Rose's Surrender

[Sisyphus]

Ehhh, this isn't really true. You've always had more alliances on your side and therefore more flexibility when it comes to war. 168 was somewhat even but every war you've had more.

Yeah, but our alliances have always tended to be smaller and generally outnumbered in every tier.

 

I'd say we were more flexible though, because assigning our resources to critical fronts has been make or break for us in the long run.

 

The coalition should've crushed us, but couldn't mobilise their people and threw their political advantage out the window almost immediately in Octoberfest.

 

Rose got straight up outclassed by t$ when it only had 30-40 members (to their 90-100) in Proxy, and t$ had to hold that front alone so their allies (few at the time) could focus an overwhelmingly large VE down to its knees. And that was coming off a sound defeat for Mensa, Guardian, and SK where the two former had to pay massive reps (for that stage of the game).

 

Our opponents have generally always had the bulk, we just managed to utilize our strength more effectively, plus a healthy amount of luck and help from wildcards like various paperless alliances.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Kastor]

Yeah, but our alliances have always tended to be smaller and generally outnumbered in every tier.

I'd say we were more flexible though, because assigning our resources to critical fronts has been make or break for us in the long run.

The coalition should've crushed us, but couldn't mobilise their people and threw their political advantage out the window almost immediately in Octoberfest.

Rose got straight up outclassed by t$ when it only had 30-40 members (to their 90-100) in Proxy, and t$ had to hold that front alone so their allies (few at the time) could focus an overwhelmingly large VE down to its knees. And that was coming off a sound defeat for Mensa, Guardian, and SK where the two former had to pay massive reps (for that stage of the game).

Our opponents have generally always had the bulk, we just managed to utilize our strength more effectively, plus a healthy amount of luck and help from wildcards like various paperless alliances.

Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.

 

Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.

 

Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.

 

Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Kastor

[Azaghul]

Pretty wordy way of saying you wanted to take revenge for (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like you said you were going to, but ok.

That's not what he said at all.  You're deliberately lying.

[Roquentin]

NPO made a choice prior to the war that was in the forecast for a long time. You chose wrong, Mull over your own failings instead of blaming someone else. It is an important part of improvement. I know you can do it. 

 

 

Yeah, no. We determined having our allies rolled by our historical enemies to was not something we would like to see happen. If building a third sphere was what they were getting at, it was poorly planned but that is pretty apparent with the help of hindsight. By all means continue your narrative though, if it makes you feel important. 

 

You realize no one cares about your condescension, especially given you weren't even around until after the events you cite? Again, we don't care about what you think as you're very self-serving in assessment.

 

Nope. The only reason your alliance was  seen as a potential partner for a third sphere was because it hinted that it wanted to change things up FA-wise. It didn't and then it was just based on a few relationships.  It had been exceedingly clear when the Alpha war happened that TKR didn't have NPO as a priority, so we looked at other options.  There was no one to do a third sphere with. A third sphere would require significant alliances from both sides to split off, which wasn't going to happen. TKR seemingly never even entertained such a notion.

 

I was very clear early on when people had the third sphere idea that tS-Alpha would likely to go to war, so we had no way of avoiding it if tS chose to hit Alpha.

 

 

 

 

As for NPO: Channel died due to a combination of factors:

- Jasmin stepped down

- I went on a hiatus (read: Inactive) for a bit

- etc.

 

moreover, that's entirely irrelevant and does not really devalidate my point in any way? Can you rephrase and tell me what you're trying to argue?

 

 

Channel died because you went away yes, but it was also closed  because no one trusted you.

edit: it was shut down ironically before the first thing happened by by her, so your assessment is totally off.

 

Alpha got a lot of flak for accusing you of paying Arrgh, but you have already named the actual source of the original theory that it was you, which is where Alpha got it from so you'll find the narrative. "We got along really well until Roq," to fall apart then.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Sisyphus]

Let's stop in Proxy, Rose had around 95 nations, of those, several couldn't actually fight because they were so high(top 10). tS had way for than 30 nations because they had merged with TEL. They had at least 58-60 nations. It was very even and Rose messed up their blitz, nothing more.

 

Also, VE wasn't that large, they were around the same strength as Rose.

 

Every war has been even. You guys usually have more alliances while Paracov has the bigger alliances. Your side is usually even in members and around the same in score.

 

Edit: Last war is proof of that, 585 to 585 members.

Even if I concede that point to you, because I could very well have the numbers wrong (I was in SK at the time), it doesn't harm my point.

 

Every war has been close and challenging, and based on what you're saying we've been able to coordinate more, smaller alliances against larger, less organized alliances with equal-at-best odds (statistically) .

 

Which made the deciding factor skill and not some overwhelming hegemonic monopoly over the game, especially when you consider Paragon and the Covenant were each on equal standing with our sphere individually at one time, and basically passed us back and forth like a hot potato until we grinded them down over time, we've been at war non-stop while Rose, UPN, and VE got a couple breaks to breath. NPO has basically only served as a buffer to reinforce their losses lately, which had kept the game pretty well balanced but ultimately served to maintain the bi-polar political climate.

 

This war wasn't exactly an easy win for us either, tbh, but we got through the same way we've gotten through the others.

 

So I'll reiterate: We just happened to win out in the long run, and our opposition is just bitter about it.

[donsberger]

Every war has been close and challenging, and based on what you're saying we've been able to coordinate more, smaller alliances against larger, less organized alliances with equal-at-best odds (statistically) .

 

I'm pretty sure Zoot has kept stuff showing each side of the war scores and Syndisphere side has always been lower

[Sans]

leave the shitposting to me, kayser, thanks

 

You don't get them to froth at the mouth as much as I do. 

[Beatrix]

You are not. We didn't know about the treaty until Hansaurius leaked it out, and if you had looked deeper you would find that "TS SUCKS" wasn't even an argument used much in the thread. Had you looked past the surface, you would have found that the treaty was canceled primarily because the argument was that the timing of the treaty (before war) and an "optional defense pact" would hurt us by letting you hit VE than help us. That and because UPN wasnt about to share intelligence with you.

 

No dobout you have other screenshots, maybe even one of the many times I ran for cheif librarian on an anti-TS platform, and you'll find the same reasoning instead of "TS SUCKS AND WE JUST WANT TO ROLL THEM".

 

As for the first part, I'm talking about how TS neglected to send anyone to pw.npowned.net and activity killed the join IrC channel and then hit an ally without warning. (Well, Steve leaked that you were going to hit us but you guys loudly denied it) while UPN did a better job communicating with UPN.

 

Lastly, NPO started out with equal treaties on both sides. 2 with shittysphere (TKR and SK) and 2 with Conevant. (Alpha and VE.) It wasn't until Alpha got hit that the tip weighed towards conevant. Heck, it was almost equal until TKR betrayed us.

 

I disagree, GK.

 

I was a member of UPN at the time this happened and I quite distinctively remember Saru and Hans saying they don't trust tS - we had multiple forum and IRC discussions where they've shown a consistent attitude against signing with tS. I'm not sure how long the NPO treaty was discussed as I was a new member in UPN back then and had no valued opinion/word on it.

Actually, I remember that Saru asked what I thought and I didn't quite know what to say.

 

I can only speak for myself here, but back then I remember thinking that signing with NPO was the last nail in the coffin - meaning that we would surely be struck first and quickly by the opposing sphere. 

 

 

I don't think Hans (or Saru) were wrong, or incorrect in their actions, but I definitely think that signing NPO and moving away from the tS ODP was very heavily influenced by them.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Beatrix

[Azaghul]

Even if I concede that point to you, because I could very well have the numbers wrong (I was in SK at the time), it doesn't harm my point.

 

Every war has been close and challenging, and based on what you're saying we've been able to coordinate more, smaller alliances against larger, less organized alliances with equal-at-best odds (statistically) .

 

Which made the deciding factor skill and not some overwhelming hegemonic monopoly over the game, especially when you consider Paragon and the Covenant were each on equal standing with our sphere individually at one time, and basically passed us back and forth like a hot potato until we grinded them down over time, we've been at war non-stop while Rose, UPN, and VE got a couple breaks to breath. NPO has basically only served as a buffer to reinforce their losses lately, which had kept the game pretty well balanced but ultimately served to maintain the bi-polar political climate.

 

This war wasn't exactly an easy win for us either, tbh, but we got through the same way we've gotten through the others.

 

So I'll reiterate: We just happened to win out in the long run, and our opposition is just bitter about it.

If the sides weren't relatively close, we wouldn't have seen similar coalitions going at each other 5 times in a row like we have seen.  (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style 2-1 or 3-1 or 10-1 beat downs these are not.

 

NPO's woe is me bellyaching in this thread is just pathetic.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Azaghul

[Roquentin]

If the sides weren't relatively close, we wouldn't have seen similar coalitions going at each other 5 times in a row like we have seen.  (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style 2-1 or 3-1 or 10-1 beat downs these are not.

 

NPO's woe is me bellyaching in this thread is just pathetic.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges here. You don't need a 3-1 or even 2-1 advantage to win definitively. The mechanics are substantially different in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You can essentially take an alliance out of a war within a night in this game and that has happened e.g. the coalition offensive on Rose in 168 day war.  The sides have been close on paper but not in activity(where it could really be 2:1), but as one keeps losing and alliances keep moving away from it and strengthen your side because they want to win, it is no longer a viable competitor.  The latest treaty signings should be illustrative of that. I expect more like that to happen. There wasn't even a Paracov before this war and there likely won't be one whenever it happens to end.

 

This whole dismissal of a realistic assessment of the situation as whining makes it like you almost seem to want the other side to keep going so you can keep winning against it. The general tone happens to be if you're upset with anything, it's just whining and has no basis. I get you guys like winning and you don't want people raining on your parade, but it's gotten to an irrational level.

[Saru]

Our enemies have always had better or comparable statistical odds than we have, and occasionally favorable political climates as well, very few of our wars have been easily won.

 

I don't understand why you keep repeating this myth... You have not always had less 'statistical odds' than your enemies in the war. Unless you are talking about tS alone, which has had a couple of wars (one against Rose I recall) that were fairly evenly matched, and you came out on top -- due to having 'spies'/leakers in their ranks.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Saru

[Foltest]

I don't understand why you keep repeating this myth... You have not always had less 'statistical odds' than your enemies in the war. Unless you are talking about tS alone, which has had a couple of wars (one against Rose I recall) that were fairly evenly matched, and you came out on top -- due to having 'spies'/leakers in their ranks.

... wut?

 

Historically speaking our coalition has had less total score and less nations than your's.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Raymond Reddington

[Eumirbago]

... wut?

 

Historically speaking our coalition has had less total score and less nations than your's.

What he's trying to say is that they don't have the keys to takeover tiers even tho we love to mass beige haha

[Kastor]

... wut?Historically speaking our coalition has had less total score and less nations than your's.

That just isn't true mate. It's a Syndicate narrative that's NEVER been backed up by stats.

 

Even in Oktoberfest this wasn't true once allies come into play.

[Saru]

... wut?

 

Historically speaking our coalition has had less total score and less nations than your's.

 

Again, you guys keep repeating this but never back it up. The only time I saw someone try to back it up, they lumped in alliances onto our side that actually were not with us -- and even then the calculations weren't heavy on either side. I know for a fact that your coalition has not always been disadvantaged from a score point of view: and that's ignoring the fact that obviously score is not necessarily the greatest gauge for determining who has the advantage -- as tier match ups and such do matter.

 

This whole narrative of you guys overcoming massive odds and coming out victorious just isn't true...

 

But obviously the latter part of that is true, and that's what matters -- no need for over exaggerations, and outright lies.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Yosodog]

Let's dispel this notion once and for all that NPO doesn't know what they're doing, they know exactly what they're doing.

 

Anyways, I decided to have a look back. On 6/13 right before the Pacific War, here are the score and member levels for each alliance:

 

 

As you can see, NPO's side had a clear score and member advantage. Just look at UPN's score... oh how the giant has fallen.

 

Anyways, I'll look back at other wars if I get bored enough. Or someone else can. I think the Pacific War was the few that our side didn't have a score or member advantage.

 

Edit: Added average score

Edited October 3, 2016 by Yosodog

[Saru]

Let's dispel this notion once and for all that NPO doesn't know what they're doing, they know exactly what they're doing.

 

Anyways, I decided to have a look back. On 6/13 right before the Pacific War, here are the score and member levels for each alliance:

 

 

As you can see, NPO's side had a clear score and member advantage. Just look at UPN's score... oh how the giant has fallen.

 

Anyways, I'll look back at other wars if I get bored enough. Or someone else can. I think the Pacific War was the few that our side didn't have a score or member advantage.

 

Edit: Added average score

 

That's one war (that nobody claimed to have the score 'advantage' in before the war had started)... please do go on to find the numbers for the others.

 

... and it should be obvious that this isn't a war you guys were "disadvantaged" in -- for obvious reasons. Not that anyone should be surprised at people using convenient numbers for them lol

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Cromstar]

The only god tier aa we have is Mensa, and they're kinda doing their own thing.

 

I don't know you, but can we be bffs?

[Yosodog]

That's one war (that nobody claimed to have the score 'advantage' in)... please do go on to find the numbers for the others.

 

... and it should be obvious that this isn't a war you guys were "disadvantaged" in -- for obvious reasons. Not that anyone should be surprised at people using convenient numbers for them lol

 

Here's Oktoberfest taken on 10/16:

 

 

We had an advantage here of 71,490 score and you guys had the offensive advantage. 

 

Here's proxy on 8/23:

 

 

Rose's side had a slight score and member advantage and the offensive advantage. Plus Cov was sitting on the sidelines waiting to come in but never did.

 

I feel like I missed a war, did I?

 

So as you can see, claiming that either side had a major advantage is wrong. Generally, it was always even. The only time that one side was disadvantaged was during the Pacific War, but due to an amazing blitz that killed the servers, we came out on top imo.

 

Also as you can see, our side really isn't aggressive. Unless I'm missing a war, we've been on the defensive every time except once.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Yosodog

[Alataq]

 

I feel like I missed a war, did I?

 

 

The one last January, whatever it was called.

[LordStrum]

k I've made my pilgrimage to this thread

 

thanks for keeping Yoso busy

[Sisyphus]

I feel like I missed a war, did I?

Proxyfest?

 

I don't understand why you keep repeating this myth... You have not always had less 'statistical odds' than your enemies in the war. Unless you are talking about tS alone, which has had a couple of wars (one against Rose I recall) that were fairly evenly matched, and you came out on top -- due to having 'spies'/leakers in their ranks.

Way to cherry pick a point I've already conceded in a previous post to add absolutely nothing of any value to the conversation.

[Charles Bolivar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6sARmxEuc

 

Video above seems oddly relevant given the discussion about numbers of nations on the opposing sides in past conflicts but it is essentially the point at hand.

 

The general consensus in most of the past conflicts (besides the few Yoso has shown above) was that we (tS, BK, TKR and Mensa) were typically outnumbered in terms of nations. The deciding factor in these wars wasn't the number of nations on either side but instead the number of competent nations on either side who knew how to fight alongside their fellow members and allies.

 

Our side simply has more of these competent nations found throughout our memberships. This can be attributed to a variety of reasons such as community spirit, alliance leadership structure, alliance policies and so on. Plenty whinging and salt being thrown over this particular point but our surplus of competent nations is simply a result of our own actions and policies.

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping the likes of NPO, UPN, Rose and so on emulating our side in this regards.

 

Start to favour quality over quantity and you might begin to see results.

[Saru]

Here's Oktoberfest taken on 10/16:

 

 

We had an advantage here of 71,490 score and you guys had the offensive advantage. 

 

Had the offensive advantage at first, and I would say that we were winning obviously... however the likes of Alpha/Arrgh and some others were able to build up completely, while obviously some of our forces took a hit -- because you were still prepared militarily, so first mover advantage wasn't as great as when you managed to catch us with our pants down. So my point is that even sometimes saying "well you started the war technically" doesn't tell the true story, because it's more nuanced than that...

 

 

So as you can see, claiming that either side had a major advantage is wrong. Generally, it was always even. The only time that one side was disadvantaged was during the Pacific War, but due to an amazing blitz that killed the servers, we came out on top imo.

 

 

Claiming that either side had a major advantage in score is wrong, I agree. Hence why I said the guy who said they had the "statistical disadvantage in every war" was outright lying...

 

Let's not pretend that the advantage is solely in score. Tiers matter (and average strength can be an indicator, but it's not great), context matters -- context in the sense of how committed are the alliances (for example putting TEst into the coalitions side wouldn't give the true picture) as well as other things, and military stats and first mover advantage matter the most...

 

So saying you guys have been disadvantaged in every war you go in, is just blatantly not true.

 

 

Rose's side had a slight score and member advantage and the offensive advantage. Plus Cov was sitting on the sidelines waiting to come in but never did.

 

 

Another misrepresentation. Yes we were waiting in the sidelines... but in actuality us sitting in the sidelines is what helped you significantly. It ensured Mensa was not countered.

 

 

The general consensus in most of the past conflicts (besides the few Yoso has shown above) was that we (tS, BK, TKR and Mensa) were typically outnumbered in terms of nations. 

 

 

 

I think you have it wrong... the general consensus is that Mensa etc. have players who are more active and committed (or call competence). Focusing on nation numbers would be a silly way to determine the advantage.

 

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping the likes of NPO, UPN, Rose and so on emulating our side in this regards.

 

 

Obviously there is... The leadership of the alliances cannot do anything to make people become active. I guess your response will be, well just kick the inactive ones... well that doesn't do much to change anything, since it's not like there's a massive influx of players into the game.

 

Mensa are the anomaly in terms of activity, and would keep their levels whatever happens I would guess. You have to realise that with most people interest level in the game is somewhat determined by how the game is going too... for example UPN has gradually got less and less active with every war that we lost. Not that I am saying it's your fault or whatever, just pointing to the observation that the losing side will always get less active if things aren't competitive.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Saru]

Just a follow up point in terms of even wars. Had Arrgh and Alpha not entered in Oktoberfest, it would of been the closest or "fairest" perhaps by far. If I recall correctly your side wasn't unprepared, and while we had the first move advantage -- this would likely be offset by more coordination and activity on your side. It would be interesting to know what the outcome would of been.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru