We are here for the Whales

[Shadowthrone]

14 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Woah. I resent that. I definitely didn't want a slug fest. I was just curious as to why everyone kept ignoring it. Because they make some very valid points that... support what most everyone else has been saying. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just out of convenience that NPO ignored it. Just curiosity.

I mean w/e. If folks keep bringing up that post, its an impression that they are looking for a slug fest. I'm not interested in responding for their humour. I do selectively respond to posts, only those that make concise/logical arguments and undertake the exercise to have a conversation based off that. If someone's post is a "gotcha" or some kind of imitation of argument, I generally do not respond, not worth my time. 

 

16 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Well. While I do not represent the views or opinions of the alliances of CHAoS or Kettogg, They all, too, do not represent the opinions of I. We agree on many points. But I do believe the argument wasn't that they weren't their own people, but they were being made meat shields by a bigger alliance. Akin to someone hiding behind someone else as the human shield takes the bullet.

I mean there are a variety of causes that folks tend to coalesce around alliances. Kinda hard to be independent when you're constantly threatened/trolled on and then a "fun" war suddenly turns up at your doorstep and everyone's got to accept that status quo. Moreover, communities who may not be the most competent militarily but do wish to remain as one for whatever purpose requires an umbrella of security. If folks coalesce around those who are willing to give them a chance, offer security and protect them from being hit for "fun", I imagine they would return the favour when the situation arises. The reason folks like Citadel stay on with BK as stated by EM is that they offer them unconditional support and security and if independent, folks would try to bully them out of existence. Seeing the general rhetoric of being bullies, threatening alliances with rollings if they don't cancel treaties and/or force alliances to do things on others terms, I'd point in that direction for the existence of tC/BK/Citadel as a large bloc. 

I mean the culture of might makes right/bullying/forcing folks to dance for someone else's enjoyment seems to be a prevailing trend in this game, and folks who do not wish to play by those standards will do what is necessary to ensure they do not have to. So I'd suggest taking a good hard look at those cultural aspects of the state of foreign policy before passing value judgement statements on alliances and their relationships with one another. 

22 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

This is not reflective of the views of your leadership apparently. Both Roq and Frawley express views contrary to this across multiple posts. So, what's you're plan for stopping it?

That is you twisting their words lmao. I just called out folks thinking Frawley's comments are some sort of proof that IQ exists. His comments as dealt with him earlier in various threads points to the fact if folks are going to label us as such, might as well do it since damned if you do, damned if you don't. That has been the prevailing public opinion so w/e. If Roq wanted IQ to remain, he would not have pulled us out of it for N$O. 

Moreover, I have no plans for stopping something that is not happening at the moment. Even if I did, those are questions I really do not need to answer for a future "gotcha" post later on. 

[Shadowthrone]

17 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Alright, as others have stated we have no idea who this is, if they are on our side, how much info they have, etc. But I don't really care about all that, and I'm going to humor it and assume for this post that the log is legit from a gov of someone in Chaos/KETOG/Rose, because even if it was, I don't see how it proves anything.

For starters, lets take a step back and recognize the irony in using these logs to allege a plot against NPO. Logs that allege we had considered fighting N$O out of fear that you were working with BK, but then decided you weren't and our conflict didn't involve you. I don't know what Mr X here considers 'planning to preempt N$O', but it is true that we were worried about fighting you before the war started. The sphinx logs, which kicked off our whole collaboration, alleged you were to take part in BK's action. If true, it would necessitate a response. The answer arose as quickly as the question - no. No, we decided you weren't working together and were not our enemy. There was mistrust, as there always is, but we'd take you at your word and let the war prove it. If you didn't join, it would confirm our decision correct. If you were secretly collaborating, well we'd find out the hard way. And we did. But I don't regret, because if we weren't willing to give you the opportunity, why should anyone do so for us? Sometimes life just lets you down.

Mr X's logs also run directly counter the claim that we always treated you as part of IQ. Here he is saying we didn't think N$O would enter; that we decided you weren't cooperating. If we truly thought you were our enemy, we'd have hit you on the spot. There's nothing worse than leaving a large, competent enemy AA untouched. Some of us learned that the hard way. We didn't, though, because we chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even after t$ came in with their highly suspicious timing, we decided to take your word and let you prove it. To their credit, t$ did.

What reason, then, would we have to hit you post-war? We gave you the opportunity and it would have proved even your fiercest detractors wrong. All you really have is a belief that TKR is just out to get you. There's still been no direct proof of that, aside from a snippet of Adrienne talking about attacking a sphere you aren't even in. If it's a matter of intuition that you think TKR is out to get you, fine! Just say so. We still wouldn't agree, but we wouldn't have nearly as much fault with your reasoning.

 

I mean for burning the said player is not my call. But I do have the unblackened out logs and did share it with people necessary. What Mr X.'s logs point out is that at the moment you did not have the numbers. What Adrienne's statements later on in private DMs folks said she's waiting to turn back and whack us once BK's front is locked down. Put those two together and you can see why we did not wish to wait for things to play out. If the leader of TKR does want to roll us for being complicit in actions that we had no part off, and could pull of a hit, we'd be sitting ducks. That was our prevailing mindset and we did indeed hit TKR because of that. 

I mean I do not carry out wars because I believe "TKR is out to get us" as the sole reason. If there is proof, we'll make the call and given the situation it was a hard judgement call and we did it. 

10 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

You keep parading that log around like we're supposed to think it's incriminating. I don't know who that log belongs to because you won't share that info but if this was indeed one of my gov members like you claim, this confirms that we had no intentions to hit you because, like they said, 1) it would be a stupid move that would have dragged in all of N$O against us and lost us the war against BK and 2) we believed you when you said you'd stay out of the larger war. Nothing in there says we were going to hit you after this war was over. I also have zero idea what you're referencing with log deletions and have asked you guys once already to provide more explanation on that and you haven't. I'm fairly confident I've not said anything remotely close to what you're claiming.

I mean I pretty much have been stating what the logs were, and that you've deleted your DMs since I was told of the same. It really is nothing else to "clarify" lol. The folks sharing the information are people who's word I'd pick over most others in this game and it is what it is. I'm fairly certain that the conversations did happen and given the fact you went back to delete stuff in the conversations, I'm more certain of it lol. I mean I would not stake my alliance's entry into this war based of someones word unless I do believe in the truthfulness of whom was sharing the nature of the conversation with me. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Shadowthrone
Apologies for the double post

[Mikey]

16 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean for burning the said player is not my call. But I do have the unblackened out logs and did share it with people necessary. What Mr X.'s logs point out is that at the moment you did not have the numbers. What Adrienne's statements later on in private DMs folks said she's waiting to turn back and whack us once BK's front is locked down. Put those two together and you can see why we did not wish to wait for things to play out. If the leader of TKR does want to roll us for being complicit in actions that we had no part off, and could pull of a hit, we'd be sitting ducks. That was our prevailing mindset and we did indeed hit TKR because of that. 

 

I mean, you do but we don't. Maybe the logs are honestly from someone high up in the coalition. But they are always going to be viewed suspiciously while the source is unknown. Especially when many of us haven't seen anything internally backing up your assertions. If you feel that keeping the source secret is too important, fair enough. I can see the advantages to that. But it should come as no surprise people are unwilling to take them at face value either.

In any case, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I honestly don't read any of your conclusions into that DM. I see the main point that we decided we didn't need to fight you and that you weren't working with BK. I don't even remember discussing the numbers, because we wouldn't have had a choice if you were collaborating anyway, but I take it as a note that even if we wanted to for the lulz (like Partisan is going around doing under cover of the war), it wouldn't be feasible. If the logs are legit, I doubt it would have been coming from Chaos given our general war weariness and lack of reason to attack an uncommitted NPO. If it is coming from KETOG, I'm not sure why we'd back them up. You on the other read the numbers comment, and see a desire for conflict suppressed only by lack of opportunity. I suppose the climate of distrust is such that we will be interpreting the worst of each other.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mikey

[Tiberius]

32 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

You keep parading that log around like we're supposed to think it's incriminating. I don't know who that log belongs to because you won't share that info but if this was indeed one of my gov members like you claim, this confirms that we had no intentions to hit you because, like they said, 1) it would be a stupid move that would have dragged in all of N$O against us and lost us the war against BK and 2) we believed you when you said you'd stay out of the larger war. Nothing in there says we were going to hit you after this war was over. I also have zero idea what you're referencing with log deletions and have asked you guys once already to provide more explanation on that and you haven't. I'm fairly confident I've not said anything remotely close to what you're claiming.

I did not lie when I said we had no intentions to hit you and I have numerous witnesses that have watched me argue against hitting you/N$O, as Buor and others confirmed, in coalition channels after the hit on Guardian/Grumpy happened. Not to mention I stated both publicly and privately I believed you were separate from BK, which, again, is what you were hinging your usage of the old logs on and the new logs don't contradict that.

BK-Sphere plotted to get KETOG hit, but didn't get the numbers for that to happen. Still KETOG hit BK-sphere due to there being that discussion even though it did not come to fruition. You built a coalition strong enough to take on BK-Sphere using that as one half of the CB. The intent to hit us is there, the aforementioned "reasons" navigated you to not carry out that intent. There is also the plausibility that if either of those "main" reasons were true (i.e you had the numbers) then you would have acted on that intent. 

[Mikey]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

BK-Sphere plotted to get KETOG hit, but didn't get the numbers for that to happen. Still KETOG hit BK-sphere due to there being that discussion even though it did not come to fruition. You built a coalition strong enough to take on BK-Sphere using that as one half of the CB. The intent to hit us is there, the aforementioned "reasons" navigated you to not carry out that intent. There is also the plausibility that if either of those "main" reasons were true (i.e you had the numbers) then you would have acted on that intent. 

I mean, none of that is accurate. BK plotted to hit Chaos, and, fearing anything other than a dogpile, hoped to bring N$O on board to handle the only other alliances that could intervene. We built a temporary wartime coalition to deal with that, yes. Using the BK plot as the entirety of the CB. I'm not sure how that proves intent to hit anybody beyond the direct target of our temporary cooperation. I honestly have to ask, are you new? Did you join within the last six months? Because your own alliance forged a temporary coalition against TKR with several of us, just last war. So I'm not sure how to could possibly interpret such agreements as permanent fixtures without utter ignorance of game history. In which case you probably shouldn't be butting into these discussions.

Unless your ploy is to try and break the record on down votes received in a given time span? But I don't think anybody is going to overtake Element85 on that, honestly. Downvoting him was one of the few times the PW community truly came together.

[Adrienne]

27 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

What Mr X.'s logs point out is that at the moment you did not have the numbers.

If Mr. X is from Chaos, what it shows is that we thought escalating was a dumb idea for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. We've been very straightforward and consistent in our reasons for not wanting to escalate the conflict. When N$O hit Guardian/Grumpy, Chaos's stance was that our coalition shouldn't escalate against N$O because you guys very clearly stated your intent to not get involved in the broader war - something which Wilhelm was very on the ball and proactive about stating - and we believed him. In addition, our coalition escalating, as everyone from us to KETOGG to t$ has pointed out, would have cost us the war against BK and we didn't want to do that. BK/TCW was always our target because of the leaks/rumors/repeated efforts to escalate things against us, not you.

28 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean I pretty much have been stating what the logs were, and that you've deleted your DMs since I was told of the same. It really is nothing else to "clarify" lol. The folks sharing the information are people who's word I'd pick over most others in this game and it is what it is. I'm fairly certain that the conversations did happen and given the fact you went back to delete stuff in the conversations, I'm more certain of it lol. I mean I would not stake my alliance's entry into this war based of someones word unless I do believe in the truthfulness of whom was sharing the nature of the conversation with me. 

It doesn't tell me who it's from or what the context is, which are important here as I have no idea what conversation you're referring to and what you claim I said goes against my entire positioning on this war. I've been incredibly consistent throughout with my stance so I know I would not have said that and can't help but wonder what it was that was actually said. And similarly as you distrust us, I distrust your assessment of things seeing how you always seem to assume the very worst of us. That is nothing new and I doubt it will change anytime soon.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I mean, none of that is accurate. BK plotted to hit Chaos, and, fearing anything other than a dogpile, hoped to bring N$O on board to handle the only other alliances that could intervene. We built a temporary wartime coalition to deal with that, yes. Using the BK plot as the entirety of the CB. I'm not sure how that proves intent to hit anybody beyond the direct target of our temporary cooperation. I honestly have to ask, are you new? Did you join within the last six months? Because your own alliance forged a temporary coalition against TKR with several of us, just last war. So I'm not sure how to could possibly interpret such agreements as permanent fixtures without utter ignorance of game history. In which case you probably shouldn't be butting into these discussions.

Unless your ploy is to try and break the record on down votes received in a given time span? But I don't think anybody is going to overtake Element85 on that, honestly. Downvoting him was one of the few times the PW community truly came together.

You'll find it is accurate:

Quote

BK-Sphere plotted to get KETOG hit, but didn't get the numbers for that to happen

They didn't get N$O on board, so that plan wasn't happening. Is true.

Quote

Still KETOG hit BK-sphere due to there being that discussion even though it did not come to fruition.

Is true, because well KETOG hit BK. Is true.

Quote

You built a coalition strong enough to take on BK-Sphere using that as one half of the CB.

The logs show that BK was hitting Chaos. There's Chaos's CB. Then you have BK plotting to get KETOG rolled. There's KETOG's CB. You combined them both to make your coalition. Is true.

Quote

The intent to hit us is there, the aforementioned "reasons" navigated you to not carry out that intent.

You discussed/plotted a pre-empt. That is intent. Is true.

 

[Mikey]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You discussed/plotted a pre-empt. That is intent. Is true.

So, everybody has intent to hit everybody else? I mean, the extent of that discussion was "Is N$O our enemy and secretly working with BK? No? Great, guess we have no beef with them and can focus on the people trying to screw us over." If that's your idea of intent, then you have set the bar so low it tunneled out of the earth and shot into space.

There is also no reason to believe BK would have called off the plan, because they absolutely still had the numbers to fight us. We were only just edging them out between the two of us working together, plus the addition of rose, with the first strike advantage, with their allies trickling in one by one. They've always had the numbers, they just preferred bringing in even more over having to actually use theirs properly.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Mikey

[Pasky Darkfire]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

-Buncha whatever.-

Are you the one they send in when no one of actual like... importance to the alliance is around? Because you just appear out of nowhere when whatever leader/government member warps out of reality or whatever you guys do that this point.

[Ryan1]

Jesus Christ, why even bother with the real war when we have this forums war? 

@Tiberius as usual, you completely fail to miss the big picture and what it implies, instead trying to scrutinize every last word for a flimsy, made up, piece of so-called "evidence" that supports your side. Frawley states, very clearly, "We might as well bring it [IQ] back". If you really want to go through every detail, he states that "IQ was dead", meaning it is not dead anymore.

 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

So, everybody has intent to hit everybody else? I mean, the extent of that discussion was "Is N$O our enemy and secretly working with BK? No? Great, guess we have no beef with them and can focus on the people trying to screw us over." If that's your idea of intent, then you have set the bar so low it tunneled out of the earth and shot into space.

There is also no reason to believe BK would have called off the plan, because they absolutely still had the numbers to fight us. We were only just edging them out between the two of us working together, plus the addition of rose, with the first strike advantage, with their allies trickling in one by one. They've always had the numbers, they just preferred bringing in even more over having to actually use theirs properly.

The logs show a plan to pre-empt, reasons mentioned and not mentioned dictated you didn't follow through with that. If your plans to pre-empt get out in public it's a legit CB and actions in this game tend to agree with that. Plans/plots in private, that end up not being carried out usually stay private with the other party none the wiser. 

10 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Are you the one they send in when no one of actual like... importance to the alliance is around? Because you just appear out of nowhere when whatever leader/government member warps out of reality or whatever you guys do that this point.

Pot meet kettle.

[Mikey]

Just now, Tiberius said:

The logs show a plan to pre-empt, reasons mentioned and not mentioned dictated you didn't follow through with that. If your plans to pre-empt get out in public it's a legit CB and actions in this game tend to agree with that. Plans/plots in private, that end up not being carried out usually stay private with the other party none the wiser. 

No, the one log, from a redacted source, says we considered if we needed to preempt you over the sphinx leaks, and concluded we did not. It literally says that we decided you weren't working with BK, the only possible reason we would have had to hit you as well. But I guess saying somebody isn't your enemy is a CB now?

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

Jesus Christ, why even bother with the real war when we have this forums war? 

@Tiberius as usual, you completely fail to miss the big picture and what it implies, instead trying to scrutinize every last word for a flimsy, made up, piece of so-called "evidence" that supports your side. Frawley states, very clearly, "We might as well bring it [IQ] back". If you really want to go through every detail, he states that "IQ was dead", meaning it is not dead anymore.

 

You are doing the exact same thing. Using logs etc to support your opinion and your views. 

[Ryan1]

Just now, Tiberius said:

You are doing the exact same thing. Using logs etc to support your opinion and your views. 

Um what? Are you that stupid?

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

No, the one log, from a redacted source, says we considered if we needed to preempt you over the sphinx leaks, and concluded we did not. It literally says that we decided you weren't working with BK, the only possible reason we would have had to hit you as well. But I guess saying somebody isn't your enemy is a CB now?

As you say yourself you had a possible reason to hit us, discussed a pre-empt but decided that the threat wasn't there and that you didnt have the numbers either so you decided not to carry out any action. All you've done is word it different to me, but said the same.

[Pasky Darkfire]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Pot meet kettle.

I mean. I'm obviously more important than you. C'mon man. This is so basic and you're above this. I believe in you.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

Um what? Are you that stupid?

Cherrypicking and twisting things to suit your agenda. Thats what you are doing. If you cant see that are you really that stupid. It's also telling that if you think I am that stupid, you and pasky would simply not bother following me around and replying to me.

[Ryan1]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Cherrypicking and twisting things to suit your agenda. Thats what you are doing. If you cant see that are you really that stupid. It's also telling that if you think I am that stupid, you and pasky would simply not bother following me around and replying to me.

I think that's hilarious, coming from a member of NPO and especially considering that you do the exact same thing on a much larger scale. I'm not twisting anything. He said "IQ was dead" and "We might as well bring it back". I don't see how that's cherry picking or twisting things, but whatever you say.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

I mean. I'm obviously more important than you. C'mon man. This is so basic and you're above this. I believe in you.

If that is what helps you sleep at night, you go for it buttercup.

2 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

I think that's hilarious, coming from a member of NPO and especially considering that you do the exact same thing on a much larger scale. I'm not twisting anything. He said "IQ was dead" and "We might as well bring it back". I don't see how that's cherry picking or twisting things, but whatever you say.

I never said you can't hold your own opinion and views on what you think what he said implies. Doesn't mean I am going to agree with that view. Like I said we all have our own opinions, views and agendas that are in direct conflict to the other sphere. We will always use that bias to support what we say. 

[Pasky Darkfire]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

If that is what helps you sleep at night, you go for it buttercup.

That it, friend. Let it out. that was a little better, but I feel you can do much better.

[Ryan1]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I never said you can't hold your own opinion and views on what you think what he said implies. Doesn't mean I am going to agree with that view. Like I said we all have our own opinions, views and agendas that are in direct conflict to the other sphere. We will always use that bias to support what we say. 

How is that related to what I said?

[Tiberius]

Just now, Ryan1 said:

How is that related to what I said?

Really? and i'm the stupid one.....
You just mentioned how you think Frawleys logs imply a certain action. 
 

Quote

I never said you can't hold your own opinion and views on what you think what he said implies. Doesn't mean I am going to agree with that view.

Explain why that isn't related. ^

[Lu Xun]

8 hours ago, japan77 said:

Here's the problem with bring in Lanchester's square law. First, this is a hilarious unrealistic polisim relative to the real world (I haven't actually run exact numbers, but I doubt it works out anywhere near the model, given how unrealistic it is). Second, even IRL, most experts use an exponent of 1.5 since that's more realistic. We'd probably have to make a whole new model to deal with this polisim (I'm too lazy to do that, and sheepy hasn't leaked the formulas, so it'd be near impossible without huge amounts of data collection)
As in any war with NPO/BK sphere, low tier goes to them, upper tier goes to us by sheer numbers, and the fight is in the middle. However, a basic analysis of this situation militarily suggests that in a fight between equally competent groups, the one with more cities is going to win. Yes, there's a minor advantage towards having more cities on average, but that's almost certainly going to get canceled out by the city count advantage enjoyed by BK-sphere. I'm too lazy to do proper modeling, but relying on IRL simulator rules is almost certainly a bad idea. 
Most of the reason we have more effective planes is because we have more active and competent members, which is due to the fact that our econ program encourages that relative to the other side's econ program. Our econ programs also attract and create more of an upper tier, so it isn't surprising that this has happened as well. As I said years ago, NPO's econ program is going to stunt its growth and hamper its activity, and I was right, and now we have them complaining about the results of exactly that. 

Lanchester's Square and Lanchester's Linear Laws are meant for naval and ground engagements respectively. The difference between the two types is that in ground engagements, you end up having a front wherein the combat aperture is limited (i.e, only the front lines fire on the front lines, while the rear lines are reserve firepower and mass). In naval engagements, all of the firepower is brought to bear at the same time.

 

In a theoretical model, if it's possible to bring all firepower on point, each turn of fire is roughly two sides exchange firepower, and if both forces fight to the death, the remainder should be (firepower1 * mass1 - firepower2 * mass2) / (firepower1 * mass1) assuming that side 1 is victorious. Playing with this sort of RTS modeling is how I arrived at this conclusion independently, although stuff like granularity (firepower stability) ends up coming into play.

 

In modern ground combat, you do have a "front" which engages linearly, but you also have things like artillery support and airstrikes which can put all their firepower to bear. That's why the 1.5 is used; most engagements are ground-based, given American naval superiority, it should obey the Linear Law, except long-range firepower support means that it's a bit closer to the square law.

 

However, in this game, it's somewhat more than Lanchester's Square Law, since you have 3 defensive war slots and 5 offensive war slots. The amount of firepower that can be brought to bear on a lower-citied opponent is greater than the amount of firepower that can be brought to bear on a higher-citied opponent. That's why a realistic "safe" updeclare value is roughly 133%, while risky "doable" updeclare values are closer to 150%.

 

===

 

The funny thing is, you have people in your coalition who've historically mocked the effectiveness of the updeclare. And I have screenies taken from Discord which show parts of your coalition admitting that they used excessive force on BK and that it was proper military doctrine to do so.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Inst

[Shiho Nishizumi]

I've seen less armchair theory-crafting in the Grosser Generalstab as they drew war plans for The Great War, than the one being done in here. Seriously Inst, don't you have a better use for your time?

Go out for a walk, take a nap, read a book. Infanterie Greift An if you're so into it. Anything would be better than taking abstract principles and laws that no one in this role has taken, takes, or will take into consideration. Any Milcom worth their salt is far more concerned with activity levels and coordination than they are to know the exact coefficient for how many tons of ordnance it takes to get the job done just right.

For frick's sake. Usually I ignore your wall of text nonsense, but at this rate we will have you try to teach us the aerodynamic principles behind the fricking aircraft and the exact amount of propellant that goes into the tank's shells.
 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi
Minor edits.

[Mikey]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Literally anything out of this guy's mouth

NPO aren't sending us their best, folks.

...or are they? Now that's a terrifying thought.