Memph
-
Posts
521 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Memph
-
-
19 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Ah, so it was optimistic enemies, gotcha. GG
A 31 city TEst nation that rebuilt to 2900 infra/city just got beiged this morning to the tune of about $300m in damages so there's another for the tally.
-
On 1/28/2019 at 3:43 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:
Maybe they boned up and went on a huge blitz out of a big beige cycle, or else their opponents optimistically bought infra while in firing range? Either is plausible, beige cycles being what they are.
A TEst nation rebuilt to 2500 infra/city and then three of us hit him and ship beiged him and did 100m infra damage and 100m loot apiece.
-
8 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
Yes I'll just go ahead and gather the rest of my membership and the investors I have planned and their money too of course and all the noobs I don't have that's down either to bad luck or being small and recruiting during a war.
I'll also keep planning my various schemes despite the fact that after any war, especially this severe things typically start shifting around alot.
Good to hear, so that makes... Everything I've got useless, basically? Cool I'll go about doing my business then since it's all literally impossible.
I mean, surely you could imagine why anyone might be a tad upset at this point, especially when they already dislike your brand of prideful moron anyway, I daresay it's rather obvious why they are 'pressed' about it.
Sorry to hear that. Too bad you guys are too proud to change your surrender terms.
-
2 hours ago, Akuryo said:
TKR is just stubborn. So stubborn they'll happily kill their ally over it. TCW is on track to reach 70% member loss, by admission of TCW itself.
That's not fat trimming, that's hacking off limbs. They're staying in the war for you, partly because if they left separately they may lose their allies, and they'd die from that. Ironically at this rate staying by your side is what will end them.
This whole fat trimming thing is a really old and shitty face saving measure. Inst a few days ago said TKR was at 40% loss. Counting your red and purple inactives out, it's actually more like 50%. Those are some serious wounds, and 70% is a look at ones mortality.
Honestly the fact they have allies at all after this is ridiculous. You're just dragging the corpse around and becoming one yourself.
The amount of damage I'm doing has only been increasing in the last couple months as I'm fine tuning my strategies, and Guardian's activity has also gone up in the last couple weeks. At this point my weekly net damages are about 5x what my weekly income was before the war.
I'm curious to know why you devote so much time to arguing why TKR should surrender. You seem really pressed about the fact that they haven't.
2 hours ago, Akuryo said:For a variety of reasons that shouldn't be hard to see, but I overestimate people here all the time so I'm not surprised.
Surely major, active alliances committing suicide and hemmoraghing active players is not a bad thing at all, no siree Bob. Well, once active, the suicide has made them fall off the face of the Earth.
Oh and of course when their suicide is done such a way as to screw over the entire game by freezing it around their asisine act of self destruction, that too sounds bad.
Some people also care about shitting on Takes would-be Noble attitude with their own hypocrisy, or anybody's attitude for that matter.
You wanna commit suicide with your alliance do it quietly and internally like every trash micro. Don't freeze the whole game over it.
Are you saying that IQ are frustrated at the fact that we haven't surrendered but just don't want to admit it for fear of looking soft? I just don't understand what you're getting at. Alliances not involved in the war can feel free to go on about their business.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Kastor said:
He's talking about when they fought Rose/Paragon, and Rose and friends had like 10-15 nations with a 3-4 city advantage on Syndisphere's biggest guy so that's what he's referring to.
We were outnumbered around 120-60 in the upper tier and 40-10 in the whale tier by ParaCovenant during those wars (Proxy War, Oktoberfest, 168 Day War, NPO's First Time) and were still outnumbered in the upper tier during Silent War although not quite as much.
ParaCovenant lost their upper tier advantage because Rose joined our sphere, most of VE's upper tier left to form Grumpy and were joined by several of UPN's upper tier, others joined Pantheon and GPA where they got rolled, and others fell behind because they had to rebuild their alliances' mid tier, took heavy damages themselves, or didn't manage their growth properly, and some quit the game.
-
1
-
-
On 1/27/2019 at 4:47 PM, Edward I said:
I fundamentally disagree. Peace terms are an essential part of the bridge between politics and wars. Without delving into the fact that, yes, TKR has had a hand in imposing terms on numerous alliances in the past, your basic premise is wrong for two main reasons.
1) Wars establish or reinforce grudges and rivalries.
The Mensa-Rose rivalry is probably the most famous so far, and it was built in part on peace terms. Rose signing a treaty with Mensa had more significance because of the $1 billion in reparations Rose paid Mensa when it surrendered in the Silent War.
A lot of the Article III terms were added because alliances in TKR's coalition successfully imposed similar terms on alliances in our coalition in the past.
The Article IV terms are about rivalries in naming color blocs. No one is going to go to war over the name of color, but that doesn't mean that Acadia, TCW, SK, and TKR aren't slightly annoyed that their preferred color names aren't always chosen.
These aren't bad things. They make politics more interesting. I don't know if there's evidence to support your claim about driving players away, but there is evidence that public arguments like these are the most politically engaging parts of the game for most players. Consider this: the two topics with the most views and the most replies in Alliance Affairs are this one and Rose's Surrender from the Silent War, which is where NPO and BK had a 30-page argument about the reparations BK was trying to (and did) impose on NPO.
2) Peace terms are the most reliable way to establish and enforce informal rules.
The precedent on reparations, for example, is that only aggressors should be forced to pay them. This was the case in the Great VE War and in the Silent War, and was cited as a justification for reparations in both.
The terms surrounding Arrgh after UPN defeated them, after Syndisphere defeated UPN's coalition a few months later, and in Article VIII here are attempts to curtail or protect Arrgh's brand of piracy. Arrgh's success - and, by extension, the viability of full-time raiding - is partly built on Arrgh's ability to make major alliances willing to help Arrgh via peace terms.
The terms in Articles V, VI, and VII are our coalition's attempt to set precedents regarding war dodging, trade bots, and secret treaties. Article V has a partial precedent in Rose's surrender in the Silent War - Belisarius and Oblige were subjected to additional wars because Rose's opponents felt they hadn't been damaged enough. Trade bots aren't illegal, but we dislike them; so, we're trying to get rid of TKR's bot. Exposing GOB's charade about being "paperless" is in keeping with both traditional and paperless alliances' conception of treaties: regardless of their formality, we feel all treaties should be made public.
Part of the reason for the war was the power that TKR-sphere derived from bloat - massive warchests from bloated nations that hadn't fought a difficult war in years; power from maintaining treaties off the books with GOB, t$, or others despite public claims that they'd removed their FA bloat by "cancelling" most of their EMC treaties. If it's somehow unacceptable for our coalition to alter this status quo with peace terms, why was it acceptable for TKR-sphere to engage in these practices in the first place?
The solution to displeasure with the current political dynamic is to change it, through force if necessary. The solution isn't to say that we should remove political consequences from wars, especially since wars are fought to address problems other than those posed by unchecked military power.
I do think one important distinction between the wars you're referencing, and this one, is that in those wars, the loser was the aggressor, and wanted pre-mature peace before our side had a chance to take out their whales through submarine warfare (this was at a time when our side was outnumbered about 3:1 in the upper tier). In the wars that did not end in white peace, the additional terms were essentially in exchange for sparing their whales' infra and tanks.
-
1
-
-
Did this Acadia nation go into VM mode to get out of me kicking his ass for the 7th time?
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Malal said:
The real tragedy of this war is NPO nations using EMC funds to buy their own cities and ruining Roq's tiering scheme
EMC funds obtained from raiding Acadia, Pantheon and UPN, so really just another sneaky way for Roq to leech off his allies, nothing new there.
-
1
-
-
mfw after being informed of TFP's surrender terms.
-
20 hours ago, Akuryo said:
Are they still in their little one man AAs? I believe the damage is counted to those if so, isn't it?
It's not being counted in the coalition stats. Toggle between Conflict = All and Conflict = Knightfall and the last 3 weeks aren't counted towards Knightfall.
-
On 12/27/2018 at 10:21 PM, Lord of Darkness said:
We can retroactively add anything since the start of Knightfall. We'll be doing a sweep for missing bank alliances in the coming days.
Adding this to our list of things to look into.
ok cool. JtTeE and Synthesis just did a ton of damage and it's still not being counted towards Guardian's stats FYI.
-
Not sure if you can retroactively add the data about wars JtTeE and Synthesis were in from late October to mid November which is missing (they're running Guardian satellite AAs) , but can you add their data for the last few weeks since that's also missing?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'm not going to read the whole thread, so I just want to say that out-damaging my opponents is fun. I also don't really care if it gets us better terms or not because it's not a means to an end, I'm enjoying this much more than peace time.
-
8
-
5
-
1
-
Can JtTeE and Synthesis get added back into the npowned war stats? They should be taking and dishing a decent amount of damage for our side.
-
Seems like someone in Godfury wasn't having fun being blockaded with no gas.
-
12 hours ago, Micchan said:
Wait...
No Warpool and no Twynn means... I just entered in the soldiers killed leaderboard!!! (first non-raider I think)
What a beautiful way to go
Great minds think alike!
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
14 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
I didn't make the thing, but that might be possible.
Poor Beli took 1bn in damage from that, last time the personal stats were updated anyway. Which, to my knowledge, is when they were released.
To be fair you really don't need down declares to take on Pantheon, Fark, WTF or UPN. That's just insult to injury. I didn't even notice DB was in this, they're so damned quiet.
The down-declares were mostly to make sure all of us had opponents we could fight to ensure we used our offensive potential as efficiently as possible. We did have several of us go 1 vs 1 against opponents to use our limited offensive slots more efficiently too.
Whoever was hitting us with espionage was also keeping us busy... I lost 1233 planes to that, mostly in a 4-5 day period in round 2-3.
-
19 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
*searches for that thing i remember seeing*
I don't even remember where i saw it, and at this point i'm not gonna bother looking. Something on there said 26 though and i can't remember what it must've been.Might be a mistake with how you accounted for VM nations?
Anyways, it was definitely more than just CoS and TEst keeping us and Grumpy busy. Guardian's bottom 40% or so were kept busy by IQ and our top 30% or so quickly got free of CoS/TEst and kept busy downdeclaring on Rose, Syndicate, Pantheon, SK, WTF, DB, Fark, UPN...
From Oct 20 to Oct 31 (after which our ability to launch effective offensives was limited), Guardian launched 55 wars against CoS/TEst and 72 wars against other alliances, and had a total of 197 wars against CoS/TEst and 288 against other alliances. Grumpy's wars probably skewed even more heavily against other alliances.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Akuryo said:
Congratulations on rolling people you outnumbered in their tier with downdeclares. Let's all celebrate the skill IQ showed in shredding TKRs middle and lower tier as well, since we're basically handing out trophies it seems.
Before somebody tries and pulls some bullshit with numbers.
CoS/TEst = 60 players. 23-24ish and 21-22ish average cc respectively.
Guardian - 49 players, average cc of 26.
Grumpy, who we didn't hit but knew would counter - 27 players, average cc of 30.
Tesla, who pulled a Spanish Inquisition - 19 players, city 22 average.
So congrats on winning a fight you were supposed to win and had a massive advantage in, but please, don't let facts stop you from touting it like you slew a mighty dragon.
It's actually an average of 22 for Guardian and 23 for both CoS and TEst. Close to half of Guardian (ie the 21 & below) were fighting IQ on the initial wave.
-
Only 3rd on aircraft killed. Gotta get back to work.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:
Yea Canada is literally the worst.
Hayley and Apeman have been found colluding with the Canadian Wheat Board to manipulate global wheat markets.
-
-
22 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:
>Implies score compression isn't a legitimate tactic
>Acts as if not paying an enemy is a sign of weakness
Lmao try again I want some more. Be careful of calling people out prematurely, in a week or so I imagine these quotes will be amusing. @Smith learned this the hard way.
Dropping to 4k ns is score compression. IDK what 2.5k ns is.
SNN: Who Wants to Live Forever?
in Orbis Central
Posted
We didn't