Wow! 363 defends on a country when I wasn't even online to stonewall! You guys really suck! :P

Don't you find it ironic that you have to lemming me :P
I was braving the cat, lol. It clawed me in the neck 3 times while I was sleeping!

Hmm this thread was made to insult NBK and say we can only kill babies, and have to lemming bigger targets, when in reality it is SemperFi using Lemming'ing me :P
60+ bounces in a row vs an offline target :P

You do realize that basically all of the countries hitting you were under 20% of your networth, right (hopefully you do)? And you do know how attack gains are determined, don't you (actually, you probably don't)?

I think the fact that your country died in just 363 defends to countries under 20% of your networth means that you suck, not them. If you had a proper amount of troops and medical tech, they would have had to bounce far more attacks on you. And with attack gains having a significant penalty both for topfeeding and bottomfeeding, it will naturally take them 300ish turns to kill a target where there is such a massive topfeeding penalty limiting their attack gains.

If you have the chance while killing a NBK country, have a country that is 5x the networth of its victim do a GS or BR on a country, followed by a country that is within 10% of the networth of its victim also doing a GS or BR, and compare the amount of civilians killed. Make sure you divide the number of civilians killed by any government bonus (tyranny = 20%) or strategy tech bonus (whatever each country's strat tech % is) in order to isolate the effect that networth has on attack gains of GS and BR.

Honestly, dying in just 363 hits to NBK right now when your networth is that high means that you suck, not them.

This thread was made for the wrong reasons and i didnt post until you posted about killing my country.

You were online :) this we know.

I wasn't last night, for the 2nd country you killed yesterday I was :P, Not the first.

Rockman, you're way off base here with saying the ones that hit were only 20% of my networth. That would mean they were only $400k net which is definitely not the case. Especially since the 1st ones that hit were losing between double and 5 times what I was losing and the only time they didn't get through was when they used missiles.

Not to mention that I had only 400k troops in most of mine with 149% weapons tech. So if it was you rockman you really, really suck!

I checked SemperFi's country list for a country with 363 defends. #44 was the only one with that amount. Maybe when I looked at SemperFi's news for a country with 363 defends in the last 24 hours (12 minutes after you wrote your post), yours didn't show up, but another one by sheer coincidence did have exactly 363 defends? Are we talking about #44, or another country?

If we are talking about #44, then...
It was 2.9 million networth. 20% of 2.9 million is not 400k. Its just shy of 600k (580k to be exact). And I would say that the average country that hit you was about 600k networth, if you check its news.

The first country to hit you is 627k networth
Second country is 524k
Third country is 630k
Fourth country is 592k
Fifth country is 561k
Sixth country is 544k
Seventh country is 472k
Eighth country is 845k
Ninth country is 569k
Tenth country is 524k
And so on...

Given that 20% of your networth was 580k, I think calling them 20% of your networth was quite accurate rather than being way off base.

You were hit by 3 EMs, and 360 GS, 51 of the 360 GS being bounced attacks. It took 309 successful GS to kill you because of the networth differences. And despite being just 20% of your networth, they only bounced 51 GS on you.

If we are not talking about #44, then the fact that they never bounced any GS and still took 363 hits to kill you means that networth differences, and lack of strategy tech or tyranny government bonus limited their damage. That was the game mechanics limiting their damage. They are low networth restarts, when you're restarting in a war and not getting FA, it is highly unlikely that you'll get a large amount of strategy tech, and it will be difficult to grow big without FA while spending as many turns as possible killing.

If there is any evidence that NBK sucks, it would be their lack of high networth countries, but given that they got FSd by a larger alliance quite a while ago, I don't think that would be an appropriate conclusion to draw from their lack of high networth countries. Trying to use the number of hits it takes them to kill a country as evidence that they suck shows that you have no clue how the game mechanics for warring works, which is evidence that you suck, but says nothing about whether or not they know what they are doing. It just shows that you don't know what you are doing.

I'm not gonna call anyone any names, but unless the contraction "doesn't" is between them there is no phrase that contains "NBK" and "suck" in terms of warfare.

It's really difficult to understand how someone can think that. Ask anyone who's fought NBK. Look at stats from wars. Try them with even numbers.

Losing does not automatically equal sucking. Killing restarts or even ABing can be effective situational strategies. The side with the numerical disadvantage can have the best HPK ratio in human history ad it doesn't mean fluff if they lose countries in the exchanges or allow the enemy to grow in numbers during the war.

cerberus is an idiot.


and wartime, seriously? are you that retarded? just the thought of 363 hits being anything even decent. look at the countries on both side that survived 300+ hits, or died taking 500+... don't think of NBK as anything less than the ones who wipe scum like you off our boots. i wish i had more time for this game so i could pick off a couple of yours as well.

best part is the still have to resort to all sorts of bull fluff lol. outside FA... not tagging, untagging,.. really really sad in my opinion lol

GET EM LINK

/me spanks link

Kemo loves highlights (#3436)

you sir suck a big ol hairy one for settin off my highlights

lol i knew you would like that :)