Jump to content

And So the Dust Settles


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

And well, as for the rest, if you guys were so sure that your updeclares were going to win you the war, then why did you settle for a WP instead? We all can play this little game.

The truth is that, regardless of the rhetoric utilized on these forums, neither side was interested in dragging it out for another month or two. Each had their own reasons for that, but obviously the motivations for peacing out outweighed whatever (perceived or real) advantages each side had that could motivate them to fight further.

I never referenced IQ as a whole.  I am a simple foot soldier and gave my personal perspective.  What I am seeing is a bunch of whining about the terms.  I stated in an earlier post my AA was hit with no CB and I believe we should have held Rose for reps.  That isn't really feasible in this type of conflict.  What is being seen is a bunch of posturing and chest thumping by mostly non-IQ that they were merciful and how bad they were winning and how terrible the terms were.  Simply put if you don't like them don't take them. I believe the last part of your post is the most honest thing ive seen posted yet and is probably the closest to the truth that will be posted on these forums.   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeotheGreat said:

CKD isn’t IQ. If y’all are including them you are grasping at straws lol. And it seems the number is always changing so whatever you guys need to sleep at night.

 

Haven’t seen that at all. But I remember being told “we can’t do more than a month or two NAP” and here we are with 6. Don’t be salty cause you were the largest city nation stupid enough to get heavily damaged this war. 

None of it was by IQ so if your only accomplishment was other peoples work than well gg. 

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Bud said:

 I stated in an earlier post my AA was hit with no CB and I believe we should have held Rose for.   

>Hit with no CB

In your perspective.  Let's remember that.

There's no mediator that goes around justifying what's a CB and what's not.  After multiple other "protectorates" of NPO joined in the war (Mind you, nobody hit them first), there was most definitely just cause on ODN at that point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

>Hit with no CB

In your perspective.  Let's remember that.

There's no mediator that goes around justifying what's a CB and what's not.  After multiple other "protectorates" of NPO joined in the war (Mind you, nobody hit them first), there was most definitely just cause on ODN at that point.

I was not talking about ODN I was talking about Acadia.  We have a MDP with NPO and by no means are obligated to do anything if they are on the offensive.  We were hit with out a CB.  My AA is not a protectorate there for does not fall under your statement. 

Looking back through the forums quickly I do not see a DOW on my alliance either so my statement stands we were hit with out a CB.  No mediator is needed to confirm or refute that.  It is fact.  We were preempted  on a guess we might come on in.  I have no idea either way as I am not in the know.

My mistake we have no treaty with NPO.  Like I said I'm a foot soldier not gov.  My mistake. 

Edited by Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Oh shit, my bad.  I saw you comment earlier in the ODN thread and automatically thought you were ODN.  It's still morning, and it's been rough.  No coffee.

Stuff happens.  No worries but no I would never be ODN with the exception of right now but I have no beef with TGH only ROSE :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LeotheGreat said:

I mean look at pre and post war member counts. I am not seeing where 100 members disappeared too. 

You tell others they're grasping at straws and then fail to be capable of conducting grade school math level addition and pattern recognition that leads everyone you claim to be grasping at straws that your side has lost 100 members. I'll have to check for it, someone somewhere on the OWF did BK's share of the math for you. What with all the mergers, BK should have had, what, 230? 240ish? Yet you're in the 160s. 

Even accounting for inactives in CS and Zodiac who didn't move over, or didn't want to, even a generous estimate still says you're missing 40 that you should have. Which accounts for, of course, around 40% of the lost nations, and this assuming a generous conservative estimate. If we go with what you should have versus reality, the disparity means BK makes up over 70% of lost nations. Though i don't think that's fair given inactives and detractors in mergers exist, it still means your alliance in particular is responsible for a significant portion of the missing nations.

Sadly i didn't pay as close attention to many other alliances save NPO, who bounced around too but nowhere near as much. TGH dropped for a while but is now back at the 41 i believe it started with. UPN started at 41 and ended at 29. 
I'm sure someone could use the stat tracker, in this instance, to check each day and get a good idea of which alliance lost how much in this equation, but you are the majority of it without question, and so i find this laughable attempt at deflection to be pathetic, when it'd be better for you and your alliance to simply admit the failure and then move to correct it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lairah said:

You tell others they're grasping at straws and then fail to be capable of conducting grade school math level addition and pattern recognition that leads everyone you claim to be grasping at straws that your side has lost 100 members. I'll have to check for it, someone somewhere on the OWF did BK's share of the math for you. What with all the mergers, BK should have had, what, 230? 240ish? Yet you're in the 160s. 

Even accounting for inactives in CS and Zodiac who didn't move over, or didn't want to, even a generous estimate still says you're missing 40 that you should have. Which accounts for, of course, around 40% of the lost nations, and this assuming a generous conservative estimate. If we go with what you should have versus reality, the disparity means BK makes up over 70% of lost nations. Though i don't think that's fair given inactives and detractors in mergers exist, it still means your alliance in particular is responsible for a significant portion of the missing nations.

Sadly i didn't pay as close attention to many other alliances save NPO, who bounced around too but nowhere near as much. TGH dropped for a while but is now back at the 41 i believe it started with. UPN started at 41 and ended at 29. 
I'm sure someone could use the stat tracker, in this instance, to check each day and get a good idea of which alliance lost how much in this equation, but you are the majority of it without question, and so i find this laughable attempt at deflection to be pathetic, when it'd be better for you and your alliance to simply admit the failure and then move to correct it.

You are really grasping at straws here to push your narrative. The Zodiac merger happened before the war so any of those people that didn't come over can't be counted because we never had them in the first place. Rarely do entire alliances move over in a merger unless they are small alliances. Some of the people in Zodiac and Cornerstone didn't want to merge. That is their choice. We welcomed those that did. Some more will probably leave as they decide that we aren't a good fit. This is normal as well.

Any members of Zodiac that didn't join BK in the merger ceased to be members of IQ when the merger happened so to count them as lost is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. We are used to these kinds of things from the IQ haters out there. Saying that we are "missing" all the people that chose to go a different direction instead of merging into BK is complete bullshit. We can;t be missing people we never had. Please continue tossing the bullshit against the wall though, some of it might stick eventually.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lairah said:

You tell others they're grasping at straws and then fail to be capable of conducting grade school math level addition and pattern recognition that leads everyone you claim to be grasping at straws that your side has lost 100 members. I'll have to check for it, someone somewhere on the OWF did BK's share of the math for you. What with all the mergers, BK should have had, what, 230? 240ish? Yet you're in the 160s. 

Even accounting for inactives in CS and Zodiac who didn't move over, or didn't want to, even a generous estimate still says you're missing 40 that you should have. Which accounts for, of course, around 40% of the lost nations, and this assuming a generous conservative estimate. If we go with what you should have versus reality, the disparity means BK makes up over 70% of lost nations. Though i don't think that's fair given inactives and detractors in mergers exist, it still means your alliance in particular is responsible for a significant portion of the missing nations.

Sadly i didn't pay as close attention to many other alliances save NPO, who bounced around too but nowhere near as much.

Wait, how are folks who chose not to move over accounted as member deletions? That is some real creative accounting going there lol. Also the NPO have always maintained between 120-130 members this past war. There have been seen losses/new recruits but that is normal in almost any mass member alliance and member retention. The fact that we've historically keep our numbers intact and lose a few during wars, can't be compared with more elite/smaller member base alliances. To even try to compare the same, really shows how hard folks need to grasp to spin this war into a victory for them lol. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/04/2018 at 10:05 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

And if IQ were really dominant at this point there would have been no white peace. Once we got tier supremacy IQ peaced as fast as they could.

It really does work both ways, our tier supremacy was and is simply at a much higher level than yours. Which gives us more resiliency and funding power, whilst you have more submarine power.

Yet you had Tier Supremacy to begin with, so no it doesn't work both ways. You were after an easy victory and once you knew that you wouldn't get it you wanted out and once you agreed to terms that were acceptable to both, peace was achieved.

Edited by Tiberius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yet you had Tier Supremacy to begin with, so no it doesn't work both ways. You were after an easy victory and once you knew that you wouldn't get it you wanted out and once you agreed to terms that were acceptable to both, peace was achieved.

No one within their right mind was after an "easy victory".  Maybe some people who are still 'green' in major conflict did, but the vets knew very well this wouldn't be "easy" and I stated this a few times in the coalition chat on our side.

As for "tier supremacy", it entirely depends on how you look at it.  IQ side had much better tier cohesion in the lower tiers, but our side did have whales that IQ couldn't touch.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

No one within their right mind was after an "easy victory".  Maybe some people who are still 'green' in major conflict did, but the vets knew very well this wouldn't be "easy" and I stated this a few times in the coalition chat on our side.

As everyone but TGH and Rose was 'green', thats not a convincing argument.

Edited by LeotheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LeotheGreat said:

As everyone but TGH and Rose was Green, thats not a convincing argument.

You do know people swap alliances around, right?  And have participated in major wars from past alliances?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buorhann said:

You do know people swap alliances around, right?  And have participated in major wars from past alliances?

Having fought in a global war as an individual is very different than an alliance having never fought in war together. The sum of all parts and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Having fought in a global war as an individual is very different than an alliance having never fought in war together. The sum of all parts and all that.

In that case, you'd consider TGH being 'green' then.

We can argue this out separately if you wish. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same conclusion that should have been reached like 3 weeks ago. Wars in PW CAN and SHOULD be quick. The outcomes are decided typically within the first 12 days, like it or not. Sheepy even added attrition war to make them faster. If you enjoy war, have shorter wars instead of cold-wars for months on end and then actual wars for month+ long duration. You'll enjoy it more. For those of us who were too big to hit anyone even after getting rid of nearly half my military, it's extremely boring when you drag out wars needlessly among only low-tiers.

 

That's my 2-cents.

 

'Grats on the "peace" I suppose.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Valdoroth said:

This is the same conclusion that should have been reached like 3 weeks ago. Wars in PW CAN and SHOULD be quick. The outcomes are decided typically within the first 12 days, like it or not. Sheepy even added attrition war to make them faster. If you enjoy war, have shorter wars instead of cold-wars for months on end and then actual wars for month+ long duration. You'll enjoy it more. For those of us who were too big to hit anyone even after getting rid of nearly half my military, it's extremely boring when you drag out wars needlessly among only low-tiers.

 

That's my 2-cents.

 

'Grats on the "peace" I suppose.

That has more to do with the decision to  fight a low tier heavy coalition.  I'm sure if you had decided to fight people who are concentrated at higher city counts, you could have fought much more.  If people had agreed to peace out after twelve days, some alliances would have absorbed much less damage.

Quick wars produce more lop-sided outcomes and invite repeats. The most expensive stuff is destroyed in the first round so when someone loses their expensive infra, there's no incentive to peace immediately if they're able to fight, unless they just want to be a doormat and invite frequent mass raids. It would take the risk out of warring for whoever can ensure they have a good first round.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

In that case, you'd consider TGH being 'green' then.

We can argue this out separately if you wish. 

I mean I consider TGH a special case to be honest. While this was the first war together, you have a martial focus, and your quality of fighters outside of the AO remnants are usually pretty high. Compare this to KT where as an alliance it has never fought a war, and where most of its leadership has not been high gov during war as well. Additionally as a coalition you had never fought together before, which causes its own complications. And yea I am down to debate this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

I mean I consider TGH a special case to be honest. While this was the first war together, you have a martial focus, and your quality of fighters outside of the AO remnants are usually pretty high. Compare this to KT where as an alliance it has never fought a war, and where most of its leadership has not been high gov during war as well. Additionally as a coalition you had never fought together before, which causes its own complications. And yea I am down to debate this.

Yet KT consists of several members who are veterans from several past wars...

The only real "green" AAs was ROK, BC, IoM, NSR, and HS on our side.  Now whether they thought it'd be an easy war or not?  I wouldn't know.  I do know the rest of us knew we were in this for a long drawn out time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

That has more to do with the decision to  fight a low tier heavy coalition.  I'm sure if you had decided to fight people who are concentrated at higher city counts, you could have fought much more.  If people had agreed to peace out after twelve days, some alliances would have absorbed much less damage.

Quick wars produce more lop-sided outcomes and invite repeats. The most expensive stuff is destroyed in the first round so when someone loses their expensive infra, there's no incentive to peace immediately if they're able to fight, unless they just want to be a doormat and invite frequent mass raids. It would take the risk out of warring for whoever can ensure they have a good first round.

Not everyone here likes CN-styled war, and you haven't got over the major differences even still. Shoot, half the active players in PW now probably don't even know what CN is. Wars are fought not on the ability to be able to fight back, because then you'd have perpetually never-ending wars since everything in PW is relatively quick to build. This is the primary error in your thinking. The main aspect of war is knocking your opponents down fast, which is how PW is designed. The risk is not getting the jump on or not having good counters (mostly the latter). That's how wars in PW are. That's why older AA blocks and how Arggh still persists so well. The flipside and counter to your "doormat" is that if you have been beat down a few times consecutively and actually accept your losses, there ARE enough reasonable leaders and players that will respect your inability to rebuild, and let you rebuild back.

However, when you consistently flame and complain, you'll never get the respect that you're wanting. A change in attitude is needed from most of PW, but since that'll never happen, this game will continue to drovel in the mud-hole that it currently is in. Trying to be a single power-house only goes so far, as we've seen, and if one continues to try to be top of the pyramid and doesn't respect their opponents and those below them, they'll obviously be looked at as a PoS by anyone not. Respect your opponents, whether you win or lose.

Glad to see that there were no reps were demanded at least. There is almost always enough damage dealt in infra alone to not need reparations. Reps are better suited to more particular cases between alliances than general large-scale wars, and should be dealt similarly even within large-scale if they are deemed valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

No one within their right mind was after an "easy victory".  Maybe some people who are still 'green' in major conflict did, but the vets knew very well this wouldn't be "easy" and I stated this a few times in the coalition chat on our side.

As for "tier supremacy", it entirely depends on how you look at it.  IQ side had much better tier cohesion in the lower tiers, but our side did have whales that IQ couldn't touch.

So if you weren't after an easy victory why try and close the war down after a week when non-IQ did a lot of expensive damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So if you weren't after an easy victory why try and close the war down after a week when non-IQ did a lot of expensive damage?

TBF the decision is logical. IQ always takes the heaviest damage in the opening rounds. If they could have convinced us to white peace a week in it would be a huge win. Thats why its in IQ's best interest normally to drag on the wars till the damage differential is closed like in this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, it is logical, but I don't recall anybody looking to peace out after a week (Well, except on my end, when I had talks with Polaris/TUE/Cerb/OWR going on).

Edited by Buorhann
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.