Daniel Storm
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Daniel Storm
-
-
Treasure Island peaked at 462k.
TKR peaked at 469k.
NPO peaked at 401k.
UPN peaked at 207k and T$ peaked at 309k @Buorhann
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Cypher said:
I’d make either Zodiac or Cornerstone to keep the name forever but neither alliances were particularly good.
I'm more of a Lordaeron guy myself.
-
-
Error
This player has been flagged for using the same network as you. To prevent cheating, you are not allowed to sabotage this nation. For more information on how to become exempt from our restrictions regarding multiple, separate players on the same network, you can learn about Verification here.
I receive the preceding error when I go to the espionage screen for this nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24900
However, I can and have declared war on that same nation with no issues.
10/08/2019
08:24 AM
OrdinaryAltmoras 
Daniel Storm
New Pacific Order20
9
Oath 
DtC Justice
Rose
War Expired
TimelineI've also never been on the same network as that player or any other afaik, so what's the deal.
-
I think this would be good rebalance for air provided that dogfights still work the way they currently do. Right now if somebody has less than half of your air upon declaration you can just go straight for tanks/ships/infra and still get 3:1 or better air casualties. This way you'd be forced to dogfight more often and would face the tradeoff of leaving tanks+ships or air intact.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Micchan said:
@Pop Alliances merged/disbanded and players moved, for example TCW recived members from Electric Space, to do it right you should check who was in the alliance at the start and who is still in the alliance
That sounds like work.
-
1
-
-
When I was gathering this data I had no idea that TCW and Polaris would be the most war-resilient alliances, but the numbers don't lie. I picked my sample from the top 10 alliances for damage received. Excluding T$ because they haven't fought for nearly as long. VMers are included because I don't have data for how many VMers each alliance had at the start of the war.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
The problem isn't a matter of "shame"; recall that pretty much every single alliance in the CKHERTUGOREKT coalition has surrendered on at least one occasion in the past (the main exception being T$). We're not unwilling to surrender when the situation calls for it; the problem lies in the despicable ally-fricking that IQ, and most specifically NPO, has engaged in. If we surrender, then we're setting the precedent that treaties not merely don't matter but in fact should not matter, and that nakedly breaking your promises is something that should be done as a first, best, and therefore only resort. Encouraging that shit is not acceptable to me; communities can only exist when there is both a risk and a cost associated with betrayal, and I will be that cost even if no-one else is willing to be.
Group that promoted minispheres only to consolidate 3 minispheres into 1 the moment an opportunity to roll BK came up thinks it has any ideological ground to stand on regarding integrity. More hilarious jokes at 11.
-
5
-
1
-
12
-
-
I'd rather see the costs of other units raised than see the cost of tanks lowered. But either way some equalization needs to happen.
-
On 6/23/2019 at 6:16 PM, Pop said:
Endgame if KERTOGDHDKASYBRAE wins.
Infinity War if BKblob wins.
Don't ask me what to do if there's a white peace.
-
1
-
-
We can't peace yet, it's not Christmas. ?
-
1
-
-
I don't think you guys understand how much Frawley works, it's only through a sheer miracle of time management that he gets anything done at all for this game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
its just a raid bro
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
3
-
-
So you're going to remake Tesla basically?
-
On 10/22/2019 at 12:56 PM, Jake Wetzler said:
3) Build 5 farms
I swear, every single noob makes the mistake of building farms, I don't even give noob build advice that often and I think I've still had to say that countless times.
Maybe @Alex should add something to the tutorial about how farming isn't economical for small nations and they're better off producing other raws.
-
1
-
-
Breaking my no micros rule, but I was curious.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
@Cypher as requested.
Just as a general note on these, I omitted VMers which is why you don't see Seb on the KETOG chart, and although I tried to include offshores, I'm sure I missed a few of those.
-
7
-
A noble goal.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I made these graphs as part of a conversation in Discord, figured I'd share in case anybody else finds them interesting.
If anybody has a request it only takes a minute or two for me to make Excel spit one of these out. No Micros though.
-
6
-
3
-
1
-
1 hour ago, CandyShi said:
What ground do you have to stand on if you're too dumb to realize what you've admitted here?
Here's an official post from the leader of BK saying that he doesn't think we have any ground (for negotiations I assume, otherwise this post is less intelligible than the average trump post. You don't need ground to surrender, you need ground to negotiate), which means that they wouldn't even allow us to negotiate even if we agreed to the term, thus proving my point.
Edit: And before you deviate from the point and say my first sentence doesn't make sense... that was the point.
If you're going to flamebait at least try to be comprehensible. 3/10
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
7
-
1
-
11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:
Put simply, we had some informal agreements and were given previous statements that weren't consistent with what eventually transpired. I'm not going to delve into the details as I don't need to throw out people's dirty laundry here but NPO, I'm sure, is aware of the details. Yet what we were told is that GPWC had the reasonable desire to hit Empy after all of their antics, but somehow this was morphed into a need to hit Coalition B. Those aren't one and the same as we saw with T$' and your original entry into the war. You can hit targeted alliances and declare rules especially with the strategic nightmare that GPWC represents to the lower tier of Coalition A. AFAIK GPWC wasn't informed or given this option in their decision-making. I really like Anna and some of the other guinea pigs, so I'm hoping that this case was just one of miscommunication or maybe manipulation of outside actors versus one of deception. I mean it might've been that if they tried to follow T$' original entry that they would've had Chaos counter (even if as a Chaos gov that isn't necessarily probable due to the strategic situation), but that is the worst case possibility and it would represent the situation today. Thus, it would've made sense for them to take that tact, but it seems like they were told that the current path was the only viable path.
Hitting Empyrea only and expecting you guys not to counter for them would have been the naive option. The biggest threats were eliminated first and thanks to that GPWC has faced near-zero resistance carving through Coalition A's low tier and bathing in your loot and burnt steel. You need to take a step back if you think the path of entry most beneficial to TKR (Only hitting Empy and giving TKR et. al. the option to counter) is the correct one for GPWC.
-
I'd like to take this time to remind Coalition A that you wouldn't have had to fight GOONS or GPWC if you hadn't attacked them first. There sure is a lot of !@#$ing about them on here considering that y'all literally dragged them into a war they had no intention of joining.
Imagine sacrificing the low tier just so you could have another thing to whine about on the forums ?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
You're welcome ?
-
5
-
8
The Competition for #1 Spot is over
in Orbis Central
Posted · Edited by Pop
Well it was 2016, City counts were significantly lower. With the exception of aberrations like TI, scores from years ago are never going to seem big compared to current ones.
I trust that thing about as far as I can throw Alex. Although if that was the day they got hit then it would be an explainable discrepancy.