Shiho Nishizumi

Treat me with some Scotch.

A ditch so deep that he gets to tour Choukai on his way further down.

Roma, KanColle

You really want people to hire your services, dontcha?

>When money can get you 30+ average cities in your AA, but not the community to refer to you as "grumpy" instead of GOB.

Yeah, no. I doubt you have much information in lots of those fields, particularly the economic aspect. Especially since you refused to back it up yourself, instead opting to be lazy and tells others to go gather it themselves ( plenty hard for stuff such as economics, which is only visible to aa and mostly govt members). Also, >better war performance. Afaik, ET also beat up a lot of micros, it was basically their peacetime sport (probably better ask HC or other KT milcom for the full list, but one of the ones I do know of was TI... While we were at war with TKR and co.) on top of their stellar performance last war (the loss does not detract from the fact that they did, in fact, perform well in spite of being disadvantaged on nearly all regards). There is a difference between being straightforward and being an ass. People have been disliking your post because you are being an ass. Nothing more, nothing less.

You sack of shit. Paint 3D is soo much worse than PS.

1) That is a byproduct of the war going on for an extended period of time. Of course, the longer it goes, the more time the losing side has at it's disposal to generate opportunities and play catch up, and close in on the damages that they sustained upfront on the first few rounds. In other words, if you'd rather the gap remain wide, you're better offer relatively light terms so the war ends sooner. If you would rather play economic warfare and try to outproduce the enemy (as is mentioned ahead), then go ahead with it, but accept the tradeoff that ground will be lost on the stats simply because the other side has more opportunities to get damage in than you do. 2) Generally correct. That still requires the other side to have tanks/ships to blow up to begin with. Them being employed by TKR/tCW/TRF is a direct consequence of the strategy that was chosen and employed. Presumably, they were there to either prevent someone from getting GC in and then AS'ing stuff, to prevent cash looting, or to prevent being nav spammed. All fair enough reasons, but the tradeoff is that you have expensive military that can, and will, be targetted. 3) That is true, to an extent. If you had 16-20 cities and managed to get 5-6 days of beige, then you bought enough air that it would put you in range of 2.8k people, which for the 3200-3600 people, isn't hard to reach with a decomm. If they are truly low, then they most likely were either cycled and lost quite a bit of infra (and thus don't have as an effective of a double buy), or had only a few days of beige to build with, in which they would not put as much harm as they otherwise could. I do think that you are being a bit disingenuous with the "similar number of nations involved" thing, as that says nothing of the combat capabilities that either side had (which, at least to me, comes off as suggesting that there was some equal ground in this regard), and obviously, TKR/tCW/TRF had plenty more mil to work with than KT/TGH (at least in anything above 1k ns). Furthermore, there was the possibility for more nations in your side to partake which were comfortably within range (notably from tCW), but those simply didn't act upon it. 4) It is a handy metric to indicate who is being efficient with their resources and who isn't. Plus, it is an actual cost of waging warfare, so I fail to see why it shouldn't be accounted. Your stance would be similar to pretending that it is dumb to factor in the money you'd spend on gas for commuting. 5) That is an argument of economic warfare, and not statistics. It is of course a factor for, say, peace talks (or gauging the feasibility of waging a war), but it is not a metric you can go by to include in statistics. Just like how you can't reasonably (or practically) include military upkeep, or decomm costs, into it (even though we all know it's there). 6) Already addressed by several people, so no point in bothering with it. I'd argue that it shows that there were still avenues for us to get damage in (which didn't include nukes), in spite of the common perception that the war was "effectively over" in like the first one or two weeks. You can go ahead and recite the reasons you listed earlier, but the truth of the matter is, if we really were unable to do anything, the gap wouldn't have closed as much as it did (particularly for the likes of KT, that managed to flip mil damages into a positive net when they were originally in the negs for that too), simply because the perma cycling would have prevented us from doing anything in such a situation. As for the standards thing; you mean the fighting style or the gas/muns thing? If it is the former; hardly. You pick a strategy for the particular needs you need to satisfy. Making a standard out of it would be stupid for any situation. Plus, I've not seen that many people contest whether this was a W or an L. Some contested the magnitude of such (which is an entire argument on it's own), but not the W/L status. As for the latter; as I've said earlier, it gives an insight on how well each side managed their resources. Wasteful tendencies shouldn't be encouraged simply because you can restock those with new production. And no, we were aware that you were going out of your way to airstrike worthless infra just to pad that stat, so it is hardly a matter of merely forgetting to not use muns when attacking with soldiers. Again, if you want to pad infra destroyed, then go for it, but accept the cost (pun intended) of doing so.

Shut the frick up Kastor.

75% of gaming be like: No, this video never gets old.

I'm guessing he quoted from Kastor's response to Bollocks.

They're heroes. Their sacrifice saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people .