BA vs. S -- Stats

[DeletedUser]

Side 1: [BA] {BA}
Side 2: ~S~ KO


Timeframe: Forever
Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 638
Side 2: 504
Difference: 134

========================================================================

Timeframe: Last 3 months

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 527
Side 2: 296
Difference: 231

========================================================================

Timeframe: Last month

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 215
Side 2: 63
Difference: 152

========================================================================

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 81
Side 2: 10
Difference: 71

========================================================================

Timeframe: Last 48 hours

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 24
Side 2: 6
Difference: 18

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting.

I haven't been following this war, what has changed that has allowed BA to take a lead as of late?

 

[DeletedUser]

An affirmation of the committment to fight ~S~, bold? Not in my book. ~S~ is committed to fighting Apoc since that is what truly matters at least to me. I find it to be right. Especially for me.

First they fought MM and you pick away and now Apoc and you pick away.

Bold? Sortof. Truly bold? Truly bold is somehow not having alliances or pacts with #1 and #2 tribe who are opposing each other being decisive.

Imagine if you would in WW 2...if say,for the sake of arguement....France were to cite some longstanding grievance. And take up hostilities against the UK. While doing this they kept alliances with The USSR, US, Italy, Germany, and Japan. And as they picked away at England...they kept up with the exciting victories gained. This is truly how I view it. I would be unimpressed. Certainly it could only be a footnote if they were victorious over the UK or an absolute embarrassment were they to lose. The real war was elsewhere. These forays only truly serious for those players directly involved and a nuisance for the serious actors in the larger play.

 

[DeletedUser]

An affirmation of the committment to fight ~S~, bold? Not in my book.

Who said anything about their war against S was 'bold'?

~S~ is committed to fighting Apoc since that is what truly matters at least to me. I find it to be right. Especially for me.

I'm glad you found a cause you actually believe in... but that doesn't mean everyone shares in what you believe.

Heck i'm sure BA would love for ~S~ to ignore them and allow them to gain the upperhand.

First they fought MM and you pick away and now Apoc and you pick away.

Bold? Sortof. Truly bold? Truly bold is somehow not having alliances or pacts with #1 and #2 tribe who are opposing each other being decisive.

I'm quite sure that each side of that conflict would like BA to join them in battle...
But how is it anymore 'bold' to follow whatever the #1 or #2 tribes say?
It isnt any more 'bold' to just go along with what either of them want, id say that BAs neutral stance in the war is a rather controversial one.

Imagine if you would in WW 2...

Here we go, a WW2 analogy.

if say,for the sake of arguement....France were to cite some longstanding grievance. And take up hostilities against the UK. While doing this they kept alliances with The USSR, US, Italy, Germany, and Japan. And as they picked away at England...they kept up with the exciting victories gained. This is truly how I view it. I would be unimpressed. Certainly it could only be a footnote if they were victorious over the UK or an absolute embarrassment were they to lose. The real war was elsewhere. These forays only truly serious for those players directly involved and a nuisance for the serious actors in the larger play.

So many things to dissect.
So in this scenario Germany doesnt conquer Europe and allows France to keep land Germany claims is theirs ethnically?
How does WW2 progress?
Obviously there is no Normandy invasion...
Who exactly in Axis/Allies here?


Anyway i dont think that BA v. S is a footnote...

Because somehow in your entire WW2 analogy you failed to bring up the Pacific theater (You know, that whole... Japan part)
And while the whole Europe thing was going on... at the same time, there was a entirely *different front* which has its own pages in the history book.


So yes, the *other front* (BA/S) is important just like the Pacific theater was important... if you want to use your absurd analogy.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wasn't giving a history lesson. I was giving a potenial example to show how I see it. I speak for myself, others can decide for themselves. I think its far from absurd but I guess we have your verdict . Lets hear from others.

P.S. Japan entered WW 2? Gonna have to brush up on my history, who knew? Next time I will write a chapter. Funny though as soon as I attempt brevity in my points as people suggest. I get immediate criticism about not being thorough and someone calling me absurd. The Apoc appologist cant make up their mind it seems.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wasn't giving a history lesson. I was giving a potenial example to show how I see it. I speak for myself, others can decide for themselves. I think its far from absurd but I guess we have your verdict . Lets hear from others.

Sure, i didnt need a history lesson anyway.

My main points werent about your WW2 section it was your claim that this war isn't 'Bold' --
But there really isnt that much calculating left in terms of tribe vs. tribe alliances... There are far too tribes/families left for there to be much intrigue or secret deals.

Apoc vs. MIM is the larger conflict, yes, but perhaps not yielding to pressure to support either Apoc or MIM actually takes a much more 'bold' attitude.
Think about it BA hears all of this talk constantly about if they are going to declare on one or the other, it takes a lot not to yield to the two larger world powers.

P.S. Japan entered WW 2? Gonna have to brush up on my history, who knew? Next time I will write a chapter. Funny though as soon as I attempt brevity in my points as people suggest. I get immediate criticism about not being thorough and someone calling me absurd. The Apoc appologist cant make up their mind it seems.

Some of your posts have been long winded (i'm not of the camp that insensitively posts 'tl;dr' however), but you seem to believe that length is the only way to get your point across effectively, when in fact, brief but to the point posts are often more effective.

Also i didnt call you absurd, i called your analogy absurd - World War 2 often gets used and frankly it doesnt work here or in many other examples.

 

[DeletedUser]

Enough of WWII lads. This is a stats thread not a 'who can use propaganda to win over BA' thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

BA will now fight to the death in defense of Truscott.

 

[DeletedUser]

BA will now fight to the death in defense of Truscott.

Darn it Peter!!! Quit spilling the goals! Remember: Loose Lips Sink Ships!

 

[DeletedUser43619]

This thread is fail nuff said. You make it look like it is solely your effort when ApoC pushes are stronger than any of your attempts.
On your own neither have you won any significant wars nor will you ever will, keep licking ApoC toes until and keep hoping that u behave as nice lapdogs with tails wagging

 

[DeletedUser]

PP: if you'd like maps, let me know. I can send you the maps directly, post them, or share the program.

 

[DeletedUser]

This thread is fail nuff said. You make it look like it is solely your effort when ApoC pushes are stronger than any of your attempts.
On your own neither have you won any significant wars nor will you ever will, keep licking ApoC toes until and keep hoping that u behave as nice lapdogs with tails wagging

I suspect that whoever you think you are trying to help is feverishly thinking "Please go away".

 

[DeletedUser]

This thread is fail nuff said.

Then please don't bother returning. Your offering is of little value.

You make it look like it is solely your effort when ApoC pushes are stronger than any of your attempts.

Uhhh.... I offered no analysis of the stats, did I? No.
I merely offered the stats.
Your conclusion actually betrays more about your own feelings of insecurity than they do anything about BA's abilities.

On your own neither have you won any significant wars nor will you ever will, keep licking ApoC toes until and keep hoping that u behave as nice lapdogs with tails wagging

This one made me LOL. On your own, dipank, you've managed to rally much anti-~S~ sentiment. I appreciate that! You're aces, kid!
As for what BA has done in the past - you're just ignorant. But please proceed in this manner, as it makes our efforts easier.

Now...
If you think the stats should include something else, please enlighten me. I didn't even add in the players you guys kicked once attacked! Here I was... thinking I was being nice!

:icon_sad:

 

[DeletedUser]

Darn it Peter!!! Quit spilling the goals! Remember: Loose Lips Sink Ships!

Dangit! I even promised not to share our long-term goals with enemies!
How could I have been so blind!! Truscott has tricked me into divulging our Long Term Plan #1: "Operation: Be Tru to Scott"!!

 

[DeletedUser40757]

This thread is fail nuff said. You make it look like it is solely your effort when ApoC pushes are stronger than any of your attempts.
On your own neither have you won any significant wars nor will you ever will, keep licking ApoC toes until and keep hoping that u behave as nice lapdogs with tails wagging

Apparently somebody has problems reading....this thread is to show BA's progress vs its enemies, because the other stats thread is for Apoc..

if you wish, make your own stats thread

 

[bomberace101]

I think what dipank means there should be atleast some mention as to Apoc also having a part to play in why the stats are what they are.

For Example :

Side 1:
Tribes: -IM- -MI-
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: Apoc-W Apoc-R
Players:

Timeframe: Forever

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 3,157
Side 2: 1,101
Difference: 2,056


This obviously does not show the whole picture of what is actually happening.


But.... There is no way someone can represent the stats to make them suitable for both sides bias point of view :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser40757]

I agree, there has to be some overlapping of the stats, in this case, you could show Apoc and BA vs ~S~, alongside the indivdual stats.

I would make a combined stats thread, but not sure I would be able to update it all weekly...too lazy

 

[DeletedUser43619]

PP when you decide to fight a major tribe on ur own that is when u will deserve the respect or space. For now you have managed to earn none

 

[DeletedUser]

But.... There is no way someone can represent the stats to make them suitable for both sides bias point of view :icon_wink:

Amen - you understand the problem. But if someone has requests, there's obviously interest in doing some additional slicing and dicing. That's one reason I went after the family stats showing lost and gained ground, and internal cannibalization vs. enemy action.

Requests are always welcome - not necessarily acted on, but welcome.

 

[DeletedUser]

PP when you decide to fight a major tribe on ur own that is when u will deserve the respect or space. For now you have managed to earn none

Are you still posting here? :lol:

I cannot help it if you managed to hack off both BA and Apoc at the same time. Perhaps you should create your own thread "~S~ vs. BA & Apoc"?

If I cared enough about what you thought, I might provide you with a history of BA.