*Edit* Jamo is going to love me for this...
When the conquest numbers were in our favour, you still outnumbered us by almost two to one. Now you could say that, including ZT, it was not 2 to 1 (but still about 246 vs 155 or so), but including ZT's numbers, your record looks even worse.
Archi, Have we not already explained this to you numerous times or are you so fat headed that you just can't figure out what we did? We prepared for WWs by reinforcing our core while you took strategtically insignificant cities. Can you not get that into your thick head? You think losing cities in 55 was a bother to us when our WWs where in 34 and 33?. The moment you tried to take cities in 44 and oceans closer to the core you came up against stiffer resistance, So you obvisously stuck to the easier conquests.
As Jamo well knows TD's intention was always to draw a line down the map and defend cities harder on one side of the line than on the other, He will know this because I told him this was our intention the day before he joined Apoc.
this is how TD has played the entire server, always having to outnumber their opposition massively and using others as cannon fodder for the front line. It used to be OL, now they have The Expendables who are more than happy to do it to rack up their BP.
Not our fault you didnt try and recruit more members to match ours.
Also explain how OL was our Cannon Fodder? rather than making baseless assertions....
Plus we allow Expendables to satisfy their own bloodlust of Apoc, Are you going to suggest that they and they alone are responsible for TDs BP? After all it wasn't any of them who scored 99k of BP and went through over 3k of Apoc Birs a few weeks ago was it?.... Who was it again?....
Sir Codfish said:
The section that housed the first papers chart states the period being covered was pre WW. The dates are clearly stipulated, the analysis and conclusions are limited to those dates and that time period. The paper emphatically states that up until that point Apoc ZT held an incontrovertibly preponderant position in the world, highlighting how devastating events that precluded TD were, known as "the perfect storm". It in no way suggested, rather the opposite, that this was still the case. With this in mind, it is incorrect to say the stats were "cherry picked".
Rationalization, The Codfish express was asked why it selected a specific period for its dates and this is its answer? Note its failure to give a definitive answer to this question other than defining it as both a "
WW War Period" and "
The Perfect Storm". Now as I will go onto to show even the dates given for the "
WW War Period" are do not cover the "
entire" period as asserted by Sir Cod, But that can wait for a few moments as firstly we should say that Yes we at the Guardian agree that the events when viewed in a certian context are seemingly devistating. However as has been previously noted alot of the cities taken where strategically insignificant to Apoc/ZT and where simply there to reinforce their own core. You see Sir Cod, In highlighting the events of "
The Perfect Storm" you fail to give a correct perspective on the actual number of the city conquests between alliances or even acknowledge that the tide turned against Apoc. Hence why you cherry picked a specific period that suits your own narrative to select a time period when Apoc was in its ascendancy rather than broadern it out to cover a wider time period. Hence why this is Cherry picking as you have selectively interpretted the facts which fit your narrative rather than the overall facts and as the description notes "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position", That being ignoring the dates and conquests outside your own cherry picked time period.
Lets put it this way, The Nazis occupied 15 countries during World War 2 in the period of 15th March 1939 to 6th of June 1944, So therefore the Nazi's where a more efficent fighting force? Is that an accurate repeat of the claim you are making in regards to Apoc?
Now firstly it should be obvious to all why the end date for this statistic is the 6th of June 1944 and what happened after it should be obvious to all so I won't state it... But this stat clearly is not representative of the state of the war and also fails to acknowledge to overall outcome of the war. It is therefore not an honest stat since none of those the conquests remained in Nazi hands for the duration of the war plus the stat fails to account for the whole duration of the war (1939-1945), It simply covers the period of ascendancy. While it is a fact the Nazi's did occupy 15 Countries and the allies occupied 0 it is simply cherry picking a specific time period to highlight solely their ascendancy rather than acknowleding a more reflective and honest time period over the entire war as after that all their conquests where liberated and the Nazi's lost so they count for nothing. However the problem with bringing up stats like this is that they mean very little in the grand scheme of things when viewed in the broader context since WW2 wasn't decided upon by who made the most conquests, Just like the Grepo winner isnt decided upon by who makes the most conquests and that is perhaps something you never quite seemed to realize Sir Cod.
The second chart covering the entire [?] pre WW war period (approx 4.5 months) shows Apoc ZT took 417.1875% more cities than TD.
Why only the
Pre WW War period, Why not the whole WW War Period?
Nice Qualifier though "WW War Period", Shame it is completely false as are you going to suggest that all war ceased after the end of April? I would disagree, and I would actually argue the actual "
WW war period" ended when TD finished construction of the forth wonder, Which occured on the 2nd of June 2015. After all lets not forget Apoc did launch a massive op in an attempt to stop us from completing this wonder a few days before this (Which of course failed, But thats beside the point..
)
How come that is not part of your "
War Period"?
Secondly, As noted the cities taken by TD during this period where strategically significant to us, Lets not forget that during WW's TD took control of TWO apoc wonder islands, While Apoc took control of 0 TD wonder islands. Conquests aside it is hard to argue that Apoc was effective in their attacks when they failed to either take TD wonder islands or even defend their own. I would therefore argue that TD where as a result a lot more clinical efficent in their conquests than Apoc since their takeovers where obviously more meaningful..
some might say TD lost the server but won the crown.
So what? Some do say that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ. That doesn't mean their opinion should be taken seriously.
Simple truth is that anyone who would make a comment like that would be a very bitter loser with no concept of how this game is won and lost. TD met the criteria for victory on the server, Apoc didnt and seeing as the Victor of the Crown and the Victor of the Server are exactly the same thing.. Anybody who would make a claim like that would be supremely ignorant.