Jump to content

Why isn't this war called the Real Knightfall?


Lu Xun
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, alyster said:

Mate your bloc is down -200 million net damage, I'm surprised you'd even come out ion public. 

As Pasky said, we can go rounds for days with this. 

Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tarroc said:

Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc.

IQ bloc stronk

  • Haha 3
  • Downvote 1

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Miller said:

Accomplish something without having to call in half of Orbis then come talk to the big kids about war, period. 

Seeing as your side started by bringing in Rose, Grumpy, TKR, SK, CoS, TGH, KT, Valinor, SK, Empy, Guardian, Animation Domination, and Ming to fight tCW, BK, and the rest of our bloc, I don't really think your post works. You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate.

1 minute ago, REAP3R said:

IQ bloc stronk

Honestly, since it doesn't seem to matter what anyone on our side says, I'll just call it our bloc. Y'all seem insistent on bringing up NPO, so sure, I'll include them when I speak about our side of the war,

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Seeing as your side started by bringing in Rose, Grumpy, TKR, SK, CoS, TGH, KT, Valinor, SK, Empy, Guardian, Animation Domination, and Ming to fight tCW, BK, and the rest of our bloc, I don't really think your post works. You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate.

I'm so sorry for us bring in Chaos and KETOG. Maybe it had something to do with your "bloc" getting caught with its' pants down plotting to roll us all. 

Also lol you guys brought in Animation Domination on our side AFTER they had fought on your side. 

Please ask Roq for updated talking points mate.

Edited by alyster
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alyster said:

I'm so sorry for us bring in Chaos and KETOG. Maybe it had something to do with your "bloc" getting caught with its' pants down plotting to roll us all. 

Also lol you guys brought in Animation Domination on our side AFTER they had fought on your side. 

Please ask Roq for updated talking points mate.

Forgot about AD. Eh, they were bad at war, might as well have been fighting for your side. As for our side "planning to roll you" if that was the case, why would we have not attacked as soon as the logs were released? It was obvious you were planning on attacking as the Surf's Up wars were peaced out and you began fixing your militaries to hit us, if our plan was truly to attack when you were weak, why would we wait for your wars to end and for you to fix your militaries? This point had been made a hundred times, those logs were from before Surf's Up and were discarded and irrelevant once Surf's Up began because we had no interest stepping into Surf's Up and fighting while you two fought each other. That's no fun.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate.

Right let’s ignore actual nation counts and just count blocs. I also find it hilarious all those involved on our side got involved based on logs you guys call “old” but are simultaneously ok with NPO using much older logs to justify their entrance. You have well and truly lost the plot mate. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Epi said:

@Miller The total number of nations passing through Coalition B. was unexpected. Most of the micros and peripherals for instance joined at the tail-end of week 1. Whereas usually they avoid global wars. A likely reason for their participation is Knightfall. They thought this would be another easy win for BK thanks to all the propaganda they were spewing prior to the war and occupying Rank 1/2 for 5 months.

I think Miller's point was moreso to debunk what Tarroc said in his quote than it was to make a big deal about the amount of nations against us, but I agree with what you said regardless.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pop said:

As many ties as KETOG has to Rose winkwink right?

Rose gave a reason to join without using a Protectorate to try and chain in or a -very- flimsy excuse of some alliance planning to hit them while in the middle of a war.

Nor were they part of a frickyuge bloc that had a leak detailing plans to roll the two smaller blocs.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given current mechanics as long as an AA keeps its membership, there is no "fall" of alliances as people can just rebuild infra post-war. People keep their cities and their land, and Infra rebuild to 1.5k is cheap, and up to 2k is reasonably doable within a short timeframe. Stockpiles may take some time to rebuild and there's been a massive opportunity cost, most-likely exceeding war damages, but that's about it. The three big Knights alliances will do just fine in the long run. No major AA "fall" has happened or will, but many of the mid-tier (tier as in power, not average city count) AAs have been slaughtered on both sides. If anything this war should be "Militiafall", "Peasantfall", "Plebfall", etc.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rossiya said:

Given current mechanics as long as an AA keeps its membership, there is no "fall" of alliances as people can just rebuild infra post-war. People keep their cities and their land, and Infra rebuild to 1.5k is cheap, and up to 2k is reasonably doable within a short timeframe. Stockpiles may take some time to rebuild and there's been a massive opportunity cost, most-likely exceeding war damages, but that's about it. The three big Knights alliances will do just fine in the long run. No major AA "fall" has happened or will, but many of the mid-tier (tier as in power, not average city count) AAs have been slaughtered on both sides. If anything this war should be "Militiafall", "Peasantfall", "Plebfall", etc.

How is it even possible to miss the point or meaning of what the OP is saying this hard? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Miller said:

Right let’s ignore actual nation counts and just count blocs. I also find it hilarious all those involved on our side got involved based on logs you guys call “old” but are simultaneously ok with NPO using much older logs to justify their entrance. You have well and truly lost the plot mate. 

Again that's false. Sheesh, reading our reasons would actually be helpful at this point. 

 

@Buorhann nice try extrapolating stuff from a response that was dealing with his claims that BK forced their allies into the war. If Rose has a valid reason to enter the war, then almost anyone does tbh, and therefore our reasons are valid and has nothing to do with your claim of secret treaties. But you know, keep trying to spin standards as different for your friends and different for your enemies and expect people to buy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buorhann said:

snip

Come on Buor you know you're throwing out strawman arguments when you imply a micro like OFA peacing out would have the same impact if say Camelot or TCW dropped out. 

Also its admirable how you guys had a flare of activity when BotC peaced out. Clearly BotC leaving will be the impetus for TGH and their 26 members to turn things around and triumph over that evil Coalition B. 

5 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

C'mon buddy. Your side doesn't believe in stats. Get off the high horse. XD

❤️

Ty Pasky. 

Regarding stats I don't think they're always a good metric for judging how the progress of a war is going, but some stats are more important overall than others. Namely net production (IE the stuff Frawley showed to counter Booty's claims) and unit kills which illustrate the long term endurance of alliances which in this case favours us as KERCHTOGG is trailing us massively in production and daily net unit kills. I think overall damage values are nice but I wouldn't put as much weight towards them as Tarroc does, since billions of Infra lost 2 months ago is irrelevant in the progression of the war front now. 

4 hours ago, Tarroc said:

Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc.

Actually the NPO stats include our offshores so we're still slightly negative, but $-3.7b net is better than the -$55b we had in Knightfall. :,v 
But we are getting close to being in the black whilst AA's like Rose are going the opposite direction.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Rose gave a reason to join without using a Protectorate to try and chain in or a -very- flimsy excuse of some alliance planning to hit them while in the middle of a war.

Nor were they part of a frickyuge bloc that had a leak detailing plans to roll the two smaller blocs.

3b9a7h.jpg

Gotta admit that's impressive coming up on 3 months now with you still claiming that we intended to hit KETOG To repeat ourselves for a 100th+ time, only Chaos was the target of BK sphere, nothing was organised against KETOG. I guess we maybe should include that as a peace term, "KETOG bloc accepts that there was no plan to roll them and that their entry into the war was based on incorrect assumptions".
 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Miller said:

What is it this week? I couldn’t be bothered when Roq has to start writing novels to justify it. 

It's been the same since we posted an actual DoW. Keshav and I have written multiple posts about it as well. Your inability or unwillingness to read things longer than several sentences is not our problem.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Does this statement cover alliances that held no ties to alliances being attacked too?  Just curious how far the bias is going here with your AA's sudden appearance.

 

I believe the statement speaks for itself. If unaligned third parties chose to enter the war on someone else's behalf then wouldn't that be their prerogative? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Your inability or unwillingness to read things longer than several sentences is not our problem

Just like your inability or unwillingness to have a valid, clear cut CB that doesn’t require long winded justification isn’t my problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 6:46 PM, Tarroc said:

Another six months? Maybe if we stretch the war out that long, you might get some decent stats. A net of $340,312,964 and you call yourself a war mongerer? Pick up your stat game, then come talk with the big kids about this war. 

Monger. You don't have to have the second er in there. It's Warmonger. Common error, it's okay though. And obviously you have some trouble with the definition. It's a noun. Defined as a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups. Which, As you can see, I do. A lot. I like attacking, I like being attacked. Even when it's for weird reasons (Looking at you @GreatWhiteNorth <3). But if you want to bring stats into it, I'd more be looking at these ones:

Tarroc:
You.JPG

Pasky:
Me.JPG

I mean. I wasn't able to go whale fishing, so that was a disappointment. But I also wasn't able to attack unaligned AAs as statpads, but I'm classier than that. You might want to get them offensive wars up, I'm catching up quick. 
 

14 hours ago, Sphinx said:

 

Ty Pasky. 

Regarding stats I don't think they're always a good metric for judging how the progress of a war is going, but some stats are more important overall than others. Namely net production (IE the stuff Frawley showed to counter Booty's claims) and unit kills which illustrate the long term endurance of alliances which in this case favours us as KERCHTOGG is trailing us massively in production and daily net unit kills. I think overall damage values are nice but I wouldn't put as much weight towards them as Tarroc does, since billions of Infra lost 2 months ago is irrelevant in the progression of the war front now.

At this point, I'm here to punch and get punched like this is some final stand anime battle bullshit. He does love his stats.

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah maybe we don't count offensive wars as a negative thing, a war mongering. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

1. Blink [TKR] 192 offensive 41 defensive

2. Sholman [TKR] 174 offensive 40 defensive

3. Alyster [TKR] 171 offensive 28 defensive 

To be honest although KETOG+Chaos launched the global war, it was very much a defensive war for both of them. IQ being arrogant and dangerous enough for both sides to cancel the Surf's Up and stand side by side. Especially after the leaks. 

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.