Jump to content
Avruch

The war so far - v3

Recommended Posts

>actually believing IQ is trying to create a hegemoney.

 

We're literally trying to do the exact opposite. We're making the game interesting again and you're holding grudges over us. Respect our desire to actually have an interesting political landscape, unlike the last few months where syndisphere chooses who to roll next, with no repercussions.

 

 

Respect to Roq for being able to keep up arguments against the circle jerk of the git gud squad, Im personally waiting for individual war stats of the entire war so far.

 

I mean. You could try and help him instead of just characterizing the counters to his arguments as a "circle jerk?" :P

 

I've quoted your other post, since it was the only other time you commented, and it's really weak. "Syndisphere chooses who to roll next with no reprocussions" doesn't make a lick of sense. What do you even mean, there? The only lopsided war you you can try to lay at Syndisphere's feet imo is Test. The last two major wars they were on defense. Test was a dogpile in a numbers sense, but it was actually fair in the upper tier. And anyone who knew Pre knew as soon as he got hit (or even before) he'd have attacked with whatever capacity he had, so the sledgehammer approach was pretty much the only feasible one.

 

Most of the others they actually should have lost, including this one, but the other side's made really glaring tactical errors. You can make a interesting political landscape without doing a lot of the things you're getting criticized for, and chose not to. Imo you should own that decision rather than complaining that people who are pointing out those criticisms are a circle jerk.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean. You could try and help him instead of just characterizing the counters to his arguments as a "circle jerk?" :P

 

I've quoted your other post, since it was the only other time you commented, and it's really weak. "Syndisphere chooses who to roll next with no reprocussions" doesn't make a lick of sense. What do you even mean, there? The only lopsided war you you can try to lay at Syndisphere's feet imo is Test. The last two major wars they were on defense. Test was a dogpile in a numbers sense, but it was actually fair in the upper tier. And anyone who knew Pre knew as soon as he got hit (or even before) he'd have attacked with whatever capacity he had, so the sledgehammer approach was pretty much the only feasible one.

 

Most of the others they actually should have lost, including this one, but the other side's made really glaring tactical errors. You can make a interesting political landscape without doing a lot of the things you're getting criticized for, and chose not to. Imo you should own that decision rather than complaining that people who are pointing out those criticisms are a circle jerk.

 

I prefer to not spend forever formulating smooth arguments and points, I just like to say whats on my mind. Also my experience in terms of global politics and history is somewhat limited, even though my nation is 2.5 years old. I just recently in the past 5 months talking to people outside of my alliance on a frequent basis. So Ive missed 2 years of getting to know people and putting myself out there. In addition, Ive been allied to t$ for nearly my entire PnW time, except for several months at the start when I was in BoC, so keep in mind I'm not trashing Syndicate or their allies when I say they 'dog pile" people or when I say and agree with others saying that Syndisphere is the hegemoney here because I was in the hegemoney since it began. TEst is the main dog pile argument, I still don't understand completely the reasons behind it, other than for the sake of war. Also Mensa hitting SK at Christmas is a reason why I say that (yes I know BK, and non Syndisphere alliances were involved).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, SK as an example is really good. The fact that people in Syndisphere will roll alliances like GPA, SK, etc. was a reason we weren't eager to get into range. All it requires is just being isolated and someone having beef and there's plenty of beef to go around and feeding the cycle of easy rollings isn't my idea of fun. If people insist on opponents who aren't on par, the best approach is scorched earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to not spend forever formulating smooth arguments and points, I just like to say whats on my mind. Also my experience in terms of global politics and history is somewhat limited, even though my nation is 2.5 years old. I just recently in the past 5 months talking to people outside of my alliance on a frequent basis. So Ive missed 2 years of getting to know people and putting myself out there. In addition, Ive been allied to t$ for nearly my entire PnW time, except for several months at the start when I was in BoC, so keep in mind I'm not trashing Syndicate or their allies when I say they 'dog pile" people or when I say and agree with others saying that Syndisphere is the hegemoney here because I was in the hegemoney since it began. TEst is the main dog pile argument, I still don't understand completely the reasons behind it, other than for the sake of war. Also Mensa hitting SK at Christmas is a reason why I say that (yes I know BK, and non Syndisphere alliances were involved).

 

Gotcha, and fair enough.

 

I'd call hegemoney fair and dog piling unfair. That's me knowing enough history to know that many of the involved alliances actively avoided consolidating to the point where there would be no way to challenge them. With both SK and Test there was history going back farther than your 5 month periods, including direct attacks from those alliances on members of the sphere.

 

I could go over those histories a bit more so if you want, so if you want to hit me up feel free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Rose was as bad as people describe

 

Rose hereby protects NPO. They are our best friends now.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, why would you want things to get boring? I'm not saying you'd have to ally us, but for a second there there seemed to be some potential in the Rose treaty, like forming a new sphere, but it was just additional consolidation. Are you just referring to the tS-UPn proposal again or something else? 

 

Also wasn't Syndisphere based on a similar basis to your quoted passage? Partisan not wanting early Paragon dominance of the game and making a new sphere based on that? Pretty sure that was one of the reasons alternative sphere plans were being made.

 

I don't think it would since you have people willing to risk themselves losing to keep things interesting like BK,  Zodiac, and CS. If we started recreating the situation they were in before, pretty sure they'd call us on it and want to address it like some of them did with OO.

 

Anyway, glad we're having more constructive debate here. This is a good post from you.

 

The Paragon dominance thing definitely was a contributing factor. As were various IC-related things we already discussed (combination of matters). So I won't argue you there! Carry on :P.

 

re: the quote about Rose going into proxy war expecting a loss.... I can tell you now that all that is incorrect.

 

Rose fully expected to defeat us based on the stats going into that war. VE's attitude at the time similarly reflected a confidence bordering on the cocky (Sorry Impero! I'm just referring to the DoW at the time, which I admit was a strong piece of rhetoric).

 

Syndicate at the time went in fully expecting a loss, and the only reasons why we pulled out a win were:

 

1. Rose's blitz being stopped in its track by syndicate membership overachieving, despite strong rose numerical superiority in the top tiers. Rose banked on nukes and spent a lot of their MAPs on blockades/navy. Syndicate employed the air counterblitz.

 

2. Rose not being countered leading Asgard and Alpha (at the time) to having to pick between entering aggressively (oA into the war) or not entering at all. Had Rose been countered, they would have been able to cite MD+ treaties and move in. They ultimately opted not to oA in.

 

3. TEst opting to assist the Syndicate's side and hit VE

 

4. Rose infuriating BK by pre-empting tS despite an explicit warning not to. BK started out actually in coalition channels with VE-Rose as they really disliked Mensa and its actions at the time. It took a *lot* of effort talking to them to get them to take a neutral stance. When Rose pre-empted tS, that triggered the BK treaty (and, infuriated BK govt). That was a big game swing which was caused by Rose, rather than any supposed tS manipulations (as some have claimed since)

 

When I (we) made the call to leave Paragon and create what would later be dubbed "Syndisphere" along our new alliances, we effectively created a tripolar world. Out of three poles, our projected sphere (as SK had yet to choose its sphere, Guardian was still in rebuilding mode and neither TKR nor BK had come into its own as a superpower yet) was numerically inferior to either of the other spheres. Any combination of the two would have overrun us with ease. Both spheres viewed us with hostility (VE in Paragon, and UPN/DEIC in Covenant). I know this because I ran the numbers prior to doing anything :P. It didn't look good, but the move was a hail mary with ideological elements (In our opinion, we preferred burning while carving our own path over being relegated to a defacto lackey). I'm sure people with access to tS' internal boards could look up the speech i gave at the time of the split where I detailed my expectation of being targeted by either or both of the other spheres if we proceeded :P.

 

It should also be noted that at the time of proxy, neither Mensa nor tS had *really* established itself as a prime fighting power. Nor had Rose (or VE or anyone else, really) proven to be "bad" at fighting. Mensa and tS had both shown signs of their prowess in the preceeding war, but many still believed Rose for example to be equal in ability.

 

There's times when it feels like this period of PnW history is generally subject to a heavy degree of revisionism to suit the picture that tS and allies was/were *always* power-hungry villains who fought with obvious advantages against a valiant minority of alliances who tried to kept the surge of chaos at bay. This is frankly a really silly distortion of truth. Let's try to stick with the facts :(.

 

On the topic of this war... a split would have happened one way or another. I can't fault BK for making that leap. They jumped out of their comfort zone and that should be commended. Even if they made some mistakes in the process. Similarly, there is no fault with NPO taking the opportunity to get out of the obvious position of isolation which they had found themselves in for some time. Good on them for identifying and capitalizing on a window of opportunity.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI - Mensa never requested any one to hit SK, GPA, or Lordaeron during those conflicts.  TEst jumping in on GPA was their own decision and BK hitting SK was due to SK opening battles on them after BK hit Valyria/NW (I feel like I'm missing an alliance there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Paragon dominance thing definitely was a contributing factor. As were various IC-related things we already discussed (combination of matters). So I won't argue you there! Carry on :P.

 

re: the quote about Rose going into proxy war expecting a loss.... I can tell you now that all that is incorrect.

 

Rose fully expected to defeat us based on the stats going into that war. VE's attitude at the time similarly reflected a confidence bordering on the cocky (Sorry Impero! I'm just referring to the DoW at the time, which I admit was a strong piece of rhetoric).

 

Syndicate at the time went in fully expecting a loss, and the only reasons why we pulled out a win were:

 

1. Rose's blitz being stopped in its track by syndicate membership overachieving, despite strong rose numerical superiority in the top tiers. Rose banked on nukes and spent a lot of their MAPs on blockades/navy. Syndicate employed the air counterblitz.

 

2. Rose not being countered leading Asgard and Alpha (at the time) to having to pick between entering aggressively (oA into the war) or not entering at all. Had Rose been countered, they would have been able to cite MD+ treaties and move in. They ultimately opted not to oA in.

 

3. TEst opting to assist the Syndicate's side and hit VE

 

4. Rose infuriating BK by pre-empting tS despite an explicit warning not to. BK started out actually in coalition channels with VE-Rose as they really disliked Mensa and its actions at the time. It took a *lot* of effort talking to them to get them to take a neutral stance. When Rose pre-empted tS, that triggered the BK treaty (and, infuriated BK govt). That was a big game swing which was caused by Rose, rather than any supposed tS manipulations (as some have claimed since)

 

When I (we) made the call to leave Paragon and create what would later be dubbed "Syndisphere" along our new alliances, we effectively created a tripolar world. Out of three poles, our projected sphere (as SK had yet to choose its sphere, Guardian was still in rebuilding mode and neither TKR nor BK had come into its own as a superpower yet) was numerically inferior to either of the other spheres. Any combination of the two would have overrun us with ease. Both spheres viewed us with hostility (VE in Paragon, and UPN/DEIC in Covenant). I know this because I ran the numbers prior to doing anything :P. It didn't look good, but the move was a hail mary with ideological elements (In our opinion, we preferred burning while carving our own path over being relegated to a defacto lackey). I'm sure people with access to tS' internal boards could look up the speech i gave at the time of the split where I detailed my expectation of being targeted by either or both of the other spheres if we proceeded :P.

 

It should also be noted that at the time of proxy, neither Mensa nor tS had *really* established itself as a prime fighting power. Nor had Rose (or VE or anyone else, really) proven to be "bad" at fighting. Mensa and tS had both shown signs of their prowess in the preceeding war, but many still believed Rose for example to be equal in ability.

 

There's times when it feels like this period of PnW history is generally subject to a heavy degree of revisionism to suit the picture that tS and allies was/were *always* power-hungry villains who fought with obvious advantages against a valiant minority of alliances who tried to kept the surge of chaos at bay. This is frankly a really silly distortion of truth. Let's try to stick with the facts :(.

 

On the topic of this war... a split would have happened one way or another. I can't fault BK for making that leap. They jumped out of their comfort zone and that should be commended. Even if they made some mistakes in the process. Similarly, there is no fault with NPO taking the opportunity to get out of the obvious position of isolation which they had found themselves in for some time. Good on them for identifying and capitalizing on a window of opportunity.

 

Thanks for elaborating.

 

As I said, the initial optimism/forecast was based on factors that hadn't come in like  BK being on side or neutral rather than entering on the other one. TEst wasn't accounted for either. It helped even things out along with Alpha and Asgard not entering. So the on paper  advantage that encuraged initial bravado appeared earlier was gone within a day or two. I clarified that early on. The point was more when the wars actually happened the number advantage wasn't as big when the actual chips fell. Once BK/TEst/rest of tS coalition went in on the same night, the tide was clearly against Paragon. I'lll go ahead and say I didn't present that angle accurately.

 

I don't remember with tS but with Mensa it was known they were good. The initial blitz on us took us out completely and it was pretty dire waiting on the others to draw Mensa away.

 

 

 

Just FYI - Mensa never requested any one to hit SK, GPA, or Lordaeron during those conflicts.  TEst jumping in on GPA was their own decision and BK hitting SK was due to SK opening battles on them after BK hit Valyria/NW (I feel like I'm missing an alliance there).

 
 
The point isn't that you asked others to join in, but that you leveraged your position to beat up isolated alliances knowing you'd have backing if countered.
Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for elaborating.

 

As I said, the initial optimism/forecast was based on factors that hadn't come in like  BK being on side or neutral rather than entering on the other one. TEst wasn't accounted for either. It helped even things out along with Alpha and Asgard not entering. So the on paper  advantage that encuraged initial bravado appeared earlier was gone within a day or two. I clarified that early on. The point was more when the wars actually happened the number advantage wasn't as big when the actual chips fell. Once BK/TEst/rest of tS coalition went in on the same night, the tide was clearly against Paragon. I'lll go ahead and say I didn't present that angle accurately.

 

I don't remember with tS but with Mensa it was known they were good. The initial blitz on us took us out completely and it was pretty dire waiting on the others to draw Mensa away.

 

 

 

 
 
The point isn't that you asked others to join in, but that you leveraged your position to beat up isolated alliances knowing you'd have backing if countered.

 

 

Actually.... having run coalition at the time.... even with the swaps accounted for, numbers still favored Paragon.

 

The main problems with the coalitions generally were a matter of individual performance (which was initially hard to predict) and strategic manouvering (see: Target allocations and front swaps). Paragon, Covenant and later Paracov have over the years made a set of strong blunders militarily speaking, ranging from relying on conventional treaty chain traps to allocating Sparta at its peak to hit lower tier BK (for example) to disregarding mutual allies (pushing them to our side).

 

With proxy specifically: Mensa actually jumped based on a (mis)representation as well. At the time they hit Vanguard, they believed to be having backup from both UPN and tS (and both had provided the same guarantee: Counter the counters, but no direct aggression). The pre-empt on tS negated the risk of UPN coming in (any perceived backroom deals aside, as thats a different matter), but forced tS+ allies into the fray. Had Rose managed to shut down tS, we would have been forced to send tS' allies (as mensa had none left beyond UPN) to either still hit VE and leave tS to the wolves, or defend tS (drawing in Rose allies). If we'd picked the former, Rose due to its numerical superiority would have been able to, once the front was locked up, regear and counter the counters on VE.

 

All in all.... going into that war, it looked favorable for Paragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually.... having run coalition at the time.... even with the swaps accounted for, numbers still favored Paragon.

 

The main problems with the coalitions generally were a matter of individual performance (which was initially hard to predict) and strategic manouvering (see: Target allocations and front swaps). Paragon, Covenant and later Paracov have over the years made a set of strong blunders militarily speaking, ranging from relying on conventional treaty chain traps to allocating Sparta at its peak to hit lower tier BK (for example) to disregarding mutual allies (pushing them to our side).

 

With proxy specifically: Mensa actually jumped based on a (mis)representation as well. At the time they hit Vanguard, they believed to be having backup from both UPN and tS (and both had provided the same guarantee: Counter the counters, but no direct aggression). The pre-empt on tS negated the risk of UPN coming in (any perceived backroom deals aside, as thats a different matter), but forced tS+ allies into the fray. Had Rose managed to shut down tS, we would have been forced to send tS' allies (as mensa had none left beyond UPN) to either still hit VE and leave tS to the wolves, or defend tS (drawing in Rose allies). If we'd picked the former, Rose due to its numerical superiority would have been able to, once the front was locked up, regear and counter the counters on VE.

 

All in all.... going into that war, it looked favorable for Paragon.

 

Going with pre-war stats for Paragon side vs tS stats 

 

Have ~278k  for Paragon(VE/Rose/CS/NAC/Vanguard) vs ~250k for Syndicate (tS/Guardian/TEst/BK/TKR/tC) from just eyeballing it. I could have messed it up but that's not a huge statistical advantage with Vanguard being beaten on day one and no counters for two days.

 

 

Conventional treaty chain traps being needed was a result of the coalition not being unified vs Syndisphere giving it a unique advantage in practicing colaition warfare, which is my point. The numbers looked favorable for Paracov, but the people within it knew they could not be leveraged in the same way the other side could leverage them ie. people not wanting to enter on oA initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add my 2 cents.  Rose made a huge tactical mistake in going in without consulting allies and getting everyone ready to counter that same night.  I knew Pub was thinking about going in, but I didn't really think he'd just pull the trigger on that date since everyone knew about it and I found out Rose/Fark went in from the forums, not exactly how I was expecting to find out.  If he'd waited and gotten everyone ready first, and there was no reason not to wait a few more days, I think there would've been a different outcome.

 

Syndisphere has always been really good about getting in fast counters (activity > numbers) as it does make or break a war.  This war for example everyone went in quite fast.  Something that, each war, tightens up because it's clearly the better formula vs. slow counters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the biggest issue ParaCov suffered from was bad communication.  You guys had the numbers and had enough activity to contest our own.  Just needed to communicate the plans better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when will the stats that matter be published?

 

Soon as someone compiles them. Yosodog is the guy that has done it mostly for the last couple of years. But it requires scraping, which is a giant pain in the ass. 

Edited by Avruch
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add my 2 cents.  Rose made a huge tactical mistake in going in without consulting allies and getting everyone ready to counter that same night.  I knew Pub was thinking about going in, but I didn't really think he'd just pull the trigger on that date since everyone knew about it and I found out Rose/Fark went in from the forums, not exactly how I was expecting to find out.  If he'd waited and gotten everyone ready first, and there was no reason not to wait a few more days, I think there would've been a different outcome.

 

Syndisphere has always been really good about getting in fast counters (activity > numbers) as it does make or break a war.  This war for example everyone went in quite fast.  Something that, each war, tightens up because it's clearly the better formula vs. slow counters.

 

This, I seriously underestimated how quickly they would be on to respond to attacks. Up until that point the only wars I had led were against UPN and DEIC at the peak of their Purple Powers Coalition, and Marionette war - which yeah they are big and all but they are not even close to as organized and responsive as tS is. I was just dumb and arrogant. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'll be happy to see you put that to the test against tS and Mensa then. :) That's the only way we'll know for sure.

 

Jokes aside, like I said, I don't think Rose was as bad as people describe and most of the people you guys describe as the good fighters in the dream team topic were good fighters before.

The point I was making is that no one is responsible for your alliance's performance but you. There is nothing stopping any alliance from "gitting gud" except for the will to do it. Rose didn't use magic. We admitted we sucked, identified the problems and worked on them.

 

And while Rose wasn't as bad as people made out, it was still bad. Better than average for Paracov, worse than average for the game as a whole. Steel spent on people in hopeless situations, a centralized list of targets rather than triage and focusing and an econ strategy that worked without any regard to war.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This I disagree with. Trying to work against your allies, while not the way I choose to play, is some interesting stuff and is good for driving conflict and giving people political things to discuss. Being willing to do that to make the game dynamic more interesting, while again not what I'd want to do, is something I'm grateful for in the sense that it does allow for some uncertainty and political maneuvering. There's political players on the IQ side who I respect a lot for having the initiative to try something, and them getting lashed on these forums can be a bit much.

 

That said, I feel it would have been more interesting if it was done in a way that was less blatant. It was abundantly clear where they stood immediately, and any of their claims to the contrary were too weak to really enforce that kind of maneuvering. That's what I meant earlier when I said they'd basically just joined Paragon, and that it wasn't as dynamic as they thought. They tried, which is more than I can say for several people on the tkr/syndisphere side, but I'd have hoped for more from them. 

 

Cool for you to disagree, not the words I would use to describe it. More like, nefarious or malevolent. 

 

Not my cup of tea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool for you to disagree, not the words I would use to describe it. More like, nefarious or malevolent. 

 

Not my cup of tea. 

 

Not mine either. I wouldn't hesitate to call it scummy. But it's a way to play... if everyone was straightforward in terms of FA, the game would probably be pretty damned boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not mine either. I wouldn't hesitate to call it scummy. But it's a way to play... if everyone was straightforward in terms of FA, the game would probably be pretty damned boring.

 

Ya man I gotcha. I just think there is some sort of nuance between keeping some cards close to your chest and actually planning to roll alliances you are treatied to while telling them you want to maintain your relationships. 

 

Its a way to play for sure but it isn't necessary to keep the game interesting and I think that's something the folks who are trying to defend themselves keep holding onto in order to legitimize it. I can't agree with their reasoning. There are decent ways to go about things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay I came here for stats but it seems every "This War So Far" topic is turning into "PnW history so far" after page 3 :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno about anyone else but I'd have more respect for NPO and company if they were attempting to form a hegemoney. I can respect someone with ambition who fails in their goals more than I can respect someone prepared to just be a punching bag every few months.

 

Man up, grab your nuts, show some pride and assert yourselves and you might one day just become a credible opposition.

Edited by Nemesis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely don't know, so enlighten me - was Goons not part of the Glorious Pacifican empire, a beneficiary of the pax pacifica? Those Goons era leaders aren't part of NPO's clan?

 

Actually gonna defend roq here but these goons members pulling that sort of crap eventually got rolled and stomped by NPO for precisely that sort of behaviour. Plus that is going back just under a decade so it's kinda irrelevant to current events in this game.

 

Plus no one "forced" anyone to eat Dog food. I would say anyone prepared to eat Dog food to achieve peace or any goal for that matter in a nation simulator has bigger issues to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay I came here for stats but it seems every "This War So Far" topic is turning into "PnW history so far" after page 3 :P

 

Maybe some of us actually like history? :P
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.