Jump to content

69 Days Later


Theodosius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Congratulations with peace all.

 

58 minutes ago, Epi said:

Yah, is ET apart of KT again or what? 

R.I.P no nap for the micros

9m57pDo.jpg ?

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Micchan said:

4. Gas and ammo used is a joke

5. Even if gas and ammo used is a joke having half of the alliance safe from the enemy attacks makes us able to finance the war because a whale can make enough to finance the war of 3-4 low tiers

6. Those stats only count money and not the loot, I still have to do the definitive stats but TKR only should be around 12B net with resources looted, if you do resources + money is 16-17B gained, and we lost around 16B of units and infra, so they pretty much financed our war

4. We aren't going to start this again are we? You guys had people doing full scale attacks on 400 infra cities. If you don't want to calculate "costs" then we really should just be looking at infra destroyed. There is no other metric that is quite as pure.

5. Sure, that's a valid counter point. Use that, but not to discredit gas and munitions as a cost of war, but to provide context to numbers. I certainly won't fault you for that.

6. I believe Sketchy has indicated this is not included many times, his omission is not a matter of oversight but of inability to gather this information accurately.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Micchan said:

You can easy explain those stats

1. Once you're under 800-1000 infra the damage value doesn't change so much so when they reached that limit their infra damage stopped while our infra damage continued to growth, in the last month we had to destroy something like 50k infra to cover the value damage of one nuke on an high infra nation

2. If you don't use tanks and ships you don't lose so much because soldiers are cheap and aircrafts are not that expensive, so if you start with an airstrike on tanks/ships you already did more damage than the value of all your soldiers and aircrafts

3. This submarine warfare also allow you to stay low on score and hit smaller nations while avoiding big nations, so upper tiers can put in trouble low tiers with only soldiers and air, for example last time I updated our stats we had only 60 players with active wars out of the 143 who partecipated to this war, I'm sure for TCW was like 15-20 max still at war, so after the first weeks there were similar numbers of nations involved between the two coalitions

4. Gas and ammo used is a joke

5. Even if gas and ammo used is a joke having half of the alliance safe from the enemy attacks makes us able to finance the war because a whale can make enough to finance the war of 3-4 low tiers

6. Those stats only count money and not the loot, I still have to do the definitive stats but TKR only should be around 12B net with resources looted, if you do resources + money is 16-17B gained, and we lost around 16B of units and infra, so they pretty much financed our war

Probably doesn't hurt if you ignore some "fiends" and "allies" to prolong the war unnecessarily - thus giving everyone a nice bump. I mean, except those getting stomped; in which case they're made to look awful.  

Edited by rollo
double post is double

STFU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I could also just say "you hit with more people, more military and better tiering" along your line of logic and invalidate your entire lead.

You can't pick and choose when to apply situational circumstances to stats and when you can't lmfao. Either they do or they don't.

I just explained why it seem a close war with those stats

 

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

TL;DR - We didn't fight according to your standards

tl;dr your side is trying to force your standars as the only standards

Mass downvoting posts that show you the evidence wouldn't work, the first post still says you admitted defeat, the average infra on your side is like 700, the members lost, the wars lost, the loot, the units lost, everything is still there

If you want to talk about positive things for your side I'm open to talk about how ET did not fall apart, how many players still tried after 2 months, how you did your best in this hard situation, let's talk about that if you want praise but talking about gas and ammo used by the enemy in a war it's pathetic, it's like the nerd slapped every day by the bully that one day is happy because the bully punched him, you are not good if we are too lazy to check the box to not use ammo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Micchan said:

tl;dr your side is trying to force your standars as the only standards

Uh, what?  We are?

19 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Mass downvoting posts that show you the evidence wouldn't work, the first post still says you admitted defeat, the average infra on your side is like 700, the members lost, the wars lost, the loot, the units lost, everything is still there

If you want to talk about positive things for your side I'm open to talk about how ET did not fall apart, how many players still tried after 2 months, how you did your best in this hard situation, let's talk about that if you want praise but talking about gas and ammo used by the enemy in a war it's pathetic, it's like the nerd slapped every day by the bully that one day is happy because the bully punched him, you are not good if we are too lazy to check the box to not use ammo

1_123125_2126996_2279939_2293542_110512_

(Reviving dead memes~)

(You still don't get it, it's ok.)

(Do your own stats and don't ask Sketchy to do them for you next time)

Edited by Buorhann
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Micchan said:

I just explained why it seem a close war with those stats

 

tl;dr your side is trying to force your standars as the only standards

Mass downvoting posts that show you the evidence wouldn't work, the first post still says you admitted defeat, the average infra on your side is like 700, the members lost, the wars lost, the loot, the units lost, everything is still there

If you want to talk about positive things for your side I'm open to talk about how ET did not fall apart, how many players still tried after 2 months, how you did your best in this hard situation, let's talk about that if you want praise but talking about gas and ammo used by the enemy in a war it's pathetic, it's like the nerd slapped every day by the bully that one day is happy because the bully punched him, you are not good if we are too lazy to check the box to not use ammo

"your side is trying to force your standards as the only standards"

>proceeds to claim that your standards are the only standards

Self awareness is really not your strong suit. Of course, you dodged my argument in my first reply to you, which is that by your own logic, literally nothing you did to win matters because the circumstances prevented any other outcome. You want to apply circumstances only when it benefits your argument.

Trust me, if I wanted to make an actual case using circumstances as the basis rather than the stats as they are, I could, and it wouldn't be hard to make a good one.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

"your side is trying to force your standards as the only standards"

>proceeds to claim that your standards are the only standards

Self awareness is really not your strong suit. Of course, you dodged my argument in my first reply to you, which is that by your own logic, literally nothing you did to win matters because the circumstances prevented any other outcome. You want to apply circumstances only when it benefits your argument. 

Trust me, if I wanted to make an actual case using circumstances as the basis rather than the stats as they are, I could, and it wouldn't be hard to make a good one.

Looks like your stats omitted how much was looted on both sides, and it also omitted opportunity cost of being at 400 infra for 2 months. If you're going to move the goal post then perhaps try and be objective by listing all of the stats that aren't in your favor? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lordship said:

Looks like your stats omitted how much was looted on both sides, and it also omitted opportunity cost of being at 400 infra for 2 months. If you're going to move the goal post then perhaps try and be objective by listing all of the stats that aren't in your favor? :P

Lmfao, that was also hashed out in the old thread. You guys were the first ones to post public stats, and neither the ones I posted nor the ones you did included the resource loot because neither side had the scripts necessarily to collect all that information.

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or you didn't read the other thread and are jumping into this debate for the first time blind. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt on that one?

EDIT: On recollection, we actually had a discussion about the old thread in private, so you did read it. Intentionally obtuse it is then. 

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sketchy said:

Lmfao, that was also hashed out in the old thread. You guys were the first ones to post public stats, and neither the ones I posted nor the ones you did included the resource loot because neither side had the scripts necessarily to collect all that information. 

I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or you didn't read the other thread and are jumping into this debate for the first time blind. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt on that one? 

I'd never be intentionally obtuse! :P Don't worry, I'm sure unbiased stats will pop up here sometime soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Micchan said:

You can easy explain those stats

1. Once you're under 800-1000 infra the damage value doesn't change so much so when they reached that limit their infra damage stopped while our infra damage continued to growth, in the last month we had to destroy something like 50k infra to cover the value damage of one nuke on an high infra nation

2. If you don't use tanks and ships you don't lose so much because soldiers are cheap and aircrafts are not that expensive, so if you start with an airstrike on tanks/ships you already did more damage than the value of all your soldiers and aircrafts

3. This submarine warfare also allow you to stay low on score and hit smaller nations while avoiding big nations, so upper tiers can put in trouble low tiers with only soldiers and air, for example last time I updated our stats we had only 60 players with active wars out of the 143 who partecipated to this war, I'm sure for TCW was like 15-20 max still at war, so after the first weeks there were similar numbers of nations involved between the two coalitions

4. Gas and ammo used is a joke

5. Even if gas and ammo used is a joke having half of the alliance safe from the enemy attacks makes us able to finance the war because a whale can make enough to finance the war of 3-4 low tiers

6. Those stats only count money and not the loot, I still have to do the definitive stats but TKR only should be around 12B net with resources looted, if you do resources + money is 16-17B gained, and we lost around 16B of units and infra, so they pretty much financed our war

1) That is a byproduct of the war going on for an extended period of time. Of course, the longer it goes, the more time the losing side has at it's disposal to generate opportunities and play catch up, and close in on the damages that they sustained upfront on the first few rounds. In other words, if you'd rather the gap remain wide, you're better offer relatively light terms so the war ends sooner.

If you would rather play economic warfare and try to outproduce the enemy (as is mentioned ahead), then go ahead with it, but accept the tradeoff that ground will be lost on the stats simply because the other side has more opportunities to get damage in than you do.

2) Generally correct. That still requires the other side to have tanks/ships to blow up to begin with. Them being employed by TKR/tCW/TRF is a direct consequence of the strategy that was chosen and employed. Presumably, they were there to either prevent someone from getting GC in and then AS'ing stuff, to prevent cash looting, or to prevent being nav spammed. All fair enough reasons, but the tradeoff is that you have expensive military that can, and will, be targetted.

3) That is true, to an extent. If you had 16-20 cities and managed to get 5-6 days of beige, then you bought enough air that it would put you in range of 2.8k people, which for the 3200-3600 people, isn't hard to reach with a decomm. If they are truly low, then they most likely were either cycled and lost quite a bit of infra (and thus don't have as an effective of a double buy), or had only a few days of beige to build with, in which they would not put as much harm as they otherwise could. I do think that you are being a bit disingenuous with the "similar number of nations involved" thing, as that says nothing of the combat capabilities that either side had (which, at least to me, comes off as suggesting that there was some equal ground in this regard), and obviously, TKR/tCW/TRF had plenty more mil to work with than KT/TGH (at least in anything above 1k ns). Furthermore, there was the possibility for more nations in your side to partake which were comfortably within range (notably from tCW), but those simply didn't act upon it.

4) It is a handy metric to indicate who is being efficient with their resources and who isn't. Plus, it is an actual cost of waging warfare, so I fail to see why it shouldn't be accounted. Your stance would be similar to pretending that it is dumb to factor in the money you'd spend on gas for commuting.

5) That is an argument of economic warfare, and not statistics. It is of course a factor for, say, peace talks (or gauging the feasibility of waging a war), but it is not a metric you can go by to include in statistics. Just like how you can't reasonably (or practically) include military upkeep, or decomm costs, into it (even though we all know it's there).

6) Already addressed by several people, so no point in bothering with it.

3 hours ago, Micchan said:

I just explained why it seem a close war with those stats

 

tl;dr your side is trying to force your standars as the only standards

Mass downvoting posts that show you the evidence wouldn't work, the first post still says you admitted defeat, the average infra on your side is like 700, the members lost, the wars lost, the loot, the units lost, everything is still there

If you want to talk about positive things for your side I'm open to talk about how ET did not fall apart, how many players still tried after 2 months, how you did your best in this hard situation, let's talk about that if you want praise but talking about gas and ammo used by the enemy in a war it's pathetic, it's like the nerd slapped every day by the bully that one day is happy because the bully punched him, you are not good if we are too lazy to check the box to not use ammo

I'd argue that it shows that there were still avenues for us to get damage in (which didn't include nukes), in spite of the common perception that the war was "effectively over" in like the first one or two weeks. You can go ahead and recite the reasons you listed earlier, but the truth of the matter is, if we really were unable to do anything, the gap wouldn't have closed as much as it did (particularly for the likes of KT, that managed to flip mil damages into a positive net when they were originally in the negs for that too), simply because the perma cycling would have prevented us from doing anything in such a situation.

As for the standards thing; you mean the fighting style or the gas/muns thing? If it is the former; hardly. You pick a strategy for the particular needs you need to satisfy. Making a standard out of it would be stupid for any situation. Plus, I've not seen that many people contest whether this was a W or an L. Some contested the magnitude of such (which is an entire argument on it's own), but not the W/L status. 

As for the latter; as I've said earlier, it gives an insight on how well each side managed their resources. Wasteful tendencies shouldn't be encouraged simply because you can restock those with new production. And no, we were aware that you were going out of your way to airstrike worthless infra just to pad that stat, so it is hardly a matter of merely forgetting to not use muns when attacking with soldiers. Again, if you want to pad infra destroyed, then go for it, but accept the cost (pun intended) of doing so.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Corrections.
  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

LOOK
ET HAS BETTER NET DAMAGE THAN TKR<TRF AND TCW COMBINED.
JUST THONKING WHAT IF THE WAR WENT ON FOR TWO MORE MONTHS.......

Ez question, I'd ban you

 

  • Upvote 4

1878498441_DJKrmko.png.dccff90b8a322ff56cb0b8e3e056be19.png
Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

LOOK
ET HAS BETTER NET DAMAGE THAN TKR<TRF AND TCW COMBINED.
JUST THONKING WHAT IF THE WAR WENT ON FOR TWO MORE MONTHS.......

I mean sure, except for the part where 3.7 billion > 2.6 billion.

Numbers sure are complicated, ain't they.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lordship said:

I'd never be intentionally obtuse! :P Don't worry, I'm sure unbiased stats will pop up here sometime soon

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

If you don't want to calculate "costs" then we really should just be looking at infra destroyed. There is no other metric that is quite as pure.

 
3

????

infra.jpg 

Edited by Hodor
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Micchan said:

You can easy explain those stats

1. Once you're under 800-1000 infra the damage value doesn't change so much so when they reached that limit their infra damage stopped while our infra damage continued to growth, in the last month we had to destroy something like 50k infra to cover the value damage of one nuke on an high infra nation

2. If you don't use tanks and ships you don't lose so much because soldiers are cheap and aircrafts are not that expensive, so if you start with an airstrike on tanks/ships you already did more damage than the value of all your soldiers and aircrafts

3. This submarine warfare also allow you to stay low on score and hit smaller nations while avoiding big nations, so upper tiers can put in trouble low tiers with only soldiers and air, for example last time I updated our stats we had only 60 players with active wars out of the 143 who partecipated to this war, I'm sure for TCW was like 15-20 max still at war, so after the first weeks there were similar numbers of nations involved between the two coalitions

4. Gas and ammo used is a joke

5. Even if gas and ammo used is a joke having half of the alliance safe from the enemy attacks makes us able to finance the war because a whale can make enough to finance the war of 3-4 low tiers

6. Those stats only count money and not the loot, I still have to do the definitive stats but TKR only should be around 12B net with resources looted, if you do resources + money is 16-17B gained, and we lost around 16B of units and infra, so they pretty much financed our war

In all honesty, the aggregated cost of everything and how much the two sides contributed to that cost is all that really matters to me and from the looks of those stats, the combined forces of KT-TGH-ET did almost an equal amount of damage compared to TKR-TcW-TRF. However, I also know that TKR and friends are in a much better position for rebuilding than KT and the lot of em, so in terms of who won, I think it's TKR-TcW and ally.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Who Me said:

I find it amusing that KT and TGH are using the same tactics and arguments they dismissed out of hand during the last war with the IQ coalition.

On 4/18/2018 at 2:27 PM, Buorhann said:

Yeah, 6mo NAP sucks, but hey - this war would've continued on for another month or so due to the strategies employed.

It was a interesting war.  Showed that you can't really pin nations down anymore, or it's much harder now.  Back in the past it was easy to pin nations down and force a surrender.  Now you'd have to get creative.

3ttNZ9m.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in TKR is really trying to minimize the damage TGH and KT/ET did, to be honest.  They were great fighters and utilized great tactics, and did a lot of damage.  It was the first war in a long time that actually felt like a war.

The problem comes when you guys try to say that because you did a lot of damage, and damage alone, that you somehow "won" or got the better of us, even in the surrender thread.  Everybody accepts the extremely valiant and powerful effort you put into this loss - there was a lot of respect for your fighters during the war.  But when you try to say that you did so much damage to us it may as well be a wash, and you ignore the other factors, we're going to push back.

Statistics only tell one side of the story.  We get it - you landed a ton of body blows.  We just happened to be the bigger fighter.  Pretending that this was closer than it actually was is beneath you guys, because I genuinely think it mars the admirable fight you put up.

  • Upvote 4

120209800_meirl2.png.0a9b257b4d3e0c1ac6d6b8be8184cba7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Komiko said:

I mean sure, except for the part where 3.7 billion > 2.6 billion.

Numbers sure are complicated, ain't they.

Please notice the word **combined** which therefore makes his statement correct.

Words sure are complicated, ain't they.

  • Upvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2018 at 11:46 AM, Sargun said:

I don't think anyone in TKR is really trying to minimize the damage TGH and KT/ET did, to be honest.  They were great fighters and utilized great tactics, and did a lot of damage.  It was the first war in a long time that actually felt like a war.

The problem comes when you guys try to say that because you did a lot of damage, and damage alone, that you somehow "won" or got the better of us, even in the surrender thread.  Everybody accepts the extremely valiant and powerful effort you put into this loss - there was a lot of respect for your fighters during the war.  But when you try to say that you did so much damage to us it may as well be a wash, and you ignore the other factors, we're going to push back.

Statistics only tell one side of the story.  We get it - you landed a ton of body blows.  We just happened to be the bigger fighter.  Pretending that this was closer than it actually was is beneath you guys, because I genuinely think it mars the admirable fight you put up.

I mean when you get hit with a dogpile and still come out on top it is a victory.

On 8/14/2018 at 11:29 AM, Who Me said:

I find it amusing that KT and TGH are using the same tactics and arguments they dismissed out of hand during the last war with the IQ coalition.

Pretty amusing coming from the guy who shit all over tCW's sekret treaties to then join them.

Edited by Settra
  • Upvote 2

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that all parties can agree on some things!

Queen is a great band and Freddie Mercury has a godly voice.

  • Like 3

1878498441_DJKrmko.png.dccff90b8a322ff56cb0b8e3e056be19.png
Yeet on all the fascists, viva la revolution mofo - Josip Broz for all dem Titos and Tities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Settra said:

I mean when you get hit with a dogpile and still come out on top it is a victory.

When you get hit with a dogpile and it isn't a shutout... then it's still a defeat, just a surprisingly close one. Which is why there's no shame in calling it a defeat.

"We must be very careful not to assign [this] the attributes of a victory."

"We shall not be judged by the criticisms of our opponents, but by the consequences of our acts."
-Winston Churchill

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
just woke up
  • Upvote 3
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.