UPN Recognition of Hostilities

[Clarke]

Hmmm, this is certainly interesting! Seems like Sheepy's recent mechanics change has shift the favor of wars into blob-style alliances? That means UPN and BK benefits the most due to high number of membership? Since the mechanics changes, it has shown an increased favor in attackers and the defenders have their advantage stripped off. Well, I want to see a counter-attack in defense. If it is not possible then clearly the blob-style alliances has the advantages due to mechanics changes, making alliances with these type a prime target to join.

 

So meaning, in the next alliance war, it will be about the number of membership and the activity of members - less about military and cities strength? Assuming that my prediction is correct.

Defenders had an advantage? 

I don't think you're fit to make predictions if you think Defenders had the advantage. 

I think defenders now will be a bit harder to beat outright than before under the same variables except the score change. 

 

I mean if you want evidence of defenders winning well this war sorta provides a snippet of evidence. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Clarke

[Stormrideron]

Defenders had an advantage? 

I don't think you're fit to make predictions if you think Defenders had the advantage. 

I think defenders now will be a bit harder to beat outright than before under the same variables except the score change.

 

What I meant is that with the recent score change, the defenders who gets rolled are more prone to get rolled even further in low tiers. There is no way for the defenders to fight back if they keep on getting rolled from all the tiers. The cities and projects are what gives these nations very high score that is enough to be attack by mid-tier.

 

So what I am saying, before the change it heavily relies on teamworking and collaboration the efforts. So it would take 3 low tiers to take down a mid tier, 3 mif tiers to take down a high tier nation.

 

Now after the change, it is completely the oppose and requires no teamwprking any whosoever.

[Clarke]

What I meant is that with the recent score change, the defenders who gets rolled are more prone to get rolled even further in low tiers. There is no way for the defenders to fight back if they keep on getting rolled from all the tiers. The cities and projects are what gives these nations very high score that is enough to be attack by mid-tier.

 

So what I am saying, before the change it heavily relies on teamworking and collaboration the efforts. So it would take 3 low tiers to take down a mid tier, 3 mif tiers to take down a high tier nation.

 

Now after the change, it is completely the oppose and requires no teamwprking any whosoever.

Well I can't agree with that since alliances got rolled into the low tiers prior to this change and never got back up in a meaningful way to fight back. If you all get rolled into the low tier and aren't outnumbered then you can fight back with teamwork and make your way back up, that existed before and it still exists now. 

What military force constitutes mid tier? I think nations have a good chance to knock mid tier nations down with their superior amount of cities and by using teamwork. 

Teamwork can beat anything, teamwork hasn't disappeared. 

 

 

So it would take 3 low tiers to take down a mid tier, 3 mif tiers to take down a high tier nation.

 

No teamwork is possible anymore? how? Can this still not happen, 3 people can still take down a more powerful nation. 

[Saru]

Now after the change, it is completely the oppose and requires no teamwprking any whosoever.

 

You must of missed the part where we took out several Arrgh nations purely by teamwork -- as the vast majority of our nations were nowhere near to being fully militarised, and most were under 50% of available military. 

 

I don't see why Arrgh cannot own up to their own mistakes, and must continue to blame the game mechanics. Yes we benefited from the game mechanics, but you made the initial strike -- and I assume it did not turn out as well as you expected.

[Pangui]

Hmmm, this is certainly interesting! Seems like Sheepy's recent mechanics change has shift the favor of wars into blob-style alliances? That means UPN and BK benefits the most due to high number of membership? Since the mechanics changes, it has shown an increased favor in attackers and the defenders have their advantage stripped off. Well, I want to see a counter-attack in defense. If it is not possible then clearly the blob-style alliances has the advantages due to mechanics changes, making alliances with these type a prime target to join.

 

So meaning, in the next alliance war, it will be about the number of membership and the activity of members - less about military and cities strength? Assuming that my prediction is correct.

Arrgh where the attackers. UPN made the counter-attack in defense, what you wish to see has already been done.

[Stormrideron]

You must of missed the part where we took out several Arrgh nations purely by teamwork -- as the vast majority of our nations were nowhere near to being fully militarised, and most were under 50% of available military.

That is a great example that encourages pixel-huggers. However, if your alliance were to be fully militarized, then there will be no value of teamwork as a rampaging alliance fully militarized with sheer number of membership will be able to wreck anything in their path.

I don't see why Arrgh cannot own up to their own mistakes, and must continue to blame the game mechanics.

It is because the game mechanics was working perfectly fine and there was no need to change at all. It is the players that fails to adapt. Like I said, it is not our fault that others chose to go economic path. It is your and others' mistake, not our. Get it right, buddy. Do not deflect the facts due to your inexperience of previous game mechanics.

 

Yes we benefited from the game mechanics,

This game mechanics promote more players to go pixel-hugger build while using minimum military effort. So you are saying a poorly militarized and ranked #1 alliance should be able to beat anything? Even a very highly militarized and tiny alliances? Where is the gameplay? It is largely due to UPN's sheer number of membership. It is where the strength comes from.

 

but you made the initial strike -- and I assume it did not turn out as well as you expected.

Fyi, I am not in Arrgh Alliance. I am a solo raider. So, I don't partake in this alliance wars. I am merely making an observation on this current wars. Edited April 7, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Stormrideron]

Arrgh where the attackers. UPN made the counter-attack in defense, what you wish to see has already been done.

Read above.

[Pangui]

That is a great example that encourages pixel-huggers. However, if your alliance were to be fully militarized, then there will be no value of teamwork as a rampaging alliance fully militarized with sheer number of membership will be able to wreck anything in their path.

We had already started the process of militarization, and had around 20 members already fully built up to prepared to be attack. It still takes 5 days to max out tanks, and 6 to max out planes, meaning maxed out attackers still have the number advantage over less prepared defenders.

 

 

 

It is because the game mechanics was working perfectly fine and there was no need to change at all. It is the players that fails to adapt. Like I said, it is not our fault that others chose to go economic path. It is your and others' mistake, not our. Get it right, buddy. Do not deflect the facts due to your inexperience of previous game mechanics.

 

Point is moot. Game mechanics have changed, deal with it. Arrgh is the one failing to adapt.

 

 

This game mechanics promote more players to go pixel-hugger build while using minimum military effort. So you are saying a poorly militarized and ranked #1 alliance should be able to beat anything? Even a very highly militarized and tiny alliances? Where is the gameplay? It is largely due to UPN's sheer number of membership. It is where the strength comes from.

 

It's not like we had no members maxed out, and it wasn't like attacks from Arrgh where something we didn't see coming. Arrgh took the risk of trying to neutralize UPN before we would be able to fight. Arrgh could not fill every UPN slot, and left people available to strike them back. I'm sure you could take down a larger alliance, Arrgh just failed to do it. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Pangui

[Saru]

That is a great example that encourages pixel-huggers. However, if your alliance were to be fully militarized, then there will be no value of teamwork as a rampaging alliance fully militarized with sheer number of membership will be able to wreck anything in their path.

 

It's not about pixel-hugging. It's just not efficient in the long term to be permanently militarised, and as an alliance we took the decision to not be fully militarised all the time. The trade off is that you leave yourself somewhat exposed -- and we have some measures in place for that, but that's another topic. We were vulnerable, Arrgh's attack was just nowhere near good enough to be effective. I'm pretty confident if you had Mensa/TEst/tS members in the same position, they would of given us a lot of trouble.

 

If we're talking about teamwork, then let's point out that Arrgh's initial attack was awful compared to the standards set by other alliances out there. I haven't seen much teamwork from them, which is odd given that the war was started by them on their terms. I suspect that perhaps not all members agree with it and are not as equally invested as the likes of Ogaden?

 

Arrgh's plan seemed to be to target some of our inactive members who weren't prepared, to do as much infra damage as possible. Instead of targeting the active members who were beginning to build up their militaries. I think had Arrgh co-ordinated their attacks better, and prioritised targets who were potential threats, they could of made this war a lot more difficult for us.

 

That said, all things being equal a 150 member alliance should beat a 50 member alliance. Stop acting as if Arrgh have been excellent at war in this case, and there has been no coordination from UPN. I would argue that UPN have been far more co-operative and tactical, but let's just say that we were on an equal footing in that regard... then like I said, I don't see what's wrong with an alliance with 150 members beating one with 50.

 

tl;dr if Arrgh actually put effort into this and approached it strategically they could of hurt us pretty bad, as we were vulnerable. We would of dragged the win out in the end (perhaps even need to call on our allies), but it would of been at a much higher cost.

 

It is because the game mechanics was working perfectly fine and there was no need to change at all. It is the players that fails to adapt. Like I said, it is not our fault that others chose to go economic path. It is your and others' mistake, not our. Get it right, buddy. Do not deflect the facts due to your inexperience of previous game mechanics.

 

The game mechanics were working perfectly fine according to you. Clearly the vast majority of the player base did not agree.

 

And in case you missed my earlier posts, I have traditionally been against changes to the war system. Just because I like the consistency, and see nothing wrong in players/alliances finding the optimal strategies that work for them. We all operated within the same constraints, so like I have repeatedly said, it was fair in my mind. So do not attribute other peoples opinions to me 'buddy'. 

 

Many UPN'ers would agree with me. So this whole rhetoric about UPN being the one to lobby for the changes, and now being opportunistic is false. Because most of the UPN'ers I have spoken to had no issues with the system itself (although they did find Arrgh frustrating), and secondly Arrgh attacked us not the other way around, making the whole "opportunistic" accusation invalid.

 

 

This game mechanics promote more players to go pixel-hugger build while using minimum military effort. So you are saying a poorly militarized and ranked #1 alliance should be able to beat anything? Even a very highly militarized and tiny alliances? Where is the gameplay? It is largely due to UPN's sheer number of membership. It is where the strength comes from.

 

 

I don't know what exactly the new changes promote, it's too early on to tell I feel. Or at least I haven't looked into all of the new additions in enough depth to judge.

 

And no I did not say that a poorly militarised alliance should be able to beat anything. Like I already said, had Arrgh coordinated and put a real strategy in place against us, they would of had us in trouble. The key point here is that there was a lack of skill from Arrgh themselves in this attack, and perhaps that can be attributed to people feeling demotivated about the new updates/not all members being keen on the war -- I don't know.

 

Our strength in this particular has come from good fortune that Arrgh did not pull of a succesful first wave, and that we coordinated well and focused on the priority targets with high military. We adopted an effective strategy, Arrgh did not.

 

 

Fyi, I am not in Arrgh Alliance. I am a solo raider. So, I don't partake in this alliance wars. I am merely making an observation on this current wars.

 

 

You may not be, but your bias in your arguments is clearly showing.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Saru

[Buorhann]

>goes into vacation mode

>still having conversations on the forums

>this isn't "abusing vacation mode"

[Stormrideron]

It's not about pixel-hugging. It's just not efficient in the long term to be permanently militarised, and as an alliance we took the decision to not be fully militarised all the time. The trade off is that you leave yourself somewhat exposed -- and we have some measures in place for that, but that's another topic. We were vulnerable, Arrgh's attack was just nowhere near good enough to be effective. I'm pretty confident if you had Mensa/TEst/tS members in the same position, they would of given us a lot of trouble.

 

In my perspective, it is pixel-hugger to me. Sheepy catered to you and other pixel-huggers because you guys were the most loudest and whines the most about it. To soothe the criers, Sheepy had to change the score formula so he can keep players and still make money off ya. Believe it or not, the recent score change is worse by the far. It has broken so many mechanics in this game. Of course, Mensa/Test/t$ will beat UPN easily, because the number of  their membership is much larger than UPN's membership alone when combined, it is a no wonder why they can beat you guys easily and give ya trouble. Let's not forget member activity too.

 

 

 

Arrgh's plan seemed to be to target some of our inactive members who weren't prepared, to do as much infra damage as possible. Instead of targeting the active members who were beginning to build up their militaries. I think had Arrgh co-ordinated their attacks better, and prioritised targets who were potential threats, they could of made this war a lot more difficult for us.

 

Well, I am certainly looking forward to the outcome of this war. 

 

 

That said, all things being equal a 150 member alliance should beat a 50 member alliance. Stop acting as if Arrgh have been excellent at war in this case, and there has been no coordination from UPN. I would argue that UPN have been far more co-operative and tactical, but let's just say that we were on an equal footing in that regard... then like I said, I don't see what's wrong with an alliance with 150 members beating one with 50.

 

Lol, you are telling me to stop acting that Arrgh is an excellent alliance at war? Well, I don't blame ya, UPN have struggled to become an effective alliance in the past two wars. UPN is incapable of militarize effectively and it takes them long time to coordinate their war efforts. The only thing why you guys are doing well initially is because the score change has allowed some of your active members to jump in and beat up the low-tier nations. You are not entitled to tell me what I should believe and what not to believe. If I believe Arrgh is doing excellent, then let it be so. Because they have a good reputation of being tough alliance and is the most feared alliance on an equivalent level of Mensa HQ. 

 

 

 

The game mechanics were working perfectly fine according to you. Clearly the vast majority of the player base did not agree.

 

And in case you missed my earlier posts, I have traditionally been against changes to the war system. Just because I like the consistency, and see nothing wrong in players/alliances finding the optimal strategies that work for them. We all operated within the same constraints, so like I have repeatedly said, it was fair in my mind. So do not attribute other peoples opinions to me 'buddy'. 

 

It is because these players who don't agree with it are inexperienced or pixel-huggers nations. You see, if everyone decides to stick to it and adapts to the previous game mechanics, it would certainly make it very interesting. The only thing you guys failed is because your alliance didn't take action against the raids. Now I see that your alliance is taking an action with the recent score change, UPN took advantage of it. It is a no-brainer here.

 

I want to see sources that you are traditionally against the changes to the war system.

 

 

 

Many UPN'ers would agree with me. So this whole rhetoric about UPN being the one to lobby for the changes, and now being opportunistic is false. Because most of the UPN'ers I have spoken to had no issues with the system itself (although they did find Arrgh frustrating), and secondly Arrgh attacked us not the other way around, making the whole "opportunistic" accusation invalid.

 

I know why your guys has no issue with the new war system because it caters to pixel-huggers pretty well. It is like giving out free candies to them to do minimal effort as they can. You took advantage of the new score change, so when the new score change comes in, UPN militarizes to prove that new mechanics works as intended. That is pretty dirty of UPN. You knew that if UPN militarizes during the previous score formula, Sheepy wouldn't had changed the score change. It is you and pixel-huggers that fail to adapt to the previous score change. 

 

 

 

And no I did not say that a poorly militarised alliance should be able to beat anything. Like I already said, had Arrgh coordinated and put a real strategy in place against us, they would of had us in trouble. The key point here is that there was a lack of skill from Arrgh themselves in this attack, and perhaps that can be attributed to people feeling demotivated about the new updates/not all members being keen on the war -- I don't know.

 

You implies that UPN who is "poorly" militarized and just has begun militarizing was capable of beating a small and well militarized alliance, namely Arrgh. 

 

 

 

Our strength in this particular has come from good fortune that Arrgh did not pull of a succesful first wave, and that we coordinated well and focused on the priority targets with high military. We adopted an effective strategy, Arrgh did not.

 

I find it hard to believe. Has the score forumla not changed, Arrgh would have literally mowed down your members with ease due to UPN obviously not taking military action because they feared Arrgh. Now you are treating it like it is nothing that you should fear because obviously the changes has shifted into blob alliances' favor.

 

 

 

You may not be, but your bias in your arguments is clearly showing.

What is wrong with me promoting my own interests? If I want to promote my own interests then I will do it. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Clarke]

What sort of deceit is this, hiding in vacation mode while complaining about the game being unfair. You can say you're not in Arrgh and that's true but you were in Arrgh and you participated in the mass raiding along with Arrgh on numerous alliances. I assume Arrgh was too limiting for you so you raided various other alliances Arrgh weren't mass raiding. 

 

 

The only thing why you guys are doing well initially is because the score change has allowed some of your active members to jump in and beat up the low-tier nations. You are not entitled to tell me what I should believe and what not to believe. If I believe Arrgh is doing excellent, then let it be so. Because they have a good reputation of being tough alliance and is the most feared alliance on an equivalent level of Mensa HQ. 

 

A nation with a military that is comparative to a high tier nation does not belong in the low tier or near the center&low mid tier. The difference is you think a nation which has a distinct advantage shouldn't be in range of nations with a similar sized military or a bunch of nation with a similar size. 

The low tier now has nations that belong in the low tier and same for all the other tiers, the nations in those tiers are now more similarly balanced than before. 

 

 

UPN took advantage of it. It is a no-brainer here.

If your logic is that they simply defended against an attack as soon as the game changed then yeah they unintentionally used the change but they did not initiate the act of taking use of it. 

 

 

I want to see sources that you are traditionally against the changes to the war system.

 

I can confirm that I hate Saru whenever he posts about not wanting aspects of the game to change, over the last year or more. 

 

 

You implies that UPN who is "poorly" militarized and just has begun militarizing was capable of beating a small and well militarized alliance, namely Arrgh. 

 

That's not entirely true, from my understanding Arrgh heavily demilitarized prior to the conflict. 

 

 

 

I find it hard to believe. Has the score forumla not changed, Arrgh would have literally mowed down your members with ease due to UPN obviously not taking military action because they feared Arrgh. Now you are treating it like it is nothing that you should fear because obviously the changes has shifted into blob alliances' favor.

 

Well that's related to some people talking in this thread about rumors of a coalition being built. 

 

 

What is wrong with me promoting my own interests? If I want to promote my own interests then I will do it. 

 

Nothing is wrong, I would do the same if my interests were reasonable. The change is beneficial for most people thus if I was against the change I would see it helped the game more than it hurt it. Which actually happened before when I had negative opinions of changes that I didn't particularly like on paper.

 

 

I think the only important thing to discuss is does teamwork still exist and the answer is absolutely yes and there was absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. You sound really whiny suggesting that as it is being a total drama queen proclaiming that the game has gone to hell. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Clarke

[Pangui]

lol Arrgh attacked UPN so UPN could be opportunistic and take advantage of the new score changes? 

 

We didn't intiate the conflict. It was Arrgh that choose to engage us after the score change, not the other way around. We are simply playing the game available to us. I know you would rather have Arrgh beat us, but it didn't happen. If Arrgh was as good as you seem them to believe, then they should of been able to cover our slots, and grind us out. Ultimately, they picked an opponent they could not handle, and are now paying the price. This war was fought on Arrgh's timeline, not ours. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Pangui

[Samdoo]

Glad UPN gets to fight and didn't have to sell down infra to fight. I still remember my fights with my raiders, it wasn't fun being down declared by someone who had 2 more cities than you. 

 

Best of luck in the fight. 

[Saru]

 

In my perspective, it is pixel-hugger to me. Sheepy catered to you and other pixel-huggers because you guys were the most loudest and whines the most about it. To soothe the criers, Sheepy had to change the score formula so he can keep players and still make money off ya. Believe it or not, the recent score change is worse by the far. It has broken so many mechanics in this game. Of course, Mensa/Test/t$ will beat UPN easily, because the number of  their membership is much larger than UPN's membership alone when combined, it is a no wonder why they can beat you guys easily and give ya trouble. Let's not forget member activity too.

 

All I see is baseless claims. The most vocal members of the community for the change, aren't even engaged in a war with Arrgh. 

 

And my point about tS/Mensa/TEst was referring to any of them being in Arrgh's position, as individual entities, not together in a coalition. i.e a scenario where they had their military built up, and they declared on us -- while we were exposed. I would bet that their first wave attack would of been effectively planned, and coordinated. Arrgh's attack was not. 

 

 

Lol, you are telling me to stop acting that Arrgh is an excellent alliance at war? Well, I don't blame ya, UPN have struggled to become an effective alliance in the past two wars. UPN is incapable of militarize effectively and it takes them long time to coordinate their war efforts. The only thing why you guys are doing well initially is because the score change has allowed some of your active members to jump in and beat up the low-tier nations. You are not entitled to tell me what I should believe and what not to believe. If I believe Arrgh is doing excellent, then let it be so. Because they have a good reputation of being tough alliance and is the most feared alliance on an equivalent level of Mensa HQ. 

 

 

If you are going to discuss a matter, then try and look at a situation objectively. If you think that Arrgh have been excellent in this particular war, then I guess we have different standards for excellence.

 

UPN was so poor and incapable at militarising, and lacked coordination, that an alliance that was prepared for war and made the first strike, was neutralised in a couple of days. 

 

I don't think you completely understand how the score changes work. It doesn't allow for nations with superior city numbers to militarise to full capacity and then attack much weaker nations, in fact many of our guys who were in the upper tier had to make sure they did not militarise fully otherwise they would of fell out of range. In many of the initial attacks Arrgh had significantly more units, but through a coordinated effort we were able to bring them down. Just look at the war declarations which are logged. It will be clear that UPN adopted an effective strategy, while Arrgh did not.

 

In regards to your comparison to Mensa. I have fought both Arrgh and Mensa several times. On both the 'losing' and 'winning' sides. Mensa's coordination far surpassed Arrgh's. Although Arrgh's lack of coordination in this war can probably be put down to several members losing motivation in playing the game or whatever (perhaps Ogaden can clear this up), as their performance in the last war with us was significantly better.

 

I am not telling you what to believe, merely presenting you with facts. You can choose to be ignorant and delude yourself if you wish.

 

It is because these players who don't agree with it are inexperienced or pixel-huggers nations. You see, if everyone decides to stick to it and adapts to the previous game mechanics, it would certainly make it very interesting. The only thing you guys failed is because your alliance didn't take action against the raids. Now I see that your alliance is taking an action with the recent score change, UPN took advantage of it. It is a no-brainer here.

 

 

Again, I took no issue with the previous game mechanics. I, and several other UPN members, advocated for war earlier on. That did not happen, and that's an entirely different topic.

 

You are yet again accusing us of being opportunists, and not recognising that Arrgh declared on us, after the game update, which means they knew the parameters they were operating under. And now you see several Arrgh members/supports acting like petulant children, because it did not go as they intended.

 

I want to see sources that you are traditionally against the changes to the war system.

 

I've spoken out against changes to the war system ever since the launch of the live version of the game. Go back through my post history/posts in the closed development forums if you want. 

 

 

I know why your guys has no issue with the new war system because it caters to pixel-huggers pretty well. It is like giving out free candies to them to do minimal effort as they can. You took advantage of the new score change, so when the new score change comes in, UPN militarizes to prove that new mechanics works as intended. That is pretty dirty of UPN. You knew that if UPN militarizes during the previous score formula, Sheepy wouldn't had changed the score change. It is you and pixel-huggers that fail to adapt to the previous score change. 

 

You again completely misinterpreted my post. I said that most UPN members I have spoken to had no issue with the previous war system. I am sure some did, as the alliance is composed of over 100 people, and the opinions will vary across the board. But trying to imply that UPN collectively lobbied for it, would be silly.

 

Have we benefited from the updated changes in this war? Sure. Are we opportunists? No. By the very fact that Arrgh declared on us, and not the other way around.

 

 

You implies that UPN who is "poorly" militarized and just has begun militarizing was capable of beating a small and well militarized alliance, namely Arrgh. 

 

 

Yes. We were poorly militarised initially, and Arrgh was fairly prepared. Arrgh should of been able to hurt us. But their failed initial wave, and our coordinated efforts to prioritise the biggest threats and neutralise them as soon as possible in response gave us the advantage. Had all the Arrgh members been motivated and invested in this war, and their leadership adopted an effective strategy, then I have no doubts they would of caused us problems. But they did not...

 

You have yourself said that you want teamwork and cooperation to be heavily weighed in terms of what decides the outcome of a war. Well in this specific war, UPN have been more organised and coordinated, and employed the more effective strategy. (As well as having the obvious advantage of having more members -- and I suspect superior amount of resources.)

 

What is wrong with me promoting my own interests? If I want to promote my own interests then I will do it. 

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with promoting your interests. But don't try to distance yourself from the Arrgh affiliation trying to imply that you have no stake in this, clearly you do, and your bias is showing. It also becomes hypocritical when you bash others for doing the same (i.e the people the called for the changes.) 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Saru

[Saru]

Just to add another point in addition to what I have said. Stormrideron you are acting as if Arrgh has been forever untouchable. In the last war, when they declared on us -- VE countered them and were able to effectively neutralise them.

[Ogaden]

I see a lot of claims that we botched the offensive, but that's not exactly true, we did what we could.

 

The bulk of our fighting strength quit prior to the war, and we tried to balance the tier imbalances by selling down our very high military levels, but there remained people in downdeclare range with 800, 900 planes and 7000, 8000 tanks.

 

Also we weren't well prepared for the war, I ordered the war to be started based on intelligence we received that you would attack us, and due to the fact that UPN nations had been spy attacking us all week, that seemed credible to me at the time.

 

UPN coordination hasn't been good, weight of numbers is not the same as coordinating.  The best coordinating opponents we've fought are probably Mensa and TEst.  The triple declare I got last night I could have broken out of if Sheepy hadn't changed the rebuy time on me to 4 hours after update

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ogaden

[Caecus]

In my perspective, it is pixel-hugger to me. Sheepy catered to you and other pixel-huggers because you guys were the most loudest and whines the most about it. To soothe the criers, Sheepy had to change the score formula so he can keep players and still make money off ya. Believe it or not, the recent score change is worse by the far. It has broken so many mechanics in this game. Of course, Mensa/Test/t$ will beat UPN easily, because the number of  their membership is much larger than UPN's membership alone when combined, it is a no wonder why they can beat you guys easily and give ya trouble. Let's not forget member activity too.

 

Whether or not you agree with Sheepy's changes, it's obvious that Arrgh utilized a loophole in the game mechanics and used it to their advantage. Kudos, by the way, to Arrgh and Mensa nations, it was ingenious. However, it does make the game broken, and Sheepy's changes are directed towards that. Sure, I would agree that the changes may be better. But it would be a mistake to think that Sheepy gave in to peer pressure and changed something that was "not broken."

[Saru]

I see a lot of claims that we botched the offensive, but that's not exactly true, we did what we could.

 

The bulk of our fighting strength quit prior to the war, and we tried to balance the tier imbalances by selling down our very high military levels, but there remained people in downdeclare range with 800, 900 planes and 7000, 8000 tanks.

 

Also we weren't well prepared for the war, I ordered the war to be started based on intelligence we received that you would attack us, and due to the fact that UPN nations had been spy attacking us all week, that seemed credible to me at the time.

 

You guys seemed to actively focus on targeting nations that weren't active and had no military. I suspect you wanted to do the most infrastructure damage possible. But the consequence of that was that you let our more active members continue building up their armies, and then we were able to plan out an effective counter offense.

 

As for the "intelligence", seems like someone played you and got what they wanted. It isn't the first time.

 

UPN coordination hasn't been good, weight of numbers is not the same as coordinating.  The best coordinating opponents we've fought are probably Mensa and TEst.

 

 

You can't expect the same standards of an 'elite' alliance with limited members, as one that openly recruits. Furthermore this war was pretty unexpected by the vast majority of us (atleast under these specific circumstances.) So all things considered, the fact that you declared on us and we were able to neutralise the biggest threats in your alliance within days while not being anywhere close to fully prepared, implies a level of coordination. The degree of it and whether it was "good" is debatable I guess, and I can't imagine you will ever give us credit. Either way, we have shown far more than you, in this particular case atleast... and it's a war that you started.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Saru

[Ogaden]

You guys seemed to actively focus on targeting nations that weren't active and had no military. I suspect you wanted to do the most infrastructure damage possible. But the consequence of that was that you let our more active members continue building up their armies, and then we were able to plan out an effective counter offense.

 

As for the "intelligence", seems like someone played you and got what they wanted. It isn't the first time.

 

 

You can't expect the same standards of an 'elite' alliance with limited members, as one that openly recruits. Furthermore this war was pretty unexpected by the vast majority of us (atleast under these specific circumstances.) So all things considered, the fact that you declared on us and we were able to neutralise the biggest threats in your alliance within days while not being anywhere close to fully prepared, implies a level of coordination. The degree of it and whether it was "good" is debatable I guess, and I can't imagine you will ever give us credit. Either way, we have shown far more than you, in this particular case atleast... and it's a war that you started.

 

Not necessarily, you guys were planning and arming for war with us, but the interpretation that this was a prelude to an attack was what was incorrect information.

 

That said, the way things were going this war was largely inevitable one way or another.

[Saru]

Not necessarily, you guys were planning and arming for war with us, but the interpretation that this was a prelude to an attack was what was incorrect information.

 

That said, the way things were going this war was largely inevitable one way or another.

 

Well if you were going to continue raiding us, our allies and protectorate, then yes it was inevitable (or atleast I hope so, given how overly-patient our government was with you guys.)  

 

Whether this escalated was entirely down to you guys though.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Saru

[Ogaden]

Well if you were going to continue raiding us, our allies and protectorate, then yes it was inevitable (or atleast I hope so, given how overly-patient our government was with you guys.)  

 

Whether this escalated was entirely down to you guys though.

 

Considering the constant provocations from your membership I would have to argue that no, that's not the case.

[Rob Semloh]

I'm still in shocked that the pro-Aargh crowd seem to actually believe that people will buy their narrative that this isn't 100% Arrgh's fault.

 

They literally attacked UPN, and are now trying to do everything except take ownership of what they did.

 

Here's how a typical Arrgh raid goes:

1. Aargh nation declares war on someone in a powerful/halfway decent alliance.

2. That nation gets countered by said alliance.

3. Arrgh nations see that a fellow pirate is being defended against, and those who are attacked by Aargh shouldn't defend themselves, so they counter the counters.

4. Either peace is reached somehow, which it usually is because Jacob does tend to try and avoid outright war, or it isn't and there's outright war.

 

This is one of those occasions where it resulted in outright war. I'm just confused as to why Aargh chose UPN.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Robert P. Holmes III

[Rob Semloh]

Considering the constant provocations from your membership I would have to argue that no, that's not the case.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding?

 

Have you slept through the last 8 months of Aargh members raiding all of Orbis on a whim without apology?

 

The entire planet has been trying to be patient with you guys as best we could.

[Bambino]

I see a lot of claims that we botched the offensive, but that's not exactly true, we did what we could.

 

The bulk of our fighting strength quit prior to the war, and we tried to balance the tier imbalances by selling down our very high military levels, but there remained people in downdeclare range with 800, 900 planes and 7000, 8000 tanks.

 

Also we weren't well prepared for the war, I ordered the war to be started based on intelligence we received that you would attack us, and due to the fact that UPN nations had been spy attacking us all week, that seemed credible to me at the time.

 

UPN coordination hasn't been good, weight of numbers is not the same as coordinating.  The best coordinating opponents we've fought are probably Mensa and TEst.  The triple declare I got last night I could have broken out of if Sheepy hadn't changed the rebuy time on me to 4 hours after update

 

Interesting how you seem to complain that the bulk of your fighting force quit and yet you pressed forward.  Sounds like poor leadership to me.  Any spy attacks that had occurred, to the best of my knowledge, came from very few people and from people who are in our lower tiers.  Did you come to UPN government, present proof that there were spy attacks ongoing by UPN members, and then request that it cease? If your answer was to essentially say "we're going to mass raid them instead even though our overall military capacity had been greatly weakened!", well, then you're a fool.  My guess is that we would have told you we would look into it and attempt to stop it and it would have probably ended (much to the chagrin of our member nations).

 

Blah blah blah, weight in numbers blah blah blah.  By the time I declared (less than 12 hrs after the initial wave of assaults by Arrrgh), there were only 2 people in range for me to hit and one of those fell out of range in less than 12 hrs from my first declaration.  All due to massive coordination by several members of UPN's council and junior council.  There are still a few stragglers here and there, mostly because people foolishly beiged, but that's another problem entirely.

 

I find it unlikely that you'd have escaped for long from the three people that declared on you last night, but hey, I'll grant it to you since you seem to need some sort of ice for all the burning going on over there.

Not necessarily, you guys were planning and arming for war with us, but the interpretation that this was a prelude to an attack was what was incorrect information.

 

That said, the way things were going this war was largely inevitable one way or another.

Citation needed.