Stats for the stats god!

[LordRahl2]

i'm speaking of the infra damage done that date back to late april when tS attacked Alpha to start global tensions.

Yeah. Steves war of stupidity is related to but not the same as the war of NPO agression (this war).

[Yosodog]

Yosodoge, I've told you what it takes to get me to join. And my nation IS winning. I have dished out more damage than received multiple times over.

 

I didn't say your nation wasn't winning your wars, I said your nation wasn't winning the overall war. One nation doesn't win wars, and unfortunately you seem to be the only one who has a clue.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Yosodog

[Yosodog]

Can you tell my alliance leaders that?

 

This is why I'm saying you should join a better alliance. Join BK, we care about you and your memes. Sparta is basically the anti-meme.

[Placentica]

Yeah. Steves war of stupidity is related to but not the same as the war of NPO agression (this war).

So you are so concerned about my well-being but continue to shitpost me? You are hilarious.  You make me laugh bro.

 

What is more interesting is Alpha has done $8-9 billion in infra damage to The Syndicate/CS and will most likely do $10b in total damage between the wars.   That is far more than any other alliance in this game.

 

So all the poo you are flinging at Alpha and me.....it just means we are doing something right.  If The Syndicate hadn't been so over the top psycho in the character attacks they might have gotten the quick war they wanted.  Much like how we peaced out TEst after only 5 days or so.

[LordRahl2]

So you are so concerned about my well-being but continue to shitpost me? You are hilarious.  You make me laugh bro.

 

What is more interesting is Alpha has done $8-9 billion in infra damage to The Syndicate/CS and will most likely do $10b in total damage between the wars.   That is far more than any other alliance in this game.

 

So all the poo you are flinging at Alpha and me.....it just means we are doing something right.  If The Syndicate hadn't been so over the top psycho in the character attacks they might have gotten the quick war they wanted.  Much like how we peaced out TEst after only 5 days or so.

 

 

Shitpost you?  nah bro.  I just named the war.  Poo flinging?  Really?

 

What is actually interesting is that you don't or cannot comprehend why you are losing and why t$ knows that your attacks are ineffectual.

 

Saying your actions are dumb does not mean you are doing something right.  It simply means that I know that your actions are dumb.

[Placentica]

Shitpost you?  nah bro.  I just named the war.  Poo flinging?  Really?

 

What is actually interesting is that you don't or cannot comprehend why you are losing and why t$ knows that your attacks are ineffectual.

 

Saying your actions are dumb does not mean you are doing something right.  It simply means that I know that your actions are dumb.

Where have I said Alpha is winning?  Do you want me to repeat this for the 100th time: Alpha is losing their war against tS.  A 30 nation alliance was never going to win against a 100 nation alliance and the 30 nation alliance that was needed to help tS.

 

The Syndicate has been out-damaged this war in terms of value of infra lost and it also is winning it's war against Alpha.  Maybe comprehension is more a problem with you.

[LordRahl2]

Where have I said Alpha is winning?  Do you want me to repeat this for the 100th time: Alpha is losing their war against tS.  A 30 nation alliance was never going to win against a 100 nation alliance and the 30 nation alliance that was needed to help tS.

 

The Syndicate has been out-damaged this war in terms of value of infra lost and it also is winning it's war against Alpha.  Maybe comprehension is more a problem with you.

 

Losing as a consideration of all things.  Note that I did not say losing "the war" I just said losing.  Out damaging in terms of infra is irrelevant in this case.  And it is that lack of comprehension that is clearly a problem for you.

[Placentica]

Losing as a consideration of all things.  Note that I did not say losing "the war" I just said losing.  Out damaging in terms of infra is irrelevant in this case.  And it is that lack of comprehension that is clearly a problem for you.

You just basically requoted my post you know.  So thank you.

[LordRahl2]

You just basically requoted my post you know.

 

no.

[Buorhann]

Steve, there's a big difference here. You may have caused more damage (by now), but we can actually afford it.

 

I'd argue that Alpha has lost more in economic potential than Syndicate has by far.

[Placentica]

no.

This exchange is really quite typical for you.  When forced to actually provide content you ultimately resort to shitposting again.  I guess that is one way to "end" an exchange.  You have a nice day.

 

there's a big difference here. You may have caused more damage (by now), but we can actually afford it.

 

I'd argue that Alpha has lost more in economic potential than Syndicate has by far.

You can argue that if you wish, I don't really care. But arguing against Alpha doing more $ in infra damage to tS than taken is factually inaccurate.  And it errodes any sort of argument you can make if you won't admit to the facts. Just like I have never had any problems admitting tS was beating Alpha, it really isn't a big deal for you to admit we fought hard and have done more $ infra damage to you than taken.  Why is that so hard for you to admit?  I get it, you feel in "debate tactics" that you must never admit anything no matter how objectively true it is.

 

When you see the poster, and immediately dismiss his post, even if that post contains 100% verfied facts, it just makes you look silly.  And that leads me to believe you are just another tS shitposter.

 

To be honest, if you can't really do this, just put me on ignore.  In fact, I think all of Mensa and The Syndicate should do that, not sure why you don't.

[LordRahl2]

This exchange is really quite typical for you. When forced to actually provide content you ultimately resort to shitposting again. I guess that is one way to "end" an exchange. You have a nice day.

 

You can argue that if you wish, I don't really care. But arguing against Alpha doing more $ in infra damage to tS than taken is factually inaccurate. And it errodes any sort of argument you can make if you won't admit to the facts. Just like I have never had any problems admitting tS was beating Alpha, it really isn't a big deal for you to admit we fought hard and have done more $ infra damage to you than taken. Why is that so hard for you to admit? I get it, you feel in "debate tactics" that you must never admit anything no matter how objectively true it is.

 

 

Hahaha. You responded not at all like you didn't even read what i said. Fine. For the whatever(th) time. You are making an economic claim that yall did more infra damage which equals economic damage. You actually cannot possibly do so. The cost of a nuke excedes the economic damage it causes to short cities. Period. That loss to you combined with the money you are not making combined with your early war losses blows your argument out of the water. This has been explained to you before and you just ignore it though.

[Ogaden]

How the hell are we on the leaderboard already lol

[Buorhann]

Steve, I know it's pretty to see Infra damage and you immediately go, "ADD THAT THE LIST OF DAMAGE WE DID", but you completely ignore your own costs to perform that and the lack of revenue you are (not) generating.

 

 

If anything, it really shows how terrible of a perception you have when it comes to war.  Very basic, rather.

 

 

Although if you're trying to make Alpha out to be the North Korea of our world here, you're doing a superb job.

[PigInZen]

The idiocy with which nukes are flung around amazes me.  I for one am not about to delve into just how much nukes hurt your position in the strategic sense.  And I'm not talking about having one dropped on you, I'm talking about what happens when you drop it.

[Crust]

You can argue that if you wish, I don't really care. But arguing against Alpha doing more $ in infra damage to tS than taken is factually inaccurate.  And it errodes any sort of argument you can make if you won't admit to the facts. Just like I have never had any problems admitting tS was beating Alpha, it really isn't a big deal for you to admit we fought hard and have done more $ infra damage to you than taken.  Why is that so hard for you to admit?  I get it, you feel in "debate tactics" that you must never admit anything no matter how objectively true it is.

However infra damage at this point in time is irrelevant when it comes to the Alpha vs t$ war.

 

Just like I wouldn't think Mike Tyson was actually losing if he was in a fight with someone who got hit so hard they fell in to a coma. If that opponent spasmed out and slapped Tyson's legs or something that might be a tiny bit annoying but I don't see Tyson giving up, seeing his boxing career in shambles.

[Phiney]

What is more interesting is Alpha has done $8-9 billion in infra damage to The Syndicate/CS and will most likely do $10b in total damage between the wars. That is far more than any other alliance in this game.

 

Didn't nk do over 8 bil damage in a single round? Alpha has one boasting point and it's even beaten in that. Sad.

[tenk]

Yeah. Steves war of stupidity is related to but not the same as the war of NPO agression (this war).

 

[Placentica]

Didn't nk do over 8 bil damage in a single round? Alpha has one boasting point and it's even beaten in that. Sad.

So your argument is "You got beat by Usain Bolt in the 100-yard dash, finished 2nd, and only got the silver medal. That is sad."

 

NK attacked GPA's super high infra nations and did 9b dmg by dropping 217 nukes. That was impressive in their precision and GPA attacking them to allow them to completely unload their payload before it could be spied away in such a short period of time. That has to be the most $infra dmg done by a single alliance in the history of PnW in a 5 day period. Alpha dropped 137 nukes in the first 5 day of actual game-time war for about 6.4b in damage. After the first 5 days damage scales down dramatically as it's about a daily nuke vs. nuking all targets. By comparison Mensa did about 5.3B in $infra damage the first 5 days of war, which seems to be the top for BK/tS's coalition and Mensa is winning most wars vs. losing like Alpha/NK. By further comparison BoC has done 635m total in $infra dmg over 5-7 days.

 

Am I not allowed to highlight areas of strength? Or areas where Alpha has fought a prolonged war and then nearing 60-days of war still been able to deal $750m in $infra dmg the last few days? Can I not be proud of Alpha's member war performance despite being in a losing position due to the odds against us?

 

Hahaha. You responded not at all like you didn't even read what i said. Fine. For the whatever(th) time. You are making an economic claim that yall did more infra damage which equals economic damage. You actually cannot possibly do so. The cost of a nuke excedes the economic damage it causes to short cities. Period. That loss to you combined with the money you are not making combined with your early war losses blows your argument out of the water. This has been explained to you before and you just ignore it though.

This is much better than your usual "no" reply.

 

First off, you are wrong in your numbers. The cost of a nuke is around $4-5m with our resource stockpiles. 95% of our nukes were hitting cities that had more than $5m in infra. And nearly all/most/some cities were ones that had at least $7/15/25m in infra. Plus radiation cost which adds a small amount to the economic damage. This is also a flawed argument in the sense that you ignore many other political factors such as being attacked again, appearing weak and an easy mark (like GPA showed itself to be by peacing out NK in just 5 days) and the economic risk of that and raiders thinking we also an easy mark and won't fight back with nukes.

 

To address the 2nd part. Would you tell BK/tS that they are taking a economic hit by wasting gas/munitions/steel/alum in war? No, because war doesn't happen for economic reasons, quite the opposite. War is always costly in purely economic terms. So the argument, "it's cheaper to do this" fails because it's not about what is better for a nation's economic growth. It's war. It's fun and it's destructive. If you want to make an economic argument against war, you better be in the GPA, lol. If wars were fought based on economics, we would only have raids on inactives.

 

Your argument is flawed in that you also ignore that we were attacked, not doing the attacking. We did not have a choice you suggest we should've made. And if you want to go there about peace terms, you have to apply some unit of measure for political terms, which is nearly impossible to convert into agreeable economic terms.

 

So it's best to stick with the hard facts and stats and not conjecture about how political decisions effect economic ones that may or may not happen.

 

And yes, I answered both of you seriously, not in anger or humor, but to discuss things like adults because we'd all agree these forums need less shitposting if they are going to be a safe place for new members to learn, grow, and enjoy this game.

[Phiney]

Actually I was more just correcting your incorrect (I see a trend) statement. 'that is far more than any other alliance in the game' not only is it not far more, it's not even more. If you're gonna boast, which you are more than welcome to, at least do it with facts.

[Placentica]

However infra damage at this point in time is irrelevant when it comes to the Alpha vs t$ war.

 

Just like I wouldn't think Mike Tyson was actually losing if he was in a fight with someone who got hit so hard they fell in to a coma. If that opponent spasmed out and slapped Tyson's legs or something that might be a tiny bit annoying but I don't see Tyson giving up, seeing his boxing career in shambles.

Infra damage is always relevant. Without infra you cannot war, you cannot buy troops, you cannot grow, you cannot afford new cities. If Alpha did enough infra damage to tS, tS wouldn't be able to do any of these things after it's warchest had be used up. Likewise, if tS did enough infra damage to Alpha, after our warchest was used up, we couldn't grow.

 

Infrastructure is the backbone of this game, you need it for nearly everything. It's the main metric for who is losing or winning wars also. Military is the precursor metric, but that leads directly into infra dmg afterwards.

 

To address your exact instance, if Alpha somehow managed to rebuild and do $5b in infra damage to tS next week, you damn well bet that would be relevant - either to extend the war when tS realized we had that kind of cash left to ending it because the damage was too much (just a hypothetical, I doubt that would be how they would react), to actually zero'ing out tS military (again a hypothetical, not likely in this instance lol).

 

Your example fails in that Alpha is not in a coma, we are actively making decisions like defending Sparta by attacking CS. Given that, if we were constantly tapping Mike Tyson on the head, eventually he would get annoyed and seek to stop that from happening, as tS first approached us to seek peace, not the other way around which illustrates my point. Given that in PnW, tS can't put us in a coma as there is no game mechanic to "inactivate nation", it's a flawed example. Sure Mike Tyson can keep hitting us to the ground but due to game mechanics, we can keep getting up and tapping him on the head.

[Placentica]

Actually I was more just correcting your incorrect (I see a trend) statement. 'that is far more than any other alliance in the game' not only is it not far more, it's not even more. If you're gonna boast, which you are more than welcome to, at least do it with facts.

You misread my statement.  I updated numbers for the last week data and I was low on my my 8-9b and 10b numbers, so my apologies.  We are up to 10b right now and close to 11b if you count CS and most likely heading towards $12b.  If you include TEst add 2.38b to those numbers.

 

I said: "What is more interesting is Alpha has done $8-9 billion in infra damage to The Syndicate/CS and will most likely do $10b in total damage between the wars. That is far more than any other alliance in this game."

 

This is 100% a fact that can be verified.

 

Secondly, $10b is $1,000,000,000 more than NK did.  If you want to argue that nearly 2x the total BoC has done this entire war is not "far more", you are welcome to do so, as I agree that is a very subjective qualifier.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Someone needs to make a Hitler bunker rant video with him shouting about how he did billions of dollars of damage to Russia so therefore that means he wins

[Jodo]

Someone needs to make a Hitler bunker rant video with him shouting about how he did billions of dollars of damage to Russia so therefore that means he wins

Nah. He'd take it personally and go to the mods with some silly rule question. Unlike Emily back in the day, who shrugged it off and laughed.

[LordRahl2]

This is much better than your usual "no" reply.First off, you are wrong in your numbers. The cost of a nuke is around $4-5m with our resource stockpiles. 95% of our nukes were hitting cities that had more than $5m in infra. And nearly all/most/some cities were ones that had at least $7/15/25m in infra. Plus radiation cost which adds a small amount to the economic damage. This is also a flawed argument in the sense that you ignore many other political factors such as being attacked again, appearing weak and an easy mark (like GPA showed itself to be by peacing out NK in just 5 days) and the economic risk of that and raiders thinking we also an easy mark and won't fight back with nukes.To address the 2nd part. Would you tell BK/tS that they are taking a economic hit by wasting gas/munitions/steel/alum in war? No, because war doesn't happen for economic reasons, quite the opposite. War is always costly in purely economic terms. So the argument, "it's cheaper to do this" fails because it's not about what is better for a nation's economic growth. It's war. It's fun and it's destructive. If you want to make an economic argument against war, you better be in the GPA, lol. If wars were fought based on economics, we would only have raids on inactives.Your argument is flawed in that you also ignore that we were attacked, not doing the attacking. We did not have a choice you suggest we should've made. And if you want to go there about peace terms, you have to apply some unit of measure for political terms, which is nearly impossible to convert into agreeable economic terms.So it's best to stick with the hard facts and stats and not conjecture about how political decisions effect economic ones that may or may not happen.And yes, I answered both of you seriously, not in anger or humor, but to discuss things like adults because we'd all agree these forums need less shitposting if they are going to be a safe place for new members to learn, grow, and enjoy this game.

Actually, I normally reply with substance to people who listen.

 

Cost of nukes: You freely admit the starting cost which is good. You then acknowledge that they consume resources, which is good. But see your bolded text - you cannot write off the resource cost because it is in your stockpile. If you bought the resources they cost you something and if you made them they are valued at the opportunity cost of selling them. So yeah, significantly more than 5m.

 

You them claim that it is not an economic argument. Of course it is but you know this. Scroll through your very own responses to see that it is you who define cost as the factor of record. How many times did you type b, billions, or type out 1,000,000,00 in your response to Phiney alone? So obviously it is an economic argument to you. So yeah, it is super easy for me to look at your score range and all the potential targets in it and say that you are spending more per nuke right now than you are doing in infra damage (to include accounting for radiation) by a wide margin. NK could do this because they were hitting tall cities...you cannot hit those because of your low score value. I would actually suggest to t$ that they actually ZI you in order to further errode your effeciveness at this point.

 

Now if you think you are winning a political battle in some way...ok. I will never talk you off that ledge so carry on.

 

You were attacked and therefore you cannot accept a white peace. We get it, you really really wanted a NAP too. But unless you and your opponent were lying they straight up offered to end the war with zero other concessions. So having lost...you refused. K. That is your porogative. Again, carry on.

 

As to war being fun -I agree. However, it is also economics. War is also having fun wrecking tall cities which sets people and warchests etc back months (cost effectively). That is part of the reason the community gets riled up as GPA, who you mention, grows. At some point they need to be trimmed as an economic fact. And yeah, we know how much an airstrike costs and at what level bombing infra becomes cost innefective...and we dont do that(we make no "warchest" distinction either). See, easy to understand.

 

I am totally down with sticking to hard facts. So lets review those: You got destroyed and have suffered a huge potential economic loss for a sigificant period of time. Your current response of tossing nukes is cost innefective for you at your score level. You were offered a white peace that you declined. There are your hard facts friend. But feel free to ignore and keep doing what you are doing for as long as you like.