did; we're about equal to NPO/tS in the fearsome 1-9 tier (205/734 nations), stronger in the only slightly less irrelevant 10-12 tier (203/595), do have an advantage in the lower mid tier (198/498 13-16 folks), are about equal to NPO/tS in the upper mid tier (collectively, 294/379 of the 17 to 18s are in one or the other sphere - funny thing about how the two large AAs that tiered to that level still have most of the people at said level two weeks later), and then start to fall off dramatically at 19 and up (only 130 people over 19, which places us behind Chaos, KETOG and NPO/tS in that area, even with TCW added into the mix). So yeah, your numbers essentially state that BK is still strong in the mid tier (shocking I know), but instead of the upper middle tier being concentrated almost exclusively in IQ, it's now split between tS/NPO and BK/TCW (again, you're welcome for that). It also says that almost half of BK & Co's terrifyingly terrifying 800 or so nations are below the 13 city mark, a range that is pretty much irrelevant against any sphere other than Pantheon and NPO/tS and certainly isn't much of a threat to the two blocs where almost half of the upper tier nations currently reside. So yeah, I'm not going to accuse you of pushing a narrative (since you were just stating facts, as you've said), but the fact remains that the numbers BK is currently bringing to the table don't really suggest the kind of tier consolidation IQ was always criticized for in its heyday. We're about equal to tS/NPO sphere in capacity currently, with an advantage lower down and a growing disadvantage the farther you go up the tiers, while KETOG/Chaos are about equal upper tier wise and larger than the other spheres in terms of big members (overwhelmingly so among the biggest). But hey, we have more noobs than Pantheon, so that's kind of neat. So I realize this was a pretty large text-wall, so here: TLDR: Sketchy got triggered and spouted a bunch of nonsense that isn't really supported by facts, meaning that Leo isn't the only angry guy typing away in this thread. Personally, I regard that as the first victory of the BK/TCW alliance.
  9. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Yeah, I can't think of a case of TEst suiciding in an offensive war offhand either. They switched sides in the VE war, got hit pretty hard in Oktoberfest (but that was a defensive war), sat out Pacifica and 168, peaced out early in Silent and then disbanded after Paperless (also defensive), meaning they weren't around for Tiers or AC. Unless I'm missing a war somewhere? I know they participated in Proxy, but given the rollback I don't know how much damage they ended up sustaining.
  10. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    a253af52-f2f8-4072-8f7b-c6bc48291d84 (1).mp4
  11. Curufinwe

    Remove war

    Really? I had no idea you were opposed to war. You should make four more threads telling us about how you feel about war.
  12. Curufinwe

    Remove war

    Those sound like fighting words to me. Have you considered declaring war?
  13. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    I, for one, welcome our new Pantheon overlords. Well if your side is going to slap up a graph with nation totals printed at the top in big numbers, along with towers scaled to correspond to the number of nations in a given sphere and follow that up with catty comments about dynamism, it seems pretty clear that the implication you guys are going for is number of nations = strength. As Leo (and others) have pointed out, not all nations are equally important in a war situation (we can argue about where the cut-off is, but everyone appears to think 1 to 9 arent all that relevant) and equally factors like tier cohesion, organisation, governmental competence and economic output aren't really taken into account when you just look at a single metric. The Pantheon example you and others have touched on is a good example of this, since it's pretty widely accepted that numbers =/= strength in that case. Now I'm not suggesting that BK/TCW and friends don't have their strengths, but fixating on a single measurement and getting all worked up about it probably isn't the most accurate method for measuring relative strength in Orbis atm.
  14. Curufinwe

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Yeah and it indicates that 538 of BK and Co's supposed 986 nations are in the 1 to 14 range, which I imagine aren't a huge threat to the 58 (out of 270) 24 city and up guys KTsphere has managed to amass. Unless you're seriously making the argument that three 5 nations are the equivalent of one 36 city nation, citing player numbers as the primary metric for sphere strength doesn't tell you all that much. Thanks for coming out though.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.