Jump to content

EliteCanada

VIP
  • Posts

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About EliteCanada

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Leader Name
    EliteCanada
  • Nation Name
    Drenai
  • Nation ID
    35382
  • Alliance Name
    VooDoo

Recent Profile Visitors

1473 profile views

EliteCanada's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (4/8)

100

Reputation

  1. Tbh, I think this only proves that tS vs Grumpy (in a 1v1) would be a difficult fight and not one that can be won immediately or within a few rounds. Often ignored is the fact that tS only has to drag a Grumpy nation one at a time and that any pinned Grumpy nation can never rebuild entirely by virtue of numbers alone, whereas any zeroed tS nation can rebuild by virtue of there being 100 nations below c30 in eS + tS to prop them back up onto their feet. The underdog mechanics and spy mechanics ensure that military rebuilds are pretty much decimated day-to-day for Grumpy (ensuring they will eventually be ZMd when you also consider the numbers advantage tS has). In tS vs Grumpy, tS's victory is inevitable in a direct war and the fact that c40 costs like 3b ensures that tS will inevitable catch up to Grumpy once their scores of nations slowly (but faster than Grumpy c40s) acquire cities. However, I also think that not wanting to waste a month or two to prove tS can win a legitimate 1v1 is also valid, and damned be the narratives that preach "you are too scared for a fair fight", since I don't recall the last GW or major war that wasn't an attempted dogpile (plus wars lasting months are boring as hell). But claiming Grumpy is near OP and/or invincible, in a 1v1, is laughable, it took about a day to pin HW with BW + Rose, and so it'd take longer w/o Rose, but it isn't impossible. TLDR: BW should be transparent in its CB and just state that as a direct rival to HW they want them knocked down a peg and don't want to fight for 1-2+ months to do so (a boring waste of time tbh), which is completely fine IMO. I just think the difficulty of beating Grumpy/GG is greatly overstated.
  2. Aye, amen brother. Fun that you mention that, the gnarliest ass clappers out there are probably Oblivion these days. Crazy c28 nations.
  3. Absolutely, I was with Grumpy and GNR was a hell of a time, an absolute blast. However, I can fight a war and enjoy it while admitting that the CBs were at least a little "weak" IMO, but I don't think "weak" CBs are a bad thing if they are honest. During GNR, I think SRD was very upfront about Grumpy wanting to fight just to have a blast of a time (which some people might consider a weak CB, but I do not) and that TKR wanted to fight because of DH. I don't think that a lack of treaty ties in a previous war is a great reason to declare war on Rose, but I understand if TKR's disagrees. However, I think in this war that tS is lying to themselves if they think that KT ghosting and SRD banter is a good CB. Nonetheless, as I said, I have no issues with this war being fought.
  4. That is the nature of war, if you are on the losing side of a conflict anything you type or say is a showcase of your saltiness.
  5. Unsurprisingly, what a toxic cesspool forums are during war lol. For an unsolicited opinion, HW probably deserved to be hit for a) being the strongest coalition by combining HM + TKR and for b) recent war-mongering against Rose, and, before that, HM war-mongering against tS (although I do believe Syndisphere also merited a clapping back then, being by far the strongest sphere). Obviously that's what SRD does though, war-monger, but it's still a valid CB when HW is the largest, top-tier sphere and when Grumpy is a significant component of HW. Also obvious is that tS wanted this war because they are direct rivals with Grumpy, and Rose wanted retribution for GNR. Everything else is superfluous, asinine and self-serving propaganda. As it stands, coalitions cry about dogpiles and immediately seek dogpiles, but w/e, that's the political landscape at this point. It would make the forums less nauseating if CBs would just admit that wars are retributions for prior conflicts and to knock a rival down a peg (which is completely fine for a nation sim, hell, how the hell else do you find reasons for war and to shred pixels?), rather than some dumb bs about KT ghosting and SRD being aggressive in back-channels.
  6. Yea, you're right, logically speaking it makes sense that 1500-1600 planes will always shit on 2250 planes, every single time. It also makes sense for one spy to kill 4k tanks. There's truly no middle ground or any room for improvement there.
  7. I honestly can't believe that spies are still allowed to kill such a large amount of tanks WITH 1 SPY AT 50% ODDS (a bit less if the defender has covert, but this is nullified by arcane), and that underdog mechanics are still so disgustingly OP. Are these not considered problems, or might they be addressed later?
  8. Good thing you aren't in charge of any nation's justice system.
  9. Sorry mate, but I don't generalize off of anything you say, however, your statement is a good example that summarizes some of the problems with your coalition's war effort. This is easily observed by anyone who actively fought in the war.
  10. Wow, you just summarized why your coalition lost the war. Hint: zero initiative.
  11. Better AA announcement than most, skip the bs and straight to the point!
  12. Thanks for the fun Roasis + Mystery. Enjoy the rebuild! \o/
  13. This is the point that Malleator and Adam seem to be ignoring for whatever reason. Clearly being able to figure out spy counts is against the spirit of the game, especially if this is the reason why predicted success rate was changed to being >50 or <50 percent.
  14. I think it's simple. The embarrassment and shame of not decisively winning the first round, despite what would have appeared to be overwhelming numbers superiority. Hollywood bad since Rose doesn't know when to military up apparently, have allies who have a bunch of war dodgers and have had mediocre to bad coordination. Thus, fervent cries to the buzzwords of our time are taking place, "DOgPIle", "HEgemoNY", "uPPeR tiER consoLIDatION". Anything to excuse poor war performance. This typology of whining personifies the self-serving bias, anything to avoid responsibility for simply being bad at war.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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