Jump to content

Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?


Sphinx
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Nice troll.  Can you show these documents?

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Rose didn't pay us, but we were given 100k of each resource and a couple billion. I told them that they'd have to make it worth our while to fight IQ, and shortly after, that was given to us and I was like "Well, ok then, I certainly cannot turn that down."

Thanos 04/23/2018 Yep that is enough for most people to be persuaded

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Otherwise we would've handled our own peace negotiations with Polaris and Co, then been out of the war. I'd imagine we'd have been out of it much earlier, as we had already worked with OWR and to a certin extent Cerberus (That was a nightmare of issues due to Arya being multis like crazy). And it's not like we had the resources to really wage a full on war against a major sphere at the time (We were not even a month old iirc). But with that payment, that's why we stuck it out. Like I stated earlier, our beef was with Polaris and that was it. We had no quarrels with IQ initially at all, and I even told the few folks organizing the hit against IQ that we weren't going to join that war. It wasn't until later they threw those funds at us and then thats when we started to spread out our hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Rose didn't pay us, but we were given 100k of each resource and a couple billion. I told them that they'd have to make it worth our while to fight IQ, and shortly after, that was given to us and I was like "Well, ok then, I certainly cannot turn that down."

Thanos 04/23/2018 Yep that is enough for most people to be persuaded

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Otherwise we would've handled our own peace negotiations with Polaris and Co, then been out of the war. I'd imagine we'd have been out of it much earlier, as we had already worked with OWR and to a certin extent Cerberus (That was a nightmare of issues due to Arya being multis like crazy). And it's not like we had the resources to really wage a full on war against a major sphere at the time (We were not even a month old iirc). But with that payment, that's why we stuck it out. Like I stated earlier, our beef was with Polaris and that was it. We had no quarrels with IQ initially at all, and I even told the few folks organizing the hit against IQ that we weren't going to join that war. It wasn't until later they threw those funds at us and then thats when we started to spread out our hits.

Soooo...Buorhann states he was gonna hit Polaris, who our beef was with, and had no quarrels with IQ and we were paid to hit. He also says he wasn't going to join that war. Where exactly did Buorhann lie here?

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Rose didn't pay us, but we were given 100k of each resource and a couple billion. I told them that they'd have to make it worth our while to fight IQ, and shortly after, that was given to us and I was like "Well, ok then, I certainly cannot turn that down."

Thanos 04/23/2018 Yep that is enough for most people to be persuaded

Buorhann 04/23/2018 Otherwise we would've handled our own peace negotiations with Polaris and Co, then been out of the war. I'd imagine we'd have been out of it much earlier, as we had already worked with OWR and to a certin extent Cerberus (That was a nightmare of issues due to Arya being multis like crazy). And it's not like we had the resources to really wage a full on war against a major sphere at the time (We were not even a month old iirc). But with that payment, that's why we stuck it out. Like I stated earlier, our beef was with Polaris and that was it. We had no quarrels with IQ initially at all, and I even told the few folks organizing the hit against IQ that we weren't going to join that war. It wasn't until later they threw those funds at us and then thats when we started to spread out our hits.

Your point with this?

You said we didn't take risky hits, and I clarified earlier that we would've hit Fake Vanguard regardless if Rose/KT/etc had hit IQ.  We fully planned on being retaliated by IQ for hitting Fake Vanguard.  We were literally going to go in and be a pixel burning nuisance.

Once our plan reached some people's ears though, we were asked to wait.  Then you guys blitzed KT, and we said "frick it, let's hit them now".  Multiple times we were requested to hit IQ, I declined it.  That is, until payment was offered, which we accepted and which is explained in what you just showed.

 

So...  where are these documents about "Pantheon bank" saying we weren't going to hit Fake Vanguard regardless of IQ protection again?

 

PJWLHGK.png

 

Please re-read the underline and how you replied to it.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

Ummm no.

TGH has not initiated any risky wars in its history. Good fighters sure, but in no way are you a Test who suicides knowing they'll lose. In AC you hit Polar when IQ was busy thinking you would get away with it, so it wasn't started believing it would be a risky war. 69 day war wasn't up to you, and when you rolled TRF there was no risk there at all since their allies were busy. 

Lets not get all revisionist history here.

9 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

I am guessing these numbers are based on TGH Sphere against BK&Co, but we both know it will not be that simple as I do not believe anyone in TGH sphere are dumb enough to go at it without bring in overwhelming odds to give them a chance, So what are the numbers when you take in to account it wont simply be TGH Sphere.

O_O

Am I going to need to sing you two a song?

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
wrong Thanos quote, soz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Oi. I take offense at this; we are absolutely dumb enough to do that ?

Well good Sir I did not know you was in TGH, I do take my last statement back fully, YOU are dumb enough :D

I have heard you sing, trust me I would rather 12 rounds with Tyson in his prime than that :P 

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

33 minutes ago, MoonShadow said:

Well good Sir I did not know you was in TGH, I do take my last statement back fully, YOU are dumb enough :D

I have heard you sing, trust me I would rather 12 rounds with Tyson in his prime than that :P 

Awww... Thank you; I fully accept your apology :D

You'll need to accept my own apologies and a raincheck for the upvote though since I'm out of reactions today ?

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

6 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

False. It’s well documented that TGH was going to sit out of AC till they were paid Pantheons bank to join. More revisionist history. 

Ah yes, from your intimate involvement in the planning of the war against you. You have no idea what you are talking about lmfao. Keep spinning.

BK hasn't engaged in an offensive war literally since you left t$-oo unless it was a dogpile. Just pre empts. You needed half the game to take down big bad TKR because you too shook to come out of the lower tier and would rather have a bunch of upper tier alliances meatshield for you.

You were the worst alliance in t$-oo, got your ass kicked by NPO, realized it would be easier to join NPO to avoid getting your ass kicked again by them, and now your too !@#$ to run your own group without stacking meatshields to the ceiling to protect you from the "upper tier consolidation".

You keep trying to change the subject because you know your narrative is retarded and falls apart under very basic scrutiny. The real irony is noone would be talking about you at all if you weren't stacking treaties to the roof. Hell, everyone was up t$'s ass last week and not even looking at you, and the week before they were up TKR's ass (you included).

Funny how you can switch from whining about TKR protecting TCW to signing TCW and act like nothing happened and everyone suddenly is "out to get you" with "narratives". You only have to look at the numbers to see why everyone is talking about it now.

  • Like 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tarroc said:

I love how everyone is fighting and arguing, but Yui shows up and is all cheerful and happy. Thank you, Yui. 

Always. It just kind of became my role here. Last time a pony...what will it be next?!

  • Like 5

Dorky Weeb One 

Yw8p02d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

angry ranting

Huh.  And people are accusing Leo of getting triggered.  I'm just going to break this down since there's a lot to unpack here:

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

BK hasn't engaged in an offensive war literally since you left t$-oo unless it was a dogpile. Just pre empts. You needed half the game to take down big bad TKR because you too shook to come out of the lower tier and would rather have a bunch of upper tier alliances meatshield for you.

There's been three major wars since BK left Syndi-OO; Tiers, AC and Knightfall.  In Tiers BK was on the offensive (though of course we lost that one), in AC we preempted (so technically we did hit first, but as you say, it was coming anyways) and in Knightfall BK was on the offensive as well (but I guess that doesn't count, since you say dogpiles don't count).  Meanwhile, Rose was on the defensive during Tiers (and I seem to recall you were running it at the time), CKD didn't participate in any major conflicts during your time there, TGH entered against Vanguard following our preempt (so I guess we'll call that 0.5 offensive wars each, since technically we both struck first), was on the defensive against TKR during DDR, hit TRF for a couple of weeks when no one was looking (which hardly qualifies as a major war, but we'll count it as another 0.5 since we're keeping score) and sat out the main war against TKR and friends entirely.  So by that reckoning, BK following the formation of IQ engaged in 2.5 offensive wars in the traditional sense of the term (Tiers and Knightfall, plus preempting during AC) and alliances you occupied a leadership role in engaged in 1 (0.5 for AC and 0.5 for NRF, though again the latter wasn't exactly a ground shaking move on your part).  So while, sure, according to the very narrow definition you've put out, I guess BK didn't engage in more than a few wars during that period, but I'm not sure why you feel you're in position to criticize others for a supposed lack of going on the offensive.

As for your tiering comment, BK is currently averaging 16.36 cites per player, compared to 13.86 for TGH, so it appears we that we are building higher on average than your AA is, although you guys have a higher proportion of small players than we do at the moment.  Still, if you run the stats, you'd notice that BK is primarily tiered in the 17-18 range, compared to the 18-20 range for TGH and KT, so again I'm not sure why you feel you have grounds to criticize an AA with tiering only slightly lower than your own.  The topic of upper tier consolidation re:TKR was already talked to death in the run up to the last war, so we'll just let the record show that Sketchy feels that TKRs upper tier consolidation totally was a thing that a bloc whose largest member was 24 cities prior to the last war should have been able to handle completely on its own and all the AAs that felt threatened by it (which is why the coalition came together, by the way) should have stood aside, apparently. 

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

You were the worst alliance in t$-oo, got your ass kicked by NPO, realized it would be easier to join NPO to avoid getting your ass kicked again by them, and now your too !@#$ to run your own group without stacking meatshields to the ceiling to protect you from the "upper tier consolidation".

By what measurement was BK the worst AA in Syndi-OO?  I'm sure we can find stats from Oktoberfest, 168 and Pacifica in Orbis Central to demonstrate that we more than pulled our weight in those wars, as well as in Paperless.  And I don't recall Rose (which you were a part of at that time and gov in after October 2017) covering itself in glory in any of those conflicts;

1) Looks like you all had a separate peace in Pacifica, leaving your allies to surrender later:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/13543-announcement-from-the-coalition-known-apparently-as-the-leeroy-jenkaaylmao-coaltion-and-the-empire-of-rose/

2) Surrendered in Silent:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/16718-roses-surrender/

Though of course your nation page says you were only lower Econ gov, so Rose's not-great blitz against TKR that war probably wasn't your fault.

3) And, of course, 168 was a war initiated by your side that ended in white peace, so you can't really say the AA you were a part of achieved its goals there either.  

Then, as I recall, when you actually became upper gov in Rose you guys switched sides courtesy of a tie with Mensa and played a fairly peripheral part in Paperless (although I'm sure we can dig up stats for that as well if you like), though according to your definition of what constitutes an acceptable 'offensive' war (IE not a curbstomp), I guess that really can't count as a mark in favour of Sketchy-in-gov era Rose as well, since that was most definitely an example of everyone coming together to take down TEst.  Meanwhile, while it's true that BK did have a tough first round in Silent, that was mostly because we were prioritized by NPO, UPN, Polaris and HBE due to our performance against NPO in Pacifica, rather than getting the famous two-man blitz treatment like some other people did.  Fortunately, we did manage to keep them busy enough that they couldn't switch to other fronts while our allies mopped up the rest of the enemy coalition (including the AA you were fighting for at the time) and ended up with a win for our side.  For the record, I did take the time to dig up the stats for Silent and, while it definitely wasn't our finest war, we did do okay considering we took a harder hit than many of the AAs in our coalition early on.

But yeah, Silent stats for those who are curious: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BVOQv4r2MYPZEfQoJgcokGrZagxqL1oeJxNMSdZsnh0/edit#gid=5604508

At any rate, perhaps someone else can dig up stats on Oktoberfest, 168, Pacifica and Paperless (the stats pages aren't as clearly marked for those wars as they are nowadays), but if you're talking performance wise, I don't think you have much ground to stand on, especially since it was Sketchy-in-gov era Rose that people had doubts about performance wise after you switched sides, rather than BK (or at least that's what I recall from the coalition servers where we discussed you guys coming over to our side - someone who was Syndi-OO gov back then probably has logs from the relevant server, since I didn't bother keeping them).

As for your meatshield comment, you'll notice that BK & Co is one of the weaker of the six spheres upper tier wise, which is the same issue IQ had prior to the split.  If we look at Theodosius' stats... 

unknown.png

...you'll see that the upper tier is concentrated in Chaos/KT spheres, with the two combined having 48/120 of the 24-26s, 50/89 of the 27-33s and of the 10/12 34-39s, meaning almost 50 percent of the larger nations in the game, and virtually all of the largest ones, are in two of the six spheres.  You'll also notice that signing TCW (which by and large has more high city count folks than BK) only brings BK & Co to fifth place in the number of higher tier nations (behind Rose but above Pantheon), so rather than 'stacking meatshields' it provided us with a capacity that we have traditionally lacked relative to other spheres (and which certainly was an issue for IQ).  So it's up to other people to decide if having half of the largest nations in two of the six spheres constitutes consolidation, but it is hardly an overwhelming advantage that BK & Co has acquired.  I'm sorry that an upper AA being willing to work with us is so upsetting to you though, I guess.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

You keep trying to change the subject because you know your narrative is retarded and falls apart under very basic scrutiny. The real irony is noone would be talking about you at all if you weren't stacking treaties to the roof. Hell, everyone was up t$'s ass last week and not even looking at you, and the week before they were up TKR's ass (you included).

BK has actually cut 7 of its 16 treaties (which I believe is the largest amount cut in-game so far, though I suppose it also says something about the number we'd signed) and signed 1 since IQ dissolved, which is a 7:1 ratio for dropping versus retaining ties.  More importantly, the BK/NPO treaty was ended which, at least according to its critics, was the single worst treaty ever and almost solely responsible for stagnating the game due to our cohesion in the middle tier, so you're welcome for that.  While I realize that it may feel odd to not complain about BK FA constantly (that was a scary week or so for us, too - we had feared you'd forgotten about us), the fact remains that BK, NPO and GoG voluntarily broke up a sphere that most people outside it felt was problematic and that created a space for new politics to take place: whatever you might feel about BK as an AA, I doubt even you can argue with the fact that IQ voluntarily dissolving has changed the FA environment we're all operating in.  And yeah, much like TKR, tS, NPO, CoS, Guardian, GoB, SK, TGH and KT, BK has made a new friend after shedding some old ties.  Maybe more will go in the future (that's not my decision to make any more, thankfully), but for the second time in two years BK has completely reoriented its FA, making Orbis a different place in the process.  You can complain about the pace of the change if you like, but we've done more than most to shake things up during our time as one of the larger AAs in Orbis.  So again, I'm not sure you have a lot of ground to criticize us when we've more than once taken the lead in making big changes in our FA, even if the pace or form it takes isn't necessarily to your liking.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Funny how you can switch from whining about TKR protecting TCW to signing TCW and act like nothing happened and everyone suddenly is "out to get you" with "narratives". You only have to look at the numbers to see why everyone is talking about it now.

Wasn't the whole point of everyone dropping previous ties to make friends with new people, including former enemies?  Guardian was allied to TKR during DDR (and GoB was informally aligned with EMC in general) and I don't recall anyone ranting in your treaty thread about how you signed someone who formerly wasn't in your immediate sphere of influence.  If we're serious about trying new things people are going to have let go of beefs from past wars, so criticizing BK for burying the hatchet with TCW while many other AAs as busy signing former opponents (or in TGH's case, people who were allied to your most recent major opponent) seems a bit baseless coming from you.

As for the 'BK & Co is OP' numbers, looking at them shows that we don't dominate any particular tier in the manner IQ did; we're about equal to NPO/tS in the fearsome 1-9 tier (205/734 nations), stronger in the only slightly less irrelevant 10-12 tier (203/595), do have an advantage in the lower mid tier (198/498 13-16 folks), are about equal to NPO/tS in the upper mid tier (collectively, 294/379 of the 17 to 18s are in one or the other sphere - funny thing about how the two large AAs that tiered to that level still have most of the people at said level two weeks later), and then start to fall off dramatically at 19 and up (only 130 people over 19, which places us behind Chaos, KETOG and NPO/tS in that area, even with TCW added into the mix).  So yeah, your numbers essentially state that BK is still strong in the mid tier (shocking I know), but instead of the upper middle tier being concentrated almost exclusively in IQ, it's now split between tS/NPO and BK/TCW (again, you're welcome for that).  It also says that almost half of BK & Co's terrifyingly terrifying 800 or so nations are below the 13 city mark, a range that is pretty much irrelevant against any sphere other than Pantheon and NPO/tS and certainly isn't much of a threat to the two blocs where almost half of the upper tier nations currently reside.  So yeah, I'm not going to accuse you of pushing a narrative (since you were just stating facts, as you've said), but the fact remains that the numbers BK is currently bringing to the table don't really suggest the kind of tier consolidation IQ was always criticized for in its heyday.  We're about equal to tS/NPO sphere in capacity currently, with an advantage lower down and a growing disadvantage the farther you go up the tiers, while KETOG/Chaos are about equal upper tier wise and larger than the other spheres in terms of big members (overwhelmingly so among the biggest).  But hey, we have more noobs than Pantheon, so that's kind of neat.

So I realize this was a pretty large text-wall, so here:

TLDR: Sketchy got triggered and spouted a bunch of nonsense that isn't really supported by facts, meaning that Leo isn't the only angry guy typing away in this thread.  Personally, I regard that as the first victory of the BK/TCW alliance.

Edited by Curufinwe
So many grammatical errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Wall of boredom

TLDR: Sketchy got triggered and spouted a bunch of nonsense that isn't really supported by facts, meaning that Leo isn't the only angry guy typing away in this thread.  Personally, I regard that as the first victory of the BK/TCW alliance.

I dunno, this whole thing started because you got triggered by a graph and 1 word. But I suppose you'll take what you can get :P

  • Upvote 2

[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

Guest Curufinwe
34 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I dunno, this whole thing started because you got triggered by a graph and 1 word. But I suppose you'll take what you can get :P

Well I'm just discussing the numbers your spheremates so helpfully provided and responding to a few points your ally made - if you read the wall of boredom you'll notice I confine myself to the arguments Sketchy raised without veering off into any weird tangents.  Unless I misunderstood its intent, the purpose of the lovely graph (and the accompanying chart) Theodosius provided was to educate OWF readers on where the various spheres stand relative to each other following the recent FA changes, so I feel we'd be doing a disservice to the people who compiled them if we didn't discuss the facts they've presented. 

I do agree that it's important to take victories where you can find them though, so we've already found a point of agreement between our positions.  Could that be yet more evidence that Orbis is moving away from the quarrels of the past in the brave new world we're all creating?

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

There's been three major wars since BK left Syndi-OO; Tiers, AC and Knightfall.  In Tiers BK was on the offensive (though of course we lost that one), in AC we preempted (so technically we did hit first, but as you say, it was coming anyways) and in Knightfall BK was on the offensive as well (but I guess that doesn't count, since you say dogpiles don't count). 

You guys claimed Tiers was a preempt. Do you forget the entire log controversy? (I still haven't seen it btw pop it in my dms fam).

So that would be 2 preempts and a dogpile. Therefore my point still stands, based on your own logic.

The rest of your paragraph continues on this false premise so I'm going to skip most of it. TGH didn't enter on your "preempt" in AC, we were part of the initial plan and were always intended to be on Vanguard. False. Had we not committed, the war likely wouldn't have happened at all, depending on whether it got to the point of being leaked and the preempt went ahead anyway. The rest of your paragraph seems to be some weird attempt to compare a sphere that has for its entire existence been by design more than 1/4 of your size and has still managed to achieve more offensive wars than you have.

35 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

As for your tiering comment, BK is currently averaging 16.36 cites per player, compared to 13.86 for TGH, so it appears we that we are building higher on average than your AA is, although you guys have a higher proportion of small players than we do at the moment.  Still, if you run the stats, you'd notice that BK is primarily tiered in the 17-18 range, compared to the 18-20 range for TGH and KT, so again I'm not sure why you feel you have grounds to criticize an AA with tiering only slightly lower than your own.

I wasn't criticising your tiering. The meatshield comment was in reference to your decision to bring in a bunch of upper tier alliances into the war against TKR to eat all the damage while you sat planes only in the bottom minimizing the risk. Which you did. So....

38 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

And I don't recall Rose (which you were a part of at that time and gov in after October 2017) covering itself in glory in any of those conflicts;

44 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Though of course your nation page says you were only lower Econ gov, so Rose's not-great blitz against TKR that war probably wasn't your fault.

You literally just argued against yourself, good job. I was not even playing the game during 168, and I wasn't in government until after Silent War finished. You really got me bro.

I WAS the leader of Rose when we kicked your ass tho lmfao. Funny you didn't mention that in your little 1000 word essay. Must have slipped your mind.

49 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

As for your meatshield comment, you'll notice that BK & Co is one of the weaker of the six spheres upper tier wise, which is the same issue IQ had prior to the split.  If we look at Theodosius' stats... 

Yes, I can see that you are intentionally ignoring one half of that table and focusing on the part that advances your narrative. The upper tier consolidation jab was me making fun of the fact that literally 2 weeks ago Leo was claiming chaos was an upper tier consolidation, and now hes signing the alliance he was concerned about (TCW). I will try to be more direct in the future to ensure you can understand and don't get all confused.

54 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Meanwhile, while it's true that BK did have a tough first round in Silent, that was mostly because we were prioritized by NPO, UPN, Polaris and HBE due to our performance against NPO in Pacifica, rather than getting the famous two-man blitz treatment like some other people did.

Wow bro calm down there @Seeker might not appreciate you calling him out like that. VE tried their hardest.  But fair enough. Polaris and UPN are pretty scary.

57 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

BK has actually cut 7 of its 16 treaties (which I believe is the largest amount cut in-game so far, though I suppose it also says something about the number we'd signed) and signed 1 since IQ dissolved, which is a 7:1 ratio for dropping versus retaining ties.

Yer, because you had the most treaties of anyone, no fricking shit.  You do realize that still leaves you with 9 treaties right? Brilliant framing tho, you should post on Leos behalf from now on he needs all the help he can get.

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

the fact remains that BK, NPO and GoG voluntarily broke up a sphere that most people outside it felt was problematic and that created a space for new politics to take place: whatever you might feel about BK as an AA, I doubt even you can argue with the fact that IQ voluntarily dissolving has changed the FA environment we're all operating in.

You aren't broken up yet. Both sides are tied into vanguard. I've been told the transition period isn't complete, hence why I'm not !@#$ing about that in every single thread despite it being glaringly obvious when I could be and I'm just focusing on the treaties that exist outside of it. Point to my criticism of NPO or GOG anywhere on the forum. I haven't criticised GOG because I have no idea what they are doing as of yet, and have waited to see. I haven't criticised NPO because I know they were the actual drivers of the split. I did criticise t$ because Kayser as you would agree with me has a somewhat murky history on this point, but he claimed more was to come and for the most part I have waited to see.

I never claimed it wasn't a good thing or that it shouldn't be commended. But replacing one IQ with a sphere only slightly smaller while other groups are making an active effort to trim down their numbers in more significant ways doesn't make you a hero. It makes this a transparent power move. This is further solidified by the fairly obvious attempts to redirect onto chaos. I've been a fairly outspoken critic of TKR for awhile now, and if they try to pull similar moves, I'll be saying the same shit to them.

You seem to think my criticism of BK is tied to personal issues but its not. You make moves, I respond to them. Its within your power to change my or anyone elses perception of you.

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

Wasn't the whole point of everyone dropping previous ties to make friends with new people, including former enemies?  Guardian was allied to TKR during DDA (and GoB was informally aligned with EMC in general) and I don't recall anyone ranting in your treaty thread about how you signed someone who formerly wasn't in your immediate sphere of influence.  If we're serious about trying new things people are going to have let go of beefs from past wars, so criticizing BK for burying the hatchet with TCW while many other AAs as busy signing former opponents (or in TGH's case, people who were allied to your most recent major opponent) seems a bit baseless coming from you.

This is just pure spin. My criticism was of Leos attempts to redirect onto Chaos. I don't have an issue with burying the hatchet, I have an issue with overt power grabs and attempts to obfuscate data in order to justify it. 

As for the whole paragraph about the stats, I already asked if you guys wanted me to post a graph or not, I assume no. That is an entire separate conversation to get into. I could be pushing that line a lot harder than I am. Frankly I'd say I've been waaayyy more generous with all of you during this period than I could have been, precisely because of the nature of the events.

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

TLDR: Sketchy got triggered and spouted a bunch of nonsense that isn't really supported by facts, meaning that Leo isn't the only angry guy typing away in this thread.  Personally, I regard that as the first victory of the BK/TCW alliance.

TLDR: Curu is a fan of writing long paragraphs sneakily built on false premises, and forming strawman arguments in order to avoid having to deal with the real ones. Truly a master of word salad and bullshit sandwiches.

Thanks for playing.

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
12 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Triggering intensifies 

I'll just ahead and respond to your points separately, since you've managed to squeeze a lot of problematic arguments into your response again.

16 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

You guys claimed Tiers was a preempt. Do you forget the entire log controversy? (I still haven't seen it btw pop it in my dms fam).

As I recall, your side denied that a war was in the offing and claimed IQ was the aggressor (rather than preempting an incoming war), so I'm just using the frame of reference your side (and by extension, you) advanced at the time (particularly during the peace negotiations, where it was put forward that a surrender would be required since we were the aggressor in the conflict).  Unless you're retroactively changing things up, the coalition you helped lead is on record as stating that IQ's actions in Tiers were unjustified aggression, so it's kind of strange you're changing your tune 2 years later.

19 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

So that would be 2 preempts and a dogpile. Therefore my point still stands, based on your own logic.

The rest of your paragraph continues on this false premise so I'm going to skip most of it. TGH didn't enter on your "preempt" in AC, we were part of the initial plan and were always intended to be on Vanguard. False. Had we not committed, the war likely wouldn't have happened at all, depending on whether it got to the point of being leaked and the preempt went ahead anyway. The rest of your paragraph seems to be some weird attempt to compare a sphere that has for its entire existence been by design more than 1/4 of your size and has still managed to achieve more offensive wars than you have.

Actually, I used offensive in the conventional sense, since I'd hazard to say most people regard the offensive side in a war as the people who struck first, rather than limiting the scope of what constitutes an offensive war with preconditions are your definition appears to do.  But hey, even if we take your definition as the standard, TGH has still only managed one major war where it was on the offensive which, if we use the argument your side made that Tiers was offensive on IQ's part, ties us at one.  Of course, it also means that the Sketchy-as-gov period has only seen an AA you played a high gov role in engage in one legitimate offensive war between 2017 and the present (cuz remember, Paperless doesn't count), so I'm not still not sure why you feel that you're in a position to criticize BK for its war record during our time in IQ.

26 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I wasn't criticising your tiering. The meatshield comment was in reference to your decision to bring in a bunch of upper tier alliances into the war against TKR to eat all the damage while you sat planes only in the bottom minimizing the risk. Which you did. So....

IQ nations weren't in a position to take on the EMC whales during Knightfall. As I'm sure you noticed in AC, upper tier capacity wasn't exactly our strong point and I'm not sure why you think max building 15 city nations so they needlessly eat a downdec from a Guardian or GOB whale would have contributed to the allied war effort.  We did do our best to help out our allies where we could by gutting TKR's mid and lower upper tiers nations on the first wave, expanding to Guardian to help out CoS and TEst when they started taking hits from the unengaged whales and taking down individual larger nations once slots started to clear out.  Plus, if you look at Frawley's stats...

https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/conflict/1

...you'll see that BK/NPO/GoG/Acadia collectively took about 115b in damage (BK has the second highest absolute damage received total by the way), so we were hardly sitting at the sidelines doing nothing while our allies fought.  In fact, I'm sure you could find some people in the coalition who would cheerfully attest that BK's enthusiasm for slots got on some nerves.  So yeah, unless you seriously think that four AAs that collectively took 115b in damage through the course of 4390 offensive wars was trying to minimize its contribution, I don't think your argument there is all that tenable.

41 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

You literally just argued against yourself, good job. I was not even playing the game during 168, and I wasn't in government until after Silent War finished. You really got me bro.

I mean you're the one who brought up BK's performance in the bloc before the bloc we recently left.  I'm not sure why you felt the need to discuss Syndi-OO (which has been defunct for about 26 months), but since we were taking a trip down memory lane, I figured I'd take the opportunity to rebut your claim that BK was the worst AA in Syndi-OO (which I notice you haven't produced stats to substantiate, so I guess you're letting that go) and compare it to the AAs you were involved with during the time.  If you read what I wrote, you'll also notice that I pointed out that you weren't gov during that period, but I thought you'd like some context on the wars you and I were fighting back then.  My bad about the 168 thing though - I must have misread the dates on your nation page.

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

I WAS the leader of Rose when we kicked your ass tho lmfao. Funny you didn't mention that in your little 1000 word essay. Must have slipped your mind.

Actually, if you consult what I wrote, you'll see I did mention that you were the leader of Rose during Tiers, in the context of Tiers being a defensive war on your part, as well as mentioning that BK was defeated in Tiers.  I just wanted to address that so you don't feel that I'm minimizing your accomplishments, since you felt the need to point it out and all.

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

Wow bro calm down there @Seeker might not appreciate you calling him out like that. VE tried their hardest.  But fair enough. Polaris and UPN are pretty scary.

 

I do something that Seeker doesn't appreciate at least once a week, so I imagine he's used to it by now.  Although you're right - UPN was definitely scarier back in late 2017 than it currently is, though of course not as scary as it was in Oktoberfest.  More importantly, the lack of a solid BK upper tier allowed them to get some nice downdecs on our handful of larger guys (our initial counter for them was CS, which traditionally didn't have the best military record), while Polaris, HBE and NPO squeezed us from the bottom and middle.  I see you haven't disputed the fact that BK got hit a bit harder than other AAs in the initial blitz (Mensa also took some heat from Alpha and FARK, but got bailed out fairly quickly by a joint blitz from the coalition that a few of us organized), so I assume that means you're dropping your point that BK was the worst AA in Syndi-OO because of our performance in Silent.  I'm glad we managed to clear that up.

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

Yer, because you had the most treaties of anyone, no fricking shit.  You do realize that still leaves you with 9 treaties right? Brilliant framing tho, you should post on Leos behalf from now on he needs all the help he can get.

I do realize that, although I also realize that BK has shed far more treaties than it has picked up during the past two weeks so, again, while you're free to criticize us if you like, the fact remains that we've cut a significant portion of our ties in a short period of time and signed fewer treaties than TGH has during the same period (since you've signed two to our one during the past few weeks).  So again, you don't seem to be in a position to criticize us about forming new ties during a transitional period in Orbis politics.

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

You aren't broken up yet. Both sides are tied into vanguard. I've been told the transition period isn't complete, hence why I'm not !@#$ing about that in every single thread despite it being glaringly obvious when I could be and I'm just focusing on the treaties that exist outside of it. Point to my criticism of NPO or GOG anywhere on the forum. I haven't criticised GOG because I have no idea what they are doing as of yet, and have waited to see. I haven't criticised NPO because I know they were the actual drivers of the split. I did criticise t$ because Kayser as you would agree with me has a somewhat murky history on this point, but he claimed more was to come and for the most part I have waited to see.

I never claimed it wasn't a good thing or that it shouldn't be commended. But replacing one IQ with a sphere only slightly smaller while other groups are making an active effort to trim down their numbers in more significant ways doesn't make you a hero. It makes this a transparent power move. This is further solidified by the fairly obvious attempts to redirect onto chaos. I've been a fairly outspoken critic of TKR for awhile now, and if they try to pull similar moves, I'll be saying the same shit to them.

Interesting.  Didn't you criticize Leo earlier for presuming to be aware of discussions that he wasn't privy to regarding AC?  Seems a bit strange you're now claiming to know the ins-and-outs of the factors that led to the dissolution of IQ, but we'll just let that statement be what it was and move on.

As for your point regarding IQ versus BK & Co, if you take a look at the math you'll notice that BK has ended seven direct treaties worth a total of 655,535 points, while signing one direct tie worth 182,748 points.  So unless you're saying that a difference of 472,787 points worth of aggregate score (which is more than the score of KT, TGH and Empyrea combined, by the way) is only a slight difference, if appears that your statement that BK & Co is only slightly smaller than IQ was at its height is unfounded.  Of course, TGH has added 274,471 points worth of direct ties during the same period (increasing the size of your sphere by about 50 percent), so it appears you're well ahead of BK in terms of net score gain for your sphere. 

As for secondary ties, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that cross-sphere ties don't necessarily result in AAs fighting on the same side when war breaks out.  If you recall, both HS and TFP had an MDP with Guardian during the last war, meaning they were both indirectly tied to TKR.  However, HS fought against TKR and its allies and TFP remained neutral until they were attacked later on in the war.  While we're on the topic, I'll also cite the infamous BK/UPN treaty, which is definitely proof that having a cross sphere tie doesn't necessarily translate into people fighting as part of the same sphere.  So yeah, while you're correct to point out that there's still some second- and third -order linkages, it's still a big leap to assume that 'ally of an ally of ally' is the same thing as 'you're all tied together in a cohesive sphere like IQ was before its dissolution.'

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

You seem to think my criticism of BK is tied to personal issues but its not. You make moves, I respond to them. Its within your power to change my or anyone elses perception of you.

This is just pure spin. My criticism was of Leos attempts to redirect onto Chaos. I don't have an issue with burying the hatchet, I have an issue with overt power grabs and attempts to obfuscate data in order to justify it. 

I'm not particularly interested in where your criticism is coming from. My only interest is debating the points you raise on their merits, which I'm doing using public data that is available to both of us.  I encourage you to do the same, since I notice that you're making sweeping claims without presenting much in the way of data to back them up.  As you can see, I'm more than willing to debate the merits of the points you're raising, so the reasons why you may be raising said points is of secondary importance as far as I'm concerned.

As for your point about 'pure power grabs,' by which I assume you're referring to the BK/TCW treaty, I'm not sure that the facts really bear out your argument.  As I've pointed out above, BK has voluntarily ended treaties worth considerably more points than we've signed in the past couple of weeks, so if we're grabbing for power we're not doing the greatest job of it (you'll have to bring the 'BK FA' meme back from the grave at this rate).  Moreover, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the only treaty that we have signed bolsters our strength in an area that we have traditionally been lacking (the upper tier), rather than strengthening us in an area where we're already fairly strong (the lower and mid part of the middle tier).  Presumably, if we were actually 'grabbing for power' in the manner IQ was frequently accused of doing by its critics, we'd be seeking to solidify our hold on an area where we're strong when, in fact, we did just the opposite by splitting our tier cohesion between two spheres by dissolving IQ.  Instead, we've signed one treaty (in lieu of the 7 we've dropped) in an area where we're historically weak, pushing us from slightly above Pantheon in terms of upper tier nation count to slightly below Rose.  The relatively small increase in upper tier nation count we've achieved certainly doesn't put us in the league of Chaos or KETOG, which collectively have about half of the largest nations in the game and dwarf the other four spheres when we start looking at the largest nations.  Again, I'll leave up to others to decide whether that does actually represent any sort of consolidation in the upper tier, but trying to claim that BK is engaging in 'a power grab' by signing an AA with a fraction of the upper tier heft of the two AAs TGH has recently signed isn't the strongest argument you can make regarding our revamped FA.

2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

As for the whole paragraph about the stats, I already asked if you guys wanted me to post a graph or not, I assume no. That is an entire separate conversation to get into. I could be pushing that line a lot harder than I am. Frankly I'd say I've been waaayyy more generous with all of you during this period than I could have been, precisely because of the nature of the events.

I think the graphs/tier breakdown Theodosius provided are accurate, so I'm not sure why you would feel the need to duplicate his work.  Aside from the initial mistake he made in double counting TC, the discussion isn't so much about what the numbers are but what they mean.  If you'd like to engage with my points regarding the bottom heavy nature of BK's current FA relationships (which, again, doesn't really compare to the situation that prevailed under IQ and which you don't seem to touch on in your response), you're of course welcome to do so, but I don't think you need to replicate the work your spheremates have already put in to illuminate the current nation breakdowns of the various spheres.

Anyways, this was another long post (sorry if I bored you, Keegoz), so here:

TLDR: Despite furiously typing, Sketchy still hasn't substantiated his arguments, so Leo isn't the only person triggered, I guess.  Score another win for BK/TCW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too much to read, but, like, my 2 cents, who the frick enters an offensive war without first shoring up support to give them the best chance at victory? You're not reallllly a badass if you enter aggressive wars consistently knowing you'll lose... you're just stupid and should probably let someone else run your alliance. That goes for literally everyone TGH included.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
8 minutes ago, Hodor said:

This is too much to read, but, like, my 2 cents, who the frick enters an offensive war without first shoring up support to give them the best chance at victory? You're not reallllly a badass if you enter aggressive wars consistently knowing you'll lose... you're just stupid and should probably let someone else run your alliance. That goes for literally everyone TGH included.

I completely agree - I recall Yoso saying back in the day that wars were won by the diplomacy beforehand and the fighting is just an afterthought (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it) and I think time has definitely proven him right on that.  On the upside, if Sketchy sticks to his claim that IQ never fought an offensive war, that also means we've never lost an offensive war, so we dodged a bullet there I guess ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

As I recall, your side denied that a war was in the offing and claimed IQ was the aggressor (rather than preempting an incoming war), so I'm just using the frame of reference your side (and by extension, you) advanced at the time (particularly during the peace negotiations, where it was put forward that a surrender would be required since we were the aggressor in the conflict).  Unless you're retroactively changing things up, the coalition you helped lead is on record as stating that IQ's actions in Tiers were unjustified aggression, so it's kind of strange you're changing your tune 2 years later.

 

Nice try lmfao. If that is what you meant you'd have stipulated it in your first post. You are retroactively changing your perspective now that I've reminded you in the hopes of deflecting and pretending you were operating under my frame of reference. I never saw the logs you are referring too, so it is still as far as I'm concerned, either IQ fabricated their CB, in which case sure, you were the aggressor, I have no problem ceding that, or the log was legitimate, in which case people were backchanneling it. The only evidence supporting the latter is your word which isn't much to me.

Only you can really provide clarity on that, so pick a lane lmfao. Its been 2 years like you said, I don't see any reason not to drop the log now. If its legitimate I have no issue retracting any statements made about it. 

34 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Actually, I used offensive in the conventional sense, since I'd hazard to say most people regard the offensive side in a war as the people who struck first, rather than limiting the scope of what constitutes an offensive war with preconditions are your definition appears to do. 

Considering the argument is about whether people are willing to go to into an offensive conflict (Well actually it was about power moves but I don't mind the distraction for now), pretty sure intent is relevant. Plus you disputed my original point as it was and are now falling back on the technical definition, since you can't refute my point. Its weird how intent to act matters only when its convenient. 

 

I will respond to the rest of your points tomorrow since its getting late and I need to sleep. Try not to go off on anymore tangents like last time or our responses our going to get exponentially bigger lmfao.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who managed to read a solid 30% of what you two just wrote, I'd just like to point out that using historical comparisons to try and establish Sketchy as a hypocrite wouldn't retroactively make BK's FA moves less cowardly.

Edit: At first I was a little curious why BK went with TCW. But now I think I understand better. They're going to fill the void left by IQ and have Yui feed BK soothing narratives and applesauce. "It's okay. Everyone else is consolidating. It's okay. You're a strong alliance and I'm very proud of you. It's all okay."

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 5

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2019 at 7:05 PM, The Mad Titan said:

Also 1-14 are fairly irrelevant in the war meta so without those its much close regardless of who's actually counting.

You're right, because we've never seen consolidated masses of 150 low tier nations updeclaring on anyone.

There are many other comments you made that make no sense after simply seeing a post listing all of the spheres and their tier groupings.
After getting defensive and than being called out again, you decided to get even more defensive and try to change the thread to be about TGH. 

If you're drawing from historical examples, I'll do the same. To address your narrative saying that numbers don't mean anything and that low tier nations are useless, we've seen in the past that having a consolidated mass of nations at any single tier makes you almost unbeatable, and requires several spheres to take you down. Even further, most of BK's nations are currently in the mid tier, and any set of alliances willing to fight you have to build way out of your tier or be completely mowed down.

That's why currently, most alliances are building out of your tiers because any nation under 20 cities basically has no hope of fighting you. You can see that Rose is building to 22 cities, t$ is building to 22 cities, even KT and TGH are building out of your tier as clear examples, and I am doing the same for my members. Ironically, you've contributed more to high tier consolidation than EMC.

Idk if you've received the news yet or not, but everyone outside of IQ has. Nobody builds a low tier anymore, and you are the direct result of that. To try and dispute that and say that consolidated masses of hundreds of low tier nations are useless is simply intellectual dishonesty, and you sound absolutely ridiculous.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Radoje said:

You're right, because we've never seen consolidated masses of 150 low tier nations updeclaring on anyone.

We haven't, its always been the mid-tier which is an expanding category. 

6 minutes ago, Radoje said:

There are many other comments you made that make no sense after simply seeing a post listing all of the spheres and their tier groupings.
After getting defensive and than being called out again, you decided to get even more defensive and try to change the thread to be about TGH. 

Pretending there was no intent behind the post is transparent and disingenuous, nice try.

 

7 minutes ago, Radoje said:

If you're drawing from historical examples, I'll do the same. To address your narrative saying that numbers don't mean anything and that low tier nations are useless, we've seen in the past that having a consolidated mass of nations at any single tier makes you almost unbeatable, and requires several spheres to take you down. Even further, most of BK's nations are currently in the mid tier, and any set of alliances willing to fight you have to build way out of your tier or be completely mowed down.

So far the only time all the spheres have united was to take down upper tier consolidation, first in Test, then in EMC. Never has the mid-tier been deemed a large enough threat to warrant the whole game united, and according to your own propaganda never won a war with mid tier domination.

10 minutes ago, Radoje said:

That's why currently, most alliances are building out of your tiers because any nation under 20 cities basically has no hope of fighting you. You can see that Rose is building to 22 cities, t$ is building to 22 cities, even KT and TGH are building out of your tier as clear examples, and I am doing the same for my members. Ironically, you've contributed more to high tier consolidation than EMC.

Lol. "We couldn't compete with organization so we had to consolidate in the uppers". What a meme. No one forced anyone to build it was just the easy path out then actually trying to compete, so makes sense why you chose it.

12 minutes ago, Radoje said:

Idk if you've received the news yet or not, but everyone outside of IQ has. Nobody builds a low tier anymore, and you are the direct result of that. To try and dispute that and say that consolidated masses of hundreds of low tier nations are useless is simply intellectual dishonesty, and you sound absolutely ridiculous.

So because BK's milcom is good enough to organize smaller players effectively it's easier to just give up. Ill take it as a compliment that you are so certain our organization is better than yours you don't even try to compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Mad Titan said:

Lol. "We couldn't compete with organization so we had to consolidate in the uppers". What a meme. No one forced anyone to build it was just the easy path out then actually trying to compete, so makes sense why you chose it.

Thank you for establishing IQ out of your love for the competitive spirit, BK. Thanks for the last two wonderful years. ❤️

I mean you're right that no one forced anyone to do anything, but ease up pretending you wanted competition. You ran from it for literal years.

  • Like 2

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spaceman Thrax said:

Thank you for establishing IQ out of your love for the competitive spirit, BK. Thanks for the last two wonderful years. ❤️

I mean you're right that no one forced anyone to do anything, but ease up pretending you wanted competition. You ran from it for literal years.

The irony of this coming from you is truly amazing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Mad Titan said:

The irony of this coming from you is truly amazing.

Uhhh. This should be amusing. Fire away.

Paging Dr. Yui though. Standby with warm milk.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

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.