Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hime-sama

Slot Filling

Recommended Posts

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588350

Doesn't appear to be a real war, the Acadia nation's ground force is far superior and so any ground attack done with the intent to actually win the war would not result in a Pyrrhic victory. It would be my assumption that the Acadia nation purposefully attacked with as little ground force needed to get a 'victory' in order to minimize damage. This allows the BK nation to maintain ground control against other opponents, kills minimal troops, and steals as little cash as possible. This is all bearing in mind that the two alliances are located within the same political sphere, connected by MDoAP treaties with the alliance Guardian's of the Galaxy. The nation Eregion is operating a BK offshore, and is thus a member of BK.

Acadia-nation.png

BK nation's military at time of posting:

BK-nation.png

Should also be noted that the Acadia nation could easily sweep the BK nation's airforce and so one could reasonably assume this BK nation, along with the other reported BK nation, (see: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/27770-slot-filling/&tab=comments#comment-446462) are attempting to prevent counters and preserve the Acadia nation's aircraft. Reason to believe this, is that Nick is using his aircraft in offensive wars against their enemy combatants which would leave him exposed to counters, these BK nations are occupying the defensive slots to eliminate that risk.

 

Edited by REAP3R
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll repost some of my response from the other thread where these wars were reported, as the alliance leader of the nation in question with some knowledge of these wars at least from Acadia's end. I obviously can't speak for BK here.

In this case, although my DoW thread was erroneously removed, a state of war does exist between BK and Acadia and we have no ingame treaties (nor have we for more than a year).In addition, both sides have actively made attacks, the BK members are blockading my member and annoyingly preventing resupply, while my member has made several ground attacks to secure ground control and gain money from the nations attacking him. He's running dreadfully low on resources due to the blockade, and likely didn't use munitions when making the ground attack, combined with a bad roll. It looks like both sides are trying to win the war to me, and are actively fighting and doing damage to one another. In addition, there's only been time for a few attacks.  I eagerly await Alex's decision here, but it's fairly cut and dried to any non-biased and malicious individuals. 

And of course, if you were just making this report out of spite in the knowledge that the wars would be upheld and simply intending to try and use moderation as a weapon, I must say that would be very unfortunate. Just because BK and Acadia are also at war with you doesn't mean that we can't all be civil members of the PnW community...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe

Hi, I'm the accused.  For some reason our ROH against Acadia was removed, but as Leo announced BK considers itself in a state of hostilities with Acadia, which is an ally of our former ally/current enemy TCW.  As for my tactical choices, it's my understanding that making attacks with units other than planes is indeed allowed under the game rules - otherwise anyone who attacked with just soldiers or a single ship (such as Arrgh pirates) would be 'slotfilling.' As this is obviously not the case, I think it's fair to say that my attacking in an area where I have an advantage while trying to win a war is acceptable practice, as are the attacks made by my opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheNG said:

I'll repost some of my response from the other thread where these wars were reported, as the alliance leader of the nation in question with some knowledge of these wars at least from Acadia's end. I obviously can't speak for BK here.

In this case, although my DoW thread was erroneously removed, a state of war does exist between BK and Acadia and we have no ingame treaties (nor have we for more than a year).In addition, both sides have actively made attacks, the BK members are blockading my member and annoyingly preventing resupply, while my member has made several ground attacks to secure ground control and gain money from the nations attacking him. He's running dreadfully low on resources due to the blockade, and likely didn't use munitions when making the ground attack, combined with a bad roll. It looks like both sides are trying to win the war to me, and are actively fighting and doing damage to one another. In addition, there's only been time for a few attacks.  I eagerly await Alex's decision here, but it's fairly cut and dried to any non-biased and malicious individuals. 

And of course, if you were just making this report out of spite in the knowledge that the wars would be upheld and simply intending to try and use moderation as a weapon, I must say that would be very unfortunate. Just because BK and Acadia are also at war with you doesn't mean that we can't all be civil members of the PnW community...

In no universe would 351k soldiers get a pyrrhic victory against 93k soldiers, this is even giving the benefit of the doubt that the Acadia nation did not send in tanks to preserve gas and munitions. Clearly the Acadia nation did not use all their soldiers in the ground attack in an attempt to do minimal damage against the BK nation. Had the Acadia nation not used munitions, there would have been more soldier casualties. I also suspect they are not running low on munitions seeing that they are operating their entire airforce in their offensive wars.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, REAP3R said:

In no universe would 351k soldiers get a pyrrhic victory against 93k soldiers, this is even giving the benefit of the doubt that the Acadia nation did not send in tanks to preserve gas and munitions. Clearly the Acadia nation did not use all their soldiers in the ground attack in an attempt to do minimal damage against the BK nation. Had the Acadia nation not used munitions, there would have been more soldier casualties. I also suspect they are not running low on munitions seeing that they are operating their entire airforce in their offensive wars.

Ok boomer

A warning point was issued.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
59 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

In no universe would 351k soldiers get a pyrrhic victory against 93k soldiers, this is even giving the benefit of the doubt that the Acadia nation did not send in tanks to preserve gas and munitions. Clearly the Acadia nation did not use all their soldiers in the ground attack in an attempt to do minimal damage against the BK nation. Had the Acadia nation not used munitions, there would have been more soldier casualties. I also suspect they are not running low on munitions seeing that they are operating their entire airforce in their offensive wars.

Given the weird RNG I've seen over the years, citing an unexpected pyrrhic victory is hardly compelling evidence of anything.  A bad roll =/= slotfilling any more than doing a GA rather than, say, a naval attack does.  As for your political point, ties two or three steps removed certainly don't make wars less meaningful; otherwise we're not really at war with TCW (BK-GoG-Acadia-TCW) either, now are we?

Share this post


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

Given the weird RNG I've seen over the years, citing an unexpected pyrrhic victory is hardly compelling evidence of anything.  A bad roll =/= slotfilling any more than doing a GA rather than, say, a naval attack does.  As for your political point, ties two or three steps removed certainly don't make wars less meaningful; otherwise we're not really at war with TCW (BK-GoG-Acadia-TCW) either, now are we?

I'm sure Alex can confirm that such a "bad roll" is impossible, especially when faced with the other compelling evidence. Your ties to GoG were mentioned simply to indicate you are distant allies of the same political sphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, REAP3R said:

I'm sure Alex can confirm that such a "bad roll" is impossible, especially when faced with the other compelling evidence. Your ties to GoG were mentioned simply to indicate you are distant allies of the same political sphere.

We're not distant allies - we're two AAs who's other opponents happen to overlap.  If you want an example from Coalition A that establishes the precedent for this state of affairs,  I would direct you to North Point's war page. Despite their apparent membership in Coalition A, there's ample examples of war decs by them against both Coalition A and B alliances, most of which Alex has upheld.  We've citied a clear political justification for our hostilities (which is more than NP can say), publicly announced the situation and our wars all involve legitimate, ongoing attacks by both parties.  If the strongest evidence you can cite is a guy got a pyrrhic win rather than an immense, I suspect that it's unlikely that the war would be overturned if the rules as currently outlined are applied in an even way.

Also, I don't know whether he used them or not, but I don't believe there's any rule against not using munitions in an attack.  There's plenty of reasons (including conservation of resources) why someone would use fewer units or resources and none of them, to my knowledge, make a war less valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

We're not distant allies - we're two AAs who's other opponents happen to overlap.  If you want an example from Coalition A that establishes the precedent for this state of affairs,  I would direct you to North Point's war page. Despite their apparent membership in Coalition A, there's ample examples of war decs by them against both Coalition A and B alliances, most of which Alex has upheld.  We've citied a clear political justification for our hostilities (which is more than NP can say), publicly announced the situation and our wars all involve legitimate, ongoing attacks by both parties.  If the strongest evidence you can cite is a guy got a pyrrhic win rather than an immense, I suspect that it's unlikely that the war would be overturned if the rules as currently outlined are applied in an even way.

Also, I don't know whether he used them or not, but I don't believe there's any rule against not using munitions in an attack.  There's plenty of reasons (including conservation of resources) why someone would use fewer units or resources and none of them, to my knowledge, make a war less valid.

I think given the unlikely possibility for two near impossible bad rolls to occur in both his wars against BK members (see: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/27770-slot-filling/), it's more in the realm of possibility that these nations are cooperating as allies since the BK nations are attempting to prevent counters on the Acadia nation in an effort to preserve their aircraft.

As for the conservation of resources, they ought to stop using those resources air striking with over 2300 planes if they were really concerned about running out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
59 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

I think given the unlikely possibility for two near impossible bad rolls to occur in both his wars against BK members (see: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/27770-slot-filling/), it's more in the realm of possibility that these nations are cooperating as allies since the BK nations are attempting to prevent counters on the Acadia nation in an effort to preserve their aircraft.

As for the conservation of resources, they ought to stop using those resources air striking with over 2300 planes if they were really concerned about running out.

 

Well you're entitled to you opinion, but I think the justification for these wars has been suitably expanded upon.  We'll see what Alex has to say on the matter. 

Also, I'm not sure it's your prerogative to tell people how to manage their resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the specific and detailed report. I am monitoring the war now, seeing as it's early yet it's hard to say what's going to happen, but it does look like it could turn out to be war slot filling. However, it also does not seem unreasonable that ColoringNick, under blockade is attempting to ration resources efficiently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Given the weird RNG I've seen over the years, citing an unexpected pyrrhic victory is hardly compelling evidence of anything.  A bad roll =/= slotfilling any more than doing a GA rather than, say, a naval attack does.  As for your political point, ties two or three steps removed certainly don't make wars less meaningful; otherwise we're not really at war with TCW (BK-GoG-Acadia-TCW) either, now are we?

I'm sure Alex and our friends in NPO can see the total military power for each nation in those attacks Curu. That's not RNG. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Given the weird RNG I've seen over the years, citing an unexpected pyrrhic victory is hardly compelling evidence of anything.  A bad roll =/= slotfilling any more than doing a GA rather than, say, a naval attack does.  As for your political point, ties two or three steps removed certainly don't make wars less meaningful; otherwise we're not really at war with TCW (BK-GoG-Acadia-TCW) either, now are we?

Just wanted to point out that it would be impossible for the Acadia nation to receive a Pyrrhic victory if they were attacking with their full ground force, even in a worst case scenario. 0.4*351,000=140,000, which is greater than 93,000, or the max that the BK member could roll. So it would be impossible to receive anything less than an Immense Triumph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, BK isnt causing the blockade, I have been blockading him well before they declared.   That being said, the intent here is obviously slot filling, just like what the North Point is doing with the beige crap is also slot filling in my opinion.

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You successfully gathered intelligence about America. Your spies discovered that America has 9 spies, $8,822,775.65, 0.00 coal, 1,489.50 oil, 1,807.50 uranium, 1,046.25 lead, 904.85 iron, 218.52 bauxite, 4,807.36 gasoline, 3,620.57 munitions, 20,378.42 steel, 5,006.23 aluminum, and 9,760.18 food. Your agents were able to operate undetected. The operation cost you $210,000.00 and 0 of your spies were captured and executed.

At the time of posting, this nation can create 66 ships per day, so with an effective double buy he can free himself from his blockades. 20k steel is plenty enough to afford it.

Following screenshot of the Acadia nation's current military improvements.

Acadia-nation-improvements.png

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NM - non discussion forum

 

Edited by AkAk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got some more slot filling from BK to Acadia, who are "trying" to look like they are fighting a war:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=22102&display=war

2 wars from this guy: Curufinwe

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588361

Just doing ground attacks, will probably try to protect aircraft, or provide income under blockade.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588350

------------------

Just navals, other guy is looting income from the attacker.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588348

More of the same crap from another guy: Dustin Albright

------------------

Another from BK war slotting an Acadia guy, the same guy, he has 3 BK guys: Techcraft2

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588353

 

 

This is all war slot filling since BK is not legitimately hitting Acadia, they are trying to make it look like they are, but it is all a huge lie, here is some supporting evidence.

https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=623&display=war

Acadia is still hitting (and being hit by) everyone else, besides there few war slot fillers.

 

  

On 1/13/2020 at 1:31 PM, Roquentin said:

lol

Straight up. If we notice the other side using nations that benefited from this taking advantage of it and hitting coalition B with those beiged nations we will treat it as an endorsement of the tactic.  If everyone has to beige each other, then the implications get really interesting. If this doesn't matter and isn't penalized at any point, then it will be playing out.

  

On 1/13/2020 at 12:46 PM, Roquentin said:

I'm glad it's been cleared up apparently so now it's acceptable to beige people on the same side and the same war. Akuryo's argument was the opposite, so we're good now. 

Obviously this is Roq (IQ war leader) admitting to planning to use a war slot filling tactic blatantly, I don't know about this Akuyro crap, but that should be dealt with in another thread but this shit is blatant cheating. The fact that they posted an announcement about all these wars and then proceeded to basically declare nothing in reality is just a cover for their scheme. Then they lie and try to cover it up in this thread but it is pathetic. I am glad I was not only one to notice this shit. They can't even win a war legitimately, wow they are so bad. LOL (not trolling, just stating facts, they really are this bad at the game, pointing out facts)

 

More war slot fillers from this obvious fake war:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=587741

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=587602

Once again, both wars trying to make it look like they are fighting but trying to avoid aircraft damage and give free beige presumably, according to Roq. if this was a true war they would declare more wars, I thought it was just typical Polaris being bad, however they just later declare more wars on their "old" enemy. They posted all their "war declarations" around same time so they are probably all bogus as per Roq's statements.

This is from Polaris, once again working with BK.

------

NG also has a bunch of illegitimate wars:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=1722&display=war

3 "wars" with BK. All of their protecting their aircraft.

Edited by Mayor
typos + more info
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mayor said:

The fact that they posted an announcement about all these wars and then proceeded to basically declare nothing in reality is just a cover for their scheme. Then they lie and try to cover it up in this thread but it is pathetic. I am glad I was not only one to notice this shit. They can't even win a war legitimately, wow they are so bad. LOL (not trolling, just stating facts, they really are this bad at the game, pointing out facts)

You couldn’t have summed up North Point’s situation any better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pascal said:

You couldn’t have summed up North Point’s situation any better.

Purge war slot fillers everywhere if you ask me, but I don't know anything about that whole situation so I won't comment but perhaps you should bring it up to moderation. However this BK/Acadia shit is obvious cheating, no simple way to say it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

You couldn’t have summed up North Point’s situation any better.

Since everyone wants to bring up our name, I should note that unlike you lot we don't have aircraft and a history of attrition-based pull down strategies that we're mysteriously not using now.

We do on the other hand have a history of raiding alot, which is what we're doing since the situation we're in isn't really tennable for anything else.

I'm sorry that you expected to attack an aggressive, raider like alliance and have them not start raiding everything. Post a Pikachu face next time.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
5 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Since everyone wants to bring up our name, I should note that unlike you lot we don't have aircraft and a history of attrition-based pull down strategies that we're mysteriously not using now.

We do on the other hand have a history of raiding alot, which is what we're doing since the situation we're in isn't really tennable for anything else.

I'm sorry that you expected to attack an aggressive, raider like alliance and have them not start raiding everything. Post a Pikachu face next time.

Yeah, I get that - when BK was attacked at the beginning of the war we totally refrained from countering our attackers and instead hit a completely unengaged sphere that needed time to rebuild with war dec reasons like this:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=582667

Hey, @REAP3R, that's your nation isn't it?  I can see where you come by your expertise regarding the war mechanics.  It definitely wasn't so you guys could provide formerly flattened nations in Coalition A with complimentary beige time that has subsequently allowed them to rebuild, as other people have suggested elsewhere:

image0.jpg

It's just innovative tactics on the part of you guys, I'm sure.  I'd also like to point that there have been a dozen more wars by F1 nations on their co-belligerents in Coalition A since this war was reported, so I'd recommend you guys get out your detective hats and investigate those as closely as you have BK's.  This one is actually my favourite:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588808

Since it was declared on a guy that hit me in response to this report:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588766

There's a certain irony that a guy that hit me to protest what he alleges to be slot filling was slot filled by an ally of the guy who made this report.

What's your feelings on the fact he got two back to back utter failures against superior forces in a war he declared against a co-belligerent @REAP3R?  It's one of your allies after all. I look forward to your report on the matter.

Anyways, the damage from NP's completely valid and totally not declared with an ulterior motive wars is done and it's not reasonable to expect @Alex to turn back the clock on that.  However, getting a clear and consistently applied ruling from the admin on wars between co-belligerents would be nice, since this continues to be an ongoing issue following NP and tCWs entry against Coalition B. I mean if he wants to ban these sorts of wars entirely like SRD suggested BK will accept that (tbh it's weird to agree with SRD, but okay) but the fact that biggest (alleged) offenders are trying to report BK while continuing to declare suspect wars themselves strains credulity. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Snip

It was my nation indeed, and I did write that war declaration. You are correct that I understand the mechanics and implications of beige, however, the mention of beige was entirely to coerce a reaction from our enemies in OD, but our primary objective was and still is, to raid. A basic requirement of raiding involves beiging your opponent, so yes, I don't see anything particularly wrong with my war declaration except that it's done its job of obtaining a reaction, several reactions in fact. Regarding the second @ mention of myself, if you think someone is breaking the rules then report it, it's not my job to monitor every war, I write reports where I find the time is well spent doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
Just now, REAP3R said:

It was my nation indeed, and I did write that war declaration. You are correct that I understand the mechanics and implications of beige, however, the mention of beige was entirely to coerce a reaction from our enemies in OD, but our primary objective was and still is, to raid. A basic requirement of raiding involves beiging your opponent, so yes, I don't see anything particularly wrong with my war declaration except that it's done its job of obtaining a reaction, several reactions in fact. Regarding the second @ mention of myself, if you think someone is breaking the rules then report it, it's not my job to monitor every war, I write reports where I find the time is well spent doing so.

So you don't feel that the TCW war against that TKR rises to the standard of slot filling, as outlined in your reports?  Seems strange to me that you'd report our wars but give a pass to your friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

So you don't feel that the TCW war against that TKR rises to the standard of slot filling, as outlined in your reports?  Seems strange to me that you'd report our wars but give a pass to your friends.

I will just be honest and up front, I report my enemies. I do so, knowing that my enemies do the same, in fact, I've already been the victim of such rubbish reporting, having received a nation strike already. I still do not believe what we are doing to be slot filling as we have told our members to raid both coalition A and B, and to do so like you would any other raid target. Yet, coalition B not appreciating that their hitting us has turned sour for them, have opted to use moderation to kill our raiding venture, despite us having no means of fighting a forward front with our current tiering.

 

Edited by REAP3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
Just now, REAP3R said:

I report my enemies.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588103

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588064

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588037

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588001

You guys appear to be declaring wars against TKR.  Are you saying you don't consider them your enemies?  Because that would just support the argument that NP is trying to game the system with (allegedly) problematic wars.  Or is your point that you're okay with what you believe to be illegitimate behaviour as long it's your allies doing it?  Since that would be the other interpretation of your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.