War Stats

[Smith]

On 7/21/2018 at 7:58 PM, Sketchy said:

1: Your claim was that various people "paraded" stats that didn't include muns/gas usage in the previous war. My claim was that the stats they were parading were not mine, and I ultimately had no input in the collection of stats past round 1. You also made the claim that I was "fine with posting partial stats" that war, but that incident is the reason I didn't post them this war initially. You are trying to exaggerate the situation to make a point.

2: If there isn't an accurate way to track these opportunity costs, then WHY ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT IT. I never said these opportunity costs didn't exist, in fact I didn't say anything in my initial post besides share the image, you are basically just creating a strawman for you to froth at the mouth at.

3: I mean, I can change the word damage to cost if you like, its a debate of semantics. People with basic comprehension skills can read what is and isn't included in the stats as its literally on the screenshot. Guess what isn't included in either stats? Resource loot for one. That would be part of the damages right? I guess we should just throw both statistics completely out then because neither of them have every single factor. 

You are applying a standard for what I shared that you didn't apply for what was shared in the OP. Who is hellbent on spreading propaganda now?

 

1. My point was not multiple people. When I refer to "you guys" I mean you as a representative of the alliance. I made the point that you posted war stats and created a thread for those stats called "war stats". You gave your reasoning for why you stopped which is fine, but that doesn't mean you didn't post them.

2. Since you are incorporating new stats not typically tracked and could give a misleading impression about the war, I want to point out other factors that aren't reflected in the stats. 

3. Are you arguing that people with basic reading comprehension skills are plentiful on the OWF?  (theres an easy set up for you). And yes that would more accurately reflect the total of the stats you are posting. And I believe Micchan posted resources looted stats as well. 

There is no double standard. The stats that were posted previously were things that were typically tracked in war stats threads, there was nothing to comment on. The gas/mun are not typically tracked in war stats threads and coincidentally are slanted in your favor. This is why I commented on them to point out the misperception about the state of the war it could give. Notice I did not comment on any other part of your stats.

 

On 7/21/2018 at 6:57 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

There is literally no form of "damage" that isn't "just costs". Including the steel/aluminum costs of units but not including their gas/munitions costs would be inaccurate and indeed disingenuous as they are direct expenditures suffered on account of engaging one's opponents.

And sure, we've got low infrastructure... but we've also got low gas/munition/upkeep costs, and are still running positive revenues due to that, while maintaining positive net damage per day, every day, for the last month. We can continue this pretty much indefinitely. Meanwhile, you've got high infrastructure... but also high gas/munition/upkeep costs, and your infrastructure is orders of magnitude more expensive to replace than ours, which is relevant for every missile, nuke, and yes beige that you weather on our account.

Now, you can accurately claim that your revenues are indeed higher than ours. I would respond by arguing that your revenues would be higher than ours in any case whatsoever purely due to the number of pixel-hugger farmers you've recruited over the years, but would be far higher still were you not vainly throwing resources towards attempting to break an unbreakable will.

Full mobilization across your entire alliance means each and every city is using about half a dozen improvement slots for stashing military and protecting pixels that would otherwise have been used for manufacturing, raws, or commerce. If anything, the scale of your alliances work against you because of that; you have that many more cities economically gimped and that much more upkeep to pay. Every day this war continues slows your economy that much more, and until you have hard numbers to back up your claim that we're affected "exponentially more", I say that you are deeply underestimating how much you're losing in terms of 'daily costs'.

Look, if you want me to calculate it for you, just tell me exactly what your standard peacetime build and militarization would be and I'll try to do the math myself; it's simple arithmetic once you remove the variables of what 'peace' means.

Damage is typically thought of as the "damage" you do to the opponent by attacking them. If you think of it as something else, uh okay I guess but I am going to point that out as I don't think most people do. 

We don't have full mobilization across our entire alliance. Look at mine for example. If you wish to think the costs a nation like mine is suffering are similar to nations who can't build past 800 infra then go for it I guess. You are right I can't provide hard stats though as I can't think of anyway to accurately track this. I am confident though that this difference is apparent enough for anyone looking on from the outside though. 

Our militarization has varied from nation to nation during the length of the war so it really wouldn't be that simple. It's part of the same reason why we can't accurately track your opportunity cost. 

Also unbreakable will... Really? 6 month NAP says hi

 

OOC: Apologies for the late response on this

Edited July 25, 2018 by Smith

[Sketchy]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

1. My point was not multiple people. When I refer to "you guys" I mean you as a representative of the alliance. I made the point that you posted war stats and created a thread for those stats called "war stats". You gave your reasoning for why you stopped which is fine, but that doesn't mean you didn't post them.

2. Since you are incorporating new stats not typically tracked and could give a misleading impression about the war, I want to point out other factors that aren't reflected in the stats. 

3. Are you arguing that people with basic reading comprehension skills are plentiful on the OWF?  (theres an easy set up for you). And yes that would more accurately reflect the total of the stats you are posting. And I believe Micchan posted resources looted stats as well. 

There is no double standard. The stats that were posted previously were things that were typically tracked in war stats threads, there was nothing to comment on. The gas/mun are not typically tracked in war stats threads and coincidentally are slanted in your favor. This is why I commented on them to point out the misperception about the state of the war it could give. Notice I did not comment on any other part of your stats.

1: You seem to be retroactively softening your initial point to avoid the obvious criticism I made of it. But since you just conceded that the reason I stopped is fine, your original reason is moot anyway so... ok?

2: Last war incorporated new stats not typically tracked also. No war in the games history has had a full 100% accurate take on stats, most of them have left stuff out, usually not on purpose, but because of the limitations on gathering them in the first place. There is usually a fairly clear and obvious winner in most wars on paper, and you can usually tell who would benefit from whatever stats are left out. Your whole argument was that including the stats I did was an attempt to spread "propaganda", that the damages gap was closing, when the same statistics I shared showed the damage gap IS closing via the other forms of damage you apparently deem to be legitimate. You then went off on a tangent about income disparity, which is odd given that if you don't think gas/mun usage, a direct cost of war and a result of strategy and actions implemented in the war, is a valid statistic, then why would you even cite that, especially since I never claimed it was or wasn't valid, and you already conceded it couldn't be tracked effectively.

3: Probably not, but are you arguing its the obligation of people to dumb down or simplify their posts to cater to them? Micchans stats are only for TKR, and not even all of TKR. Unfortunately it seems that older wars are eventually wiped from the games storage, so most of the resource loot data is unverifiable and impossible to complete.

You've changed your argument, from me posting partial  stats to me posting "not typically tracked stats". The former is a double  standard, trying to shift the goalposts to avoid that isn't going to work I can literally read your previous posts.

As for gas/muns, I addressed the first part of that above. Its not "coincidental", its called strategy. Attempting to apply only statistics which apply to a shorter conventional war, in a longer attrition war, is inaccurate. You keep hammering on the semantics of the word "damage" as if it somehow makes your point for you. A cost is a form of indirect damage.

Would you argue that the cost  for me to purchase and launch a nuke, isn't a statistic that should be counted? Its been counted in some of the previous wars. So if I launch a bunch of nukes that cost me ~5m at your 300 infrastructure city, that should be considered a net positive on my behalf?. Now, obviously I'm not tracking those stats, but I would be if the data was easily attainable. Hell, you could go further with your attempt to latch on to the semantics of the word "damage" and by that token argue that loot doesn't count either, after all, your not damaging their loot.

 

[Micchan]

4 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Unfortunately it seems that older wars are eventually wiped from the games storage, so most of the resource loot data is unverifiable and impossible to complete.

If you want them it's all here saved

[Sir Scarfalot]

7 hours ago, Smith said:

Damage is typically thought of as the "damage" you do to the opponent by attacking them. If you think of it as something else, uh okay I guess but I am going to point that out as I don't think most people do. 

We don't have full mobilization across our entire alliance. Look at mine for example. If you wish to think the costs a nation like mine is suffering are similar to nations who can't build past 800 infra then go for it I guess. You are right I can't provide hard stats though as I can't think of anyway to accurately track this. I am confident though that this difference is apparent enough for anyone looking on from the outside though. 

Our militarization has varied from nation to nation during the length of the war so it really wouldn't be that simple. It's part of the same reason why we can't accurately track your opportunity cost. 

Also unbreakable will... Really? 6 month NAP says hi

Well, feel free to think that you're not actually using gas or munitions I guess, but I'm still going to point out that you are, no matter how refined your denial may be.

As for the NAP, it did not come with a surrender of any kind, so what's your point? Go declare war on us if you hate it so much; otherwise stop complaining about something you had no stake in, have absolutely no connection to, and have no reason to be salty about.

I mean hell, you're saltier about that war than the actual combatants, what is even wrong with you

[Spaceman Thrax]

On 7/21/2018 at 6:57 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

unbreakable will.

Where did half of your membership go?

[Prefonteen]

55 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Where did half of your membership go?

Willing themselves through other alliances. Unbreakably.

[Settra]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Where did half of your membership go?

About where TRF-TKR-TCW membership went. How did abandoning your allies in a war go?

[Spaceman Thrax]

3 minutes ago, Settra said:

About where TRF-TKR-TCW membership went. How did abandoning your allies in a war go?

TRF-TKR-TCW didn't say they had unbreakable will.

Also, your point is fundamentally that the you have comparable will to TRF, which is hilarious considering they are basically a rookie alliance that you have spent months making fun of. "We sure showed them, by being no better than them with a bunch of larger players"!

Also: Paperless. We don't have allies, but regardless our own timeline for that war was discussed before we did exit, as a courtesy.

Pretty feeble arguing. Seems like you're just phoning it in. Where's your unbreakable will?

[Hodor]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

TRF-TKR-TCW didn't say they had unbreakable will.

Also, your point is fundamentally that the you have comparable will to TRF, which is hilarious considering they are basically a rookie alliance that you have spent months making fun of. "We sure showed them, by being no better than them with a bunch of larger players"!

Also: Paperless. We don't have allies, but regardless our own timeline for that war was discussed before we did exit, as a courtesy.

Pretty feeble arguing. Seems like you're just phoning it in. Where's your unbreakable will?

I'm genuinely curious, what's your dog in this fight?

[Sketchy]

Just now, Hodor said:

I'm genuinely curious, what's your dog in this fight?

Manthrax doesn't have any dog in any fights.

Hes too busy avoiding them.

[Settra]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Also: Paperless. We don't have allies, but regardless our own timeline for that war was discussed before we did exit, as a courtesy.

Pretty feeble arguing. Seems like you're just phoning it in. Where's your unbreakable will?

So you abandoned your allies. Good Job Thrax.

[Sketchy]

Just now, Settra said:

So you abandoned your allies. Good Job Thrax.

Don't blame this on Thrax man, if he had his way, they'd have never gone to war in the first place.

[Spaceman Thrax]

7 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Don't blame this on Thrax man, if he had his way, they'd have never gone to war in the first place.

Hahaha. Jeez.

You guys have declared longer peace agreements than you've fought, and I'm not the one claiming to be a warlike alliance. Your criticisms mean literally nothing to me.

As you were, I guess.

[Sketchy]

Just now, Spaceman Thrax said:

Hahaha. Jeez.

You guys have declared longer peace agreements than you've fought, and I'm not the one claiming to be a warlike alliance. Your criticisms mean literally nothing to me.

As you were, I guess.

Still hammering that narrative I see. Considering we are at war right now, I'd say the NAP didn't have much effect on  "stagnating" now did it.

We've existed for 151 days, and 91 of those days we've spent at war.

Church of Spaceology has existed for 494 days and you've spent about that time whining without doing anything. Hell, the first real war CoS has had since its creation didn't even happen until after you promoted Ripper in your place. Do the game a favor and never go back to leading an alliance.

"Your criticisms mean literally nothing to me." Lmfao

[Settra]

33 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Hahaha. Jeez.

You guys have declared longer peace agreements than you've fought, and I'm not the one claiming to be a warlike alliance. Your criticisms mean literally nothing to me.

As you were, I guess.

They must mean a lot for you to keep going on about how you have done less than an alliance that has been around for 151 days.

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, Settra said:

About where TRF-TKR-TCW membership went. How did abandoning your allies in a war go?

 

Jokes on you he has no allies.

 

How did doing FA work out for you rickky?

Edited July 25, 2018 by Prefonteen

[Keegoz]

This thread now be like

[Settra]

3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Jokes on you he has no allies.

 

How did doing FA work out for you rickky?

I wonder why. Maybe because he abandons them and only hits VM alliances like Pantheon?

Working out how I expected it to.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Settra

[Prefonteen]

34 minutes ago, Settra said:

I wonder why. Maybe because he abandons them and only hits VM alliances like Pantheon?

Working out how I expected it to.

Definitely nothing wrong with your sharp analytical skills.

[Sir Scarfalot]

6 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

TRF-TKR-TCW didn't say they had unbreakable will.

Also, your point is fundamentally that the you have comparable will to TRF, which is hilarious considering they are basically a rookie alliance that you have spent months making fun of. "We sure showed them, by being no better than them with a bunch of larger players"!

Also: Paperless. We don't have allies, but regardless our own timeline for that war was discussed before we did exit, as a courtesy.

Pretty feeble arguing. Seems like you're just phoning it in. Where's your unbreakable will?

My point is that since TGH's inception, TGH, KT, and ET have fought in 2 large-scale wars in which they have been both outnumbered and outfunded, yet we've fought diligently and fiercely despite those odds. Has TRF accomplished that? No, and stop suggesting that they have. We actively fought against IQ directly for over a month, only ending it after negotiations between IQ and the non-IQ coalition agreed upon a white peace and NAP. Now, yes, we've shed some members... and so have TKR-RF-CW.

I wasn't referring to being unbreakable down to the level of each individual player; not everyone is capable of or would enjoy the life of an elite guerilla warrior, and on our side everyone is free to choose if our strategy is something they can accept or not. Rather, I was referring to the fact that TGH/KT/ET as alliances continue to fight, and effectively so, whereas pretty much any other alliance would have long since surrendered or lost the will to fight efficiently.

It should be pointed out that I am not in fact speaking in any official capacity. Actual negotiations/intimidation attempts/posturing/surrenders/white peaces/6 month NAPs should be offered to Buorhann or another Khan.

[Buorhann]

No need to get triggered by them guys.  Just look at their own alliance’s history and decision making.

[Spaceman Thrax]

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

My point is that since TGH's inception, TGH, KT, and ET have fought in 2 large-scale wars in which they have been both outnumbered and outfunded, yet we've fought diligently and fiercely despite those odds. Has TRF accomplished that? No, and stop suggesting that they have. We actively fought against IQ directly for over a month, only ending it after negotiations between IQ and the non-IQ coalition agreed upon a white peace and NAP. Now, yes, we've shed some members... and so have TKR-RF-CW.

I wasn't referring to being unbreakable down to the level of each individual player; not everyone is capable of or would enjoy the life of an elite guerilla warrior, and on our side everyone is free to choose if our strategy is something they can accept or not. Rather, I was referring to the fact that TGH/KT/ET as alliances continue to fight, and effectively so, whereas pretty much any other alliance would have long since surrendered or lost the will to fight efficiently.

It should be pointed out that I am not in fact speaking in any official capacity. Actual negotiations/intimidation attempts/posturing/surrenders/white peaces/6 month NAPs should be offered to Buorhann or another Khan.

Alright. Let's unpack some of this.

First of all, you have a fair point that you were the one that said unbreakable, not anyone else. I used it to make a shot at some of your leadership anyway, because I think they are goofs. And I think anyone perusing this thread can probably piece together the proverbial tip of the iceburg of why I think that. And as I said to Sketchy, their criticisms and opinions mean little to me, because they are too often argued in bad faith (and usually in a fairly low effort manner I think most sensible people see little reason to engage).

But if I'm going to post your post to make that point, I should probably explain myself better to you, so here goes. I'm down for a little actual discourse, so sorry for starting from somewhere so flippant with you.

Most of what you said sounds to me like it came from an echo chamber rather than a top-down view of events. You probably oughtn't include KT and ET if you're going to talk about fighting hard since their inception (And I wouldn't make the same criticism about KT/ET either, because their actions seem more in line with their far lower amount of gloating), so let's look at TGH.

From the get go, your alliance has postured like a fighting alliance. You are correct that you've spent a lot of days engaged in wars. I don't agree you were outfunded in last war, and I don't agree that you "fought against IQ directly for over a month", because your leaders deliberately tried to avoid engaging IQ's core numbers from the war's outset. Your alliance had plenty of old time players who had resources to funnel and keep yourselves going. You were not a new alliance in the purest sense of the word. I recall a lot of posturing that war about the stats involved, and to me that looked like a fairly direct consequence of frontloading damage against the weaker parts of IQ's greater sphere, not some masterstroke of elite warfare. That's actually not to say you don't fight well, impressively, or fiercely... But you're also overstating your case a bit, I feel. And with the way your leaders had postured, they should deliver on that... I expect it. And to cap that off with a NAP, well, to me, that's a surrender. It is your alliance losing the political end of the conflict it set out to fight. If you give me bogus terms and I'm unbreakable, I'd just tell you no. So something in there isn't right.

The basis of my comparison to TRF is that TRF never claimed to be a fighting alliance. I have seen precious little of the kind of grandstanding I see from your alliance from them (I'm sure there's some, but in terms of volume nowhere close). So when your elite, warfighting alliance goes off to fight TRF and has comparable levels of membership loss, I don't think I'm coming out of left field pointing out the disconnect.

Anyway you can hit me up on discord if you wanna take this aside, up to you.

[Buorhann]

Manthrax, we literally started with 200mil in cash.  To say you don’t agree with us being outfunded by alliances that have well established members and been around vastly longer than us just goes to show how ignorant you are with your observations.

Also, when was the last time CoS went past 1 round of conflict under your lead again?

>comparable loss of members

You’re forgetting that they’re on the supposedly “winning” side and losing these numbers.

>6mo NAP

Take it up to Abbas.  Everybody in that coalition could verify that both Sketchy and I made it clear that TGH was in that fight till they were done and we’d peace out along with them.

I personally voiced an opinion that anything longer than 3mos was too much, but they decided by majority that was the peace term.

Keep harping that term was all us though.  It seems to be the only card you folks pull out.

 

I’m curious as to why you continue to do so though.  Are you upset we’re not fighting your battles against IQ or something?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Buorhann

[Kastor]

You guys keep talking about membership. I want to point out that I’m not seeing it internally. Every alliance has “dead-weight”. We had 2-3 mergers, so obviously we’re gonna have some dead weight that has to be kicked/who leaves. I’d say that the number we have is more comparative to what the membership base is, maybe minus a few people who straight up deserted.

 

Also, I don’t understand the narrative of a few of you in this thread. Why are you berating us for fighting? And comparing us to alliances that haven’t fought as much as we have? We’re a war alliance. We are gonna fight. You want to berate us until we never fight unless it’s useless dogpiles that do nothing to enhance the game at all(CoS/TEst va SK/AIM)?

[Aksel]

5 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You guys keep talking about membership. I want to point out that I’m not seeing it internally. Every alliance has “dead-weight”. We had 2-3 mergers, so obviously we’re gonna have some dead weight that has to be kicked/who leaves. I’d say that the number we have is more comparative to what the membership base is, maybe minus a few people who straight up deserted.

 

Also, I don’t understand the narrative of a few of you in this thread. Why are you berating us for fighting? And comparing us to alliances that haven’t fought as much as we have? We’re a war alliance. We are gonna fight. You want to berate us until we never fight unless it’s useless dogpiles that do nothing to enhance the game at all(CoS/TEst va SK/AIM)?

Prob one of the only things I'll agree with this guy on.