Jump to content

The war so far v2- updated stats


Avruch
 Share

Recommended Posts

LOL Like TKR would avoid that type of situation. Like any alliance would avoid that confrontation when they hold a Mutual Defense Pact in their treaty. To not defend would be a shitty ally.

 

Very cool that Rose has no qualms about it. EDIT: I thought Rose attacked BK?

 

You're not only really bad at shitposting but you don't even know what you're shitposting about

 

KiY, leave the shitposting to me, you're a !@#$ing amateur and you're embarrassing both yourself and Hogwarts

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Kayser is a shit though. Even TKR gov admitted it several times to me in the past to not take him seriously.

I'm not sure why you're personally attacking Kayser here but your words are certainly uncalled for. He was simply pointing out that the CKD situation was not as black and white as you believed.

 

Also, I'm not sure you understand what the situation with the treaties were given your follow up responses. Tldr: no need to be rude. :)

Edited by Lordship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: I thought Rose attacked BK?

 

If you're getting this information from greatkitteh's war chart in one of these topics it's clearly wrong. We blitzed Rose, Pantheon declares on us, WTF declares on us a few days later, and yesterday TKR has declared as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Like TKR would avoid that type of situation. Like any alliance would avoid that confrontation when they hold a Mutual Defense Pact in their treaty. To not defend would be a shitty ally.

 

Very cool that Rose has no qualms about it. EDIT: I thought Rose attacked BK?

 

BK Attacked Rose. We activated the MDP with Pantheon, who attacked BK, who activated the MDoAP with CKD, even tho it was non-chaining.

 

BK actually hit the mutual ally of 2 allies, since BK was signed to Mensa and Mensa is signed to Rose, Mensa's response was to drop them.

 

I think it comes down to whether or not you consider OD treaties to be allies or second rate treaties that can be ignored completely if an MD is involved in any way, aggressively, defensively, non chaining or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK Attacked Rose. We activated the MDP with Pantheon, who attacked BK, who activated the MDoAP with CKD, even tho it was non-chaining.

 

BK actually hit the mutual ally of 2 allies, since BK was signed to Mensa and Mensa is signed to Rose, Mensa's response was to drop them.

 

I think it comes down to whether or not you consider OD treaties to be allies or second rate treaties that can be ignored completely if an MD is involved in any way, aggressively, defensively, non chaining or otherwise.

Yeah, I think this war will determine the outcome of what treaties mean in the game, as much needs to be cleared away. Seriously, look at the !@#$all that is the literal lsd-induced spider web of shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the opposition falls flat on its face.

 

If I didn't have better things to do, I may even feel compelled to come out of retirement just to build a proper rival for Syndicate and co. Can't be assed, though, and it would take too damn long anyways.

 

Oh well. It's been fun, hopefully the next round doesn't disappoint. Round 1 was a blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not only really bad at shitposting but you don't even know what you're shitposting about

 

KiY, leave the shitposting to me, you're a [email protected]#$ amateur and you're embarrassing both yourself and Hogwarts

I was not shitposting tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example:  and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense.

 

Just saw this--I have no idea about Pantheon, but I'm pretty sure every t$ nation (except for two in VM) was involved in 3 defensive wars by the second/third day of the war. JR sent out a memo about it. Then we also had many offensive wars, so yeah. Not really sure what you mean by this

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you saying is if an ally of yours was attacked that you had a Mutual Defense Pact in your treaty, you would not defend them? Even if that Alliance was in another, completely different Aggressive war happening at the same time?

Read the following

His point was CKD had a non-chaining MDoAP with BK.

 

BK attacked Rose, CKD's ODoAP ally, then Pantheon attacked BK, in defense of Rose, then CKD attacked Pantheon in Defense of BK.

 

So CKD were effectively contributing to the fight against their own ally (Rose), based on a treaty that was non-chaining and therefore they weren't obligated to enter.

 

Personally I don't care, his point was that the legality and morality of the situation was far more grey.

Please explain before my respect for you drops even further than it normally does because you are just the shit poster from TKR no one actually likes around here.

LOL, k.

 

If my reputation as a shitposter has reached Sargun and Rickky levels by now I will be happy.

 

Did I make it guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think this war will determine the outcome of what treaties mean in the game, as much needs to be cleared away. Seriously, look at the [email protected]#$all that is the literal lsd-induced spider web of shit!

 

A lot of treaties got messed up, especially when BK switched out of the Syndisphere, which people wouldn't have gotten so angry about until miscommunication set in and it became a mess of pointing fingers at each other. Needless to say several alliances were upset at BK gov, and since BK didn't remove any treaties when war kicked in, you get unenforced treaties. 

 

Meanwhile Lordaeron has been shitposting pretty hard on the forums, NPO's failing to attack aggressively enough due to their absence of a high tier and lack of a mid tier to updeclare (literally all their nations were <2500 nation score and averaged 9 or 10 cities before the war), and SK is taking serious damage. Zodiac is actually not doing so bad, though. Oh yeah, BK's getting it rough upper tier, too. Not blaming any allies here.

Edited by Anneal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw this--I have no idea about Pantheon, but I'm pretty sure every t$ nation (except for two in VM) was involved in 3 defensive wars by the second/third day of the war. JR sent out a memo about it. Then we also had many offensive wars, so yeah. Not really sure what you mean by this

This. The number of empty defensive slots we had could've been counted on one hand.

 

Different story now, even among the non beige nations. No idea why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were going to lose the top tier eventually.  They banked on the low tier to win decisively in order to support the mid-tier and win that.  Then use mid-tier to updeclare and drag down.  Problem is, the top tier will always win faster than the low tier just due to how much offensive power there is to zero militaries out.

Yes, but if, with great resolve, and great determination, and no defections and surrenders, the strategy is given time to play out(4+ cycles), the strategy could work out.

 

But a few alliances already bolted, didn't they?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but if, with great resolve, and great determination, and no defections and surrenders, the strategy is given time to play out(4+ cycles), the strategy could work out.

 

But a few alliances already bolted, didn't they?

 

That strategy would not work out at all. Unless the top tier sat on their asses all game and the blitz was a great success (first big problem here), the top tier can continue to rain fiery hell upon the mid-upper tier and continue to fund the alliance during wartime. 

 

When you leave the strongest part of the enemy alone and you weaken yourself by fighting against weaker nations, you're susceptible to not only a counter that was stronger than you to begin with, but a counter that has had time to build while you wage war on his lower allies and come in when you're at your weakest.

 

Leaving the top tier alone almost never works unless they are so far out of reach they can't hit you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tier business speaks nothing to the decisions of the players running those nations. Activity and choices also decide wars. Owning a steamroller is not the same as knowing how to run one effectively! A particularly mensan philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but if, with great resolve, and great determination, and no defections and surrenders, the strategy is given time to play out(4+ cycles), the strategy could work out.

 

But a few alliances already bolted, didn't they?

 

I mean it's just par for the course. I hope it changes eventually, but there isn't really a penalty for pulling out if you're on the losing side, so people are inclined to do it.  If an entire coalition is willing to dig in at some point, they'll be able to accomplish a lot.

 

That strategy would not work out at all. Unless the top tier sat on their asses all game and the blitz was a great success (first big problem here), the top tier can continue to rain fiery hell upon the mid-upper tier and continue to fund the alliance during wartime. 

 

When you leave the strongest part of the enemy alone and you weaken yourself by fighting against weaker nations, you're susceptible to not only a counter that was stronger than you to begin with, but a counter that has had time to build while you wage war on his lower allies and come in when you're at your weakest.

 

Leaving the top tier alone almost never works unless they are so far out of reach they can't hit you. 

 

There is no alternative if the other side has an upper tier advantage since alliances with upper tiers tend to tie each other. There could have been more score compression which would have helped avoid  the 17-20 city nations sell downs on 12-15 nations with maxed mil, but that's about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100+ members, and he's talking about how he can't compete.

 

I wish Mensa had those numbers close to that again.  That was some fun frustrating times.

 

You have a very opportunistic situation to be the literal foundation of a sphere, but you're too afraid to build up in order to support your allies/friendlies.  You'd rather stay at 9 cities and let them fight a losing battle.

 

Zodiac + BK + NPO should EASILY compete against TKR + Syndicate + Pantheon + Rose.  Notice though that BK and Zodiac are pretty wide spread in all tiers, but NPO is concentrated in a 'low tier'.  If you were in 'mid tier', you guys would do so much better for yourselves and your allies.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.