Jump to content
Darth Revan

[DoE] Long Live The Emperor!

Recommended Posts

This thread went one whole hour before becoming another PR back and forth between sides. I think that is an on-topic longevity record. Congrats guys, we did it! We beat the previous record!
giphy.gif

IQ still sucks, fite me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Avakael said:

As for DB, I believe there must be some redeeming qualities of the alliance; they're not poor or dumb about econ stuff. They're definitely not inactive, they're not absent of IA effort. The people who are fighting back right now are fighting well. They're here because their leaders appear to have drastically underestimated their own people, and that's kind of sad.

That said, they're not going to win this war without outside help. There were 21 nations in DB on our target sheet, representing the entirety of their alliance above 16 cities, mostly at 20+, and mostly militarised; there were probably 22 or 23 of us who showed up for the first strike. We launched 51 wars in 120 seconds and successfully brought down every single one of those nations. Full credit to our legionnaires, they did an outstanding job.

You guys were definitely more militarized than us and had the first-strike advantage. The best defense is a good offense in this game. Some of us only had a max plane build which we used on NPO's advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yoda said:

You guys were definitely more militarized than us and had the first-strike advantage. The best defense is a good offense in this game. Some of us only had a max plane build which we used on NPO's advice

I agree entirely on the best defence being a good offence. It'd be a different story right now if you'd launched an offensive yourself.

 

 

 

If.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I agree entirely on the best defence being a good offence. It'd be a different story right now if you'd launched an offensive yourself.

 

 

 

If.

We only received actionable intel a few hours before the attack. It was too late to launch an offensive by then (timezones and stuff)

Edited by Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every alliance needs war from time to time, Good luck DB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Yoda said:

We only received actionable intel a few hours before the attack. It was too late to launch an offensive by then (timezones and stuff)

Too late for an optimal outcome, sure, but I don't see why that is any reason to not take as much of our first strike advantage from us as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do this DB! Have a good fight y'all and remember: this is a simulator game. No salt no harsh feelings

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yoda said:

You guys were definitely more militarized than us and had the first-strike advantage. The best defense is a good offense in this game. Some of us only had a max plane build which we used on NPO's advice

 In your case, bulking up for most people that got hit just gives more steel to destroy.  Some of the TJest nations attacking you like House Tyrell and Exodas were using the planes only strat when they were on our side to great effect because they were in danger of being downdeclared by much bigger nations otherwise. Using it allowed them to take on bigger or similar-sized nations to themselves. Any strategy can only function if people follow it. As far as I can tell most of the DB nations didn't airstrike back when there was time to counter. The point of fortress is to limit the speed of attack. So if  the initial targets had all suicided air, and  DB had countered some of the people who didn't airstrike until 2 AM or later in-game, then a good chunk of Penatus Oculatus would have been downable.  The ones that did have their opponents airstrike back are overextended in vulnerable positions with sub-max aircraft and no rebuy. It's a good lesson though and there are definitely nations DB could still take down.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=57361&display=war  @Blackatron who is posting in the topic took a big risk by declaring 4 wars and if all 4 of the people instead of just spooky boi had airstriked him back when they still had air between 12 AM - 6 AM  in-game, he'd have been in big trouble if three smaller nations had hit him and airstriked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betrayal.png

Betrayal. Lol.

We all need to test ourselves to stay competitive, glad to see Dark Brotherhood got the opportunity. Good luck, even if you suffer initially, you should be able to take back some agency if the war drags on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. That's all I have to say. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

 In your case, bulking up for most people that got hit just gives more steel to destroy.  Some of the TJest nations attacking you like House Tyrell and Exodas were using the planes only strat when they were on our side to great effect because they were in danger of being downdeclared by much bigger nations otherwise. Using it allowed them to take on bigger or similar-sized nations to themselves. Any strategy can only function if people follow it. As far as I can tell most of the DB nations didn't airstrike back when there was time to counter. The point of fortress is to limit the speed of attack. So if  the initial targets had all suicided air, and  DB had countered some of the people who didn't airstrike until 2 AM or later in-game, then a good chunk of Penatus Oculatus would have been downable.  The ones that did have their opponents airstrike back are overextended in vulnerable positions with sub-max aircraft and no rebuy. It's a good lesson though and there are definitely nations DB could still take down.

 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=57361&display=war  @Blackatron who is posting in the topic took a big risk by declaring 4 wars and if all 4 of the people instead of just spooky boi had airstriked him back when they still had air between 12 AM - 6 AM  in-game, he'd have been in big trouble if three smaller nations had hit him and airstriked.

Once they had been declared upon we almost all had ground control within a minute, since they didn't have the tanks and troops to win those fights. Fortress prevented us from immediately following up with air post update, but doesn't change the fact that they only have 2/3rds of their aircraft in use at that point, with no way to get ground control back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

Once they had been declared upon we almost all had ground control within a minute, since they didn't have the tanks and troops to win those fights. Fortress prevented us from immediately following up with air post update, but doesn't change the fact that they only have 2/3rds of their aircraft in use at that point, with no way to get ground control back.

It doesn't really matter.  Two things: The casualties on air suicides are still enough to add up. So if you got down to 1300 air or so from them suiciding even with your GC and then three city 11s  or one of the higher air nations they had remaining and two city 11s attacked you, you'd be in trouble even if those were updeclares. Additionally, in this scenario they would be cross declaring so the nations going on the offensive while still having air wouldn't have ground control going against them.

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackatron said:

Once they had been declared upon we almost all had ground control within a minute, since they didn't have the tanks and troops to win those fights. Fortress prevented us from immediately following up with air post update, but doesn't change the fact that they only have 2/3rds of their aircraft in use at that point, with no way to get ground control back.

Dogfight UFs can net positive plane kills so suiciding while you still have planes is better than nothing and can give people room to do effective counters. :P

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus you're not wasting resistance scores if you're getting UF's, which is glorious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It doesn't really matter.  Two things: The casualties on air suicides are still enough to add up. So if you got down to 1300 air or so from them suiciding even with your GC and then three city 11s  or one of the higher air nations they had remaining and two city 11s attacked you, you'd be in trouble even if those were updeclares. Additionally, in this scenario they would be cross declaring so the nations going on the offensive while still having air wouldn't have ground control going against them.

Yeah, in that scenario I agree I could have been in pretty bad trouble. But that would require good coordination and activity from them, and they would have only been able to pull that off against a few of us anyway.

I would definitely welcome DB to try this strat now that it is on the forums though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Roquentin said:

That would make sense if it wasn't stopping another hit on DB last minute which we've done so many times.

I've gone above and beyond what anyone else would have done for DB by this point. It was a source of exasperation for many people as to why we kept doing it. This revisionist history where you're saying we should have gone out our way when it'd just come up again and again. Nevermind the recent topic where DB was singled out.

He wanted to go through me since he had asked the other people first and they didn't seem to be able to confirm what he was worried about. Nice spin though.

I listed various instances of me bailing DB out. They were informed 3 weeks ago that it was functionally an ODP and if they attracted negative attention during the global based on not fighting, then it was beyond the scope of what we were willing to do.  The treaty was supposed to be upgraded a long time ago per certain metrics, and then they didn't want to participate in the war due to lack of availability. The lack of availability was an issue during the school year as well. They didn't fight back against Terminal Jest and felt we had failed them by not taking Partisan down right away, so I felt we didn't have the capability to do everything for them they wanted and that was made clear when it was coming up for expiration. At that point, it just solidified a war dodging reputation and I couldn't justify intervening in every instance last minute.

96 hours ago: People criticize us for shielding DB

Now: People criticize us for not shielding DB

"Yes we helped get our ally rolled but people were making fun of us for protecting them earlier."

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Smith said:

Even now you are acting like the victim? You write up walls of text to make it seem like some terrible burden that you protected your protectorate. You write up walls of text to hide the simple fact that you colluded with tS/HS/RnR to get your allied rolled.

Speaking of RnR they were also mentioned in that thread that apparently was the reason you backstabbed DB. How long until you roll them too? Or is them sending a few guys to surprise blitz DB enough. 

As other posters, have said it's beyond the point where they could have stood on their own. We weren't in a position to continuously bail out people that don't learn to defend themselves. They've had 6 months or more of unimpeded growth more or less due to us. Their size exceeded the size agreed upon for protectorate status and anything from that point forward was provisional.The more we did it, the less experience needed for self-defense was obtained. Generally the expectation while a global war is ongoing if you stay out and your protector is involved, you are going to be looking out for yourself and it wasn't exactly hidden that a variety of alliances had ill will towards them for being seen as avoiding war. The options were basically: we could let it expire and then our ally(Polar) and their allies tied to them would have been in an awkward situation or let them decide what to do with a period of time while being upfront with DB that if the global was ongoing, we wouldn't intervene.

As for RnR, I'm not allied to them. The specifics of their relationship is up to them. The expectation was they would defend HS from counters and HS wasn't countered. I imagine if the 8k NS guy got hit and had to suck it up, he wouldn't see it as a failure on HS' part for not intervening. Your 8k NS guys were free to test it out the entire time. It's not my fault if they didn't want to go for it. Some of the other people fought in AC while in Ragnarok, so not sure why they would all be treated the same way in terms of that level of scrutiny.

Your desperate attempts before and after to keep getting us on gotchas just validate our perceptions of you and your alliance.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

As other posters, have said it's beyond the point where they could have stood on their own. We weren't in a position to continuously bail out people that don't learn to defend themselves. They've had 6 months or more of unimpeded growth more or less due to us. Their size exceeded the size agreed upon for protectorate status and anything from that point forward was provisional.The more we did it, the less experience needed for self-defense was obtained. Generally the expectation while a global war is ongoing if you stay out and your protector is involved, you are going to be looking out for yourself and it wasn't exactly hidden that a variety of alliances had ill will towards them for being seen as avoiding war. The options were basically: we could let it expire and then our ally(Polar) and their allies tied to them would have been in an awkward situation or let them decide what to do with a period of time while being upfront with DB that if the global was ongoing, we wouldn't intervene.

As for RnR, I'm not allied to them. The specifics of their relationship is up to them. The expectation was they would defend HS from counters and HS wasn't countered. I imagine if the 8k NS guy got hit and had to suck it up, he wouldn't see it as a failure on HS' part for not intervening. Your 8k NS guys were free to test it out the entire time. It's not my fault if they didn't want to go for it. Some of the other people fought in AC while in Ragnarok, so not sure why they would all be treated the same way in terms of that level of scrutiny.

Your desperate attempts before and after to keep getting us on gotchas just validate our perceptions of you and your alliance.

"Your desperate attempts before and after to keep getting us on gotchas just validate our perceptions of you and your alliance"

This is the second time you have dogpiled us in a row so I don't think anybody is concerned about what you think of us. You clearly are going to keep using us and Grumpy as a scapegoat to justify your continued expansionism.

Furthermore, you realize the NPO/DB relationship is not the only one that ever reached a breaking point right? Typically that does not end with one party colluding to get them rolled while they were still allied. 

Edited by Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there isn't much else to say then. You'll use anything you can twist to advance an anti-NPO agenda. Just don't complain about the consequences.

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

Well, there isn't much else to say then. You'll use anything you can twist to advance an anti-NPO agenda. Just don't complain about the consequences.

You have spent almost half of the last 12 months dogpiling your opponents. Stop acting like the victim because people are unhappy about this.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Smith said:

You have spent almost half of the last 12 months dogpiling your opponents. Stop acting like the victim because people are unhappy about this.

You of all people can't really say much about this, given that this time last year, your alliance was in the process of completing its second dogpile within that calendar year lol. Also you can't really say much regarding treaties, given your track record with honouring MDoAP's. 

We told Yoda what the options were, what could happen and what were his best routes. We also told them straight up that we can't protect them anymore, not while this global was going on, but extended our protection out of respect for Polar/CoA to take a call on DB, rather than have them carrying a shit stick at the end of the day. 

Keep trying Smith, but the day TKR has any competence in lecturing people on  honour/morality, is the day Alex shuts down PnW/Orbis.

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

You of all people can't really say much about this, given that this time last year, your alliance was in the process of completing its second dogpile within that calendar year lol. Also you can't really say much regarding treaties, given your track record with honouring MDoAP's. 

We told Yoda what the options were, what could happen and what were his best routes. We also told them straight up that we can't protect them anymore, not while this global was going on, but extended our protection out of respect for Polar/CoA to take a call on DB, rather than have them carrying a shit stick at the end of the day. 

Keep trying Smith, but the day TKR has any competence in lecturing people on  honour/morality, is the day Alex shuts down PnW/Orbis.

"You did something a year ago we said is bad so now we are going to do the exact same thing."

???????????

You realize you are dogpiling people besides us right? Like I get your obsession with whataboutism and I get your all-consuming hatred of TKR but this war is not just about us. You are not just dogpiling us and you are not just threatening to run just us out of the game. Ironically you are actually dogpiling some of the same people you are referring to. 

Also good lord. Are you still referring to grudges from 3 years ago? 

Edited by Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Smith said:

Also good lord. Are you still referring to grudges from 3 years ago? 

Anyway. Apologies; my intent was less to derail and more to advocate for an alliance I assumed could use an advocate.

Good luck to DB. I trust this won't be a war of elimination so make a good showing and move forward.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smith said:

"You did something a year ago we said is bad so now we are going to do the exact same thing."

???????????

You realize you are dogpiling people besides us right? Like I get your obsession with whataboutism and I get your all-consuming hatred of TKR but this war is not just about us. You are not just dogpiling us and you are not just threatening to run just us out of the game. Ironically you are actually dogpiling some of the same people you are referring to. 

Also good lord. Are you still referring to grudges from 3 years ago? 

No. I pointed out you're the last person who should be looking to give lectures, given the very claims you're accusing us of, are pretty much text book TKR FA and has been for the better part of the game.

The new narrative is we're running people out of the game is it? Can you please point out where we've run people out of the game, or are interested in the same? 

Also you presume too much.  I don't have an all-consuming hatred of TKR or a grudge to pick lol. If I was busy going after grudges, you'd be the last alliance on my list. And I'm not pointing out a grudge. I'm pointing out you've actually ignored MDoAP's, lied to your allies about it, and watched them get rolled and went "oopsie." The people who did those actions are still named a part of your Government on your own boards. So it's a bit funny to see you suddenly going about "honouring treaties," given your own enabling of folks lying/colluding/breaking treaties and seeing their MD+ allies rolled. The difference between that and this case, I've explained in my previous post. 

The fact that you're trying to claim this as a grudge match is quite funny, when I pointed out objective actions you have enabled, and been a part of. If your position has evolved since then, news to me, given how up till KF, your MO as an alliance never really changed 🤷‍♀️

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We honestly don't have to go back that far even but it is severely problematic. Smith, Manthrax, and Bezzers have all tried to vilify us when they are part of a bloc with Squeegee whose crowning FA achievement was his involvement in a war where he violated the intel clause and made up a bullshit story of how KT was actually rolling TGH over Kastor(or something like that) so TGH could then go on to hit Polar. Given Bezzers' level of involvement in that it's surprising that Chaos bloc sees itself as the enforcer of moral integrity.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.