Pnp The Codfish Express...

Archidiamedes

Phrourach
Point levels TD: http://grepointel.com/alliance.php?...ters&server=en72&enddate=2015-10-02&rt=points

Number of TD adding points on a random day (Oct. 1): 99

Point levels Apoc-ZT: http://grepointel.com/alliance.php?...ance&server=en72&enddate=2015-10-02&rt=points

Number of AZT adding points on the same random day: 21

Roughly five times as many active members, even if going by point levels is not an exact science.

Total number of members in TD on October 2: 199

Total number of members in AZT on October 2: 54

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.

But then, 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.

Should I maybe start the excuse-making we used to hear from TD about most of the conquests being inactive? After all, if that was fair for you, it should be fair for us.

Cue up the expected off-topic verbal abuse since this is the first post I've made in a few weeks.

The GM said:
We have more simmers in TD than Apoc ever had

What's this? An honest admission from The GM??

once the simmers were taken out

When exactly were your simmers taken out? You had 246 members, you now have 199. Are you saying you only had 47 simmers?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
The Hermonassa Guardian claimed:

GGN_Quote.png

This paper understands that the editor our rival loves perusing Wikipedia. Our researches have kindly provided a definition of 'Cherry picking' from this source:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

If we claimed TD were still being slaughtered after the WW period or were presently so, you would be correct. As we are not, you are not ;)

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".

After this "perfect storm", the pendulum started to move slowly in TDs favour, especially once they started to steal cities when the server finished (in a de facto sense). Your stats only support this conclusion...

• The first chart, with an admitedly limited time scale showed Apoc took 731.25% more cities than TD.
• The second chart covering the entire pre WW war period (approx 4.5 months) shows Apoc ZT took 417.1875% more cities than TD.

Therefore, the original stats were not misleading in terms of the conclusion, only to the degree they supported it. It is perhaps a little embarrassing to nit pick the extent of your beating from 12/12/2014 - 29/04/2015, despite your numerical advantage. In the words of the great J.D.:
Up to this point, you provided cities: (scrubs reference)

2211065.jpg

The original paper only put things in context and perspective. While some might say TD lost the server but won the crown, we didn't mass ghost when WW started so our paper doesn't necessarily support this position...

/Our editor now hides from Brandr Usur after posting more stats :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser48096

Guest
*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.. :p)

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
We nearly put this quote at the bottom/rear end of this post... its natural position. :p

GGN_bubble.png

It was made very clear why those dates were picked, to highlight the status quo on the server before the WW era, Apoc/ZTs unquestionable dominance. We are not sure how that was missed. It was also made very clear that the war did not end after the perfect storm. We put it to you, you are unwilling to accept unbiased stats as you don't like what they say...

We would ask for examples on how our stats are incomplete or hid stats that lend themselves to another conclusion for the Apoc/ZT v's TD war, pre WW. As you cannot provide these, we rebuff your bluster.

Not only is it offensive but an entirely inaccurate analogy to compare us to the Nazis. The Nazis were not shattered by a series of natural disasters which had nothing to do with the allies, rather they were defeated by force. In contrast, in Hermonessa, TD were unable to make any headway until a storm hit.

A more accurate analogy: If lightening strikes a pride of lions, vultures (TD) may circle the carrion. It does not mean they killed it. They may pick over the lions bones, this does not mean they defeated them, that would be one of the most fallacious arguments this forum has ever seen.

TD_vultures.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The GM

Phrourach
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.

Who cares what doctered stats you guys can bring up. The only thing that matters is who won the server? Yeah that's right TD did (convincingly).

Isn't that what we all set out to do 2 years ago? Not sure what your agenda was but winning the world certainly was not one of them. Again Archi, Cod, Jamo, Mummy's Boy and yourself must take responsibility for one of the biggest screw-ups ever seen in Grepolis history! Stats are irrelevant and to accept no blame for the way you led your team down the gurgler is truly unforgiveable!


But then, 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.

Ridiculous at best!! As we have discussed numerous times, it was in fact TD who moved into your core provoking and looking for fights. Bit hard for somone like you to talk about bp's gained, I have led you, the fish and Mummy's boy in both attacking and defending bp's for well over a year. Yes that even includes pre WW era.



What's this? An honest admission from The GM??

Yea, and? You would have known this as much if not better than we did as they were the only cities your alliance went for..
 

DeletedUser48096

Guest
It was made very clear why those dates were picked, to highlight the status quo on the server before the WW era, Apoc/ZTs unquestionable dominance.

So you admit they are cherry picked.. Thank you very much, #FallaciousFish

Unquestionable Dominance in what though? As I have said numerous times, CITY CONQUESTS DONT WIN YOU THE SERVER..

Apoc failed to meet the requirements for victory because you were to concerned with mopping up strategically insignificant cities and presenting meaningless stats like this here rather than meeting the requirements for victory.

We are not sure how that was missed. It was also made very clear that the war did not end after the perfect storm. We put it to you, you are unwilling to accept unbiased stats as you don't like what they say...

Unbiased? You just admitted you picked them to deliberatly show a specific period of time. But to answer your point. No, I find them deliberatly misleading. Differnt thing entirely.

We would ask for examples on how our stats are incomplete or hid stats that lend themselves to another conclusion for the Apoc/ZT v's TD war, pre WW. As you cannot provide these, we rebuff your bluster.

What about conquests stats up the present day. From the day Apoc was founded to the present day?....... Which I already posted.

Not only is it offensive but an entirely inaccurate analogy to compare us to the Nazis. The Nazis were not shattered by a series of natural disasters which had nothing to do with the allies, rather they were defeated by force. In contrast, in Hermonessa, TD were unable to make any headway until a storm hit.

And the allies where unable to tactically unable to hit back and defeat the Nazi's through force (Dunkirk) until they established air superiority (Battle of Britain) and where able to put troops on the ground in a large number in Europe (D-Day).. Once they where able to hit back... They did.. But that said is that seriously the only differnces you can pick out? Lol.... I think it matches up fairly well to be honest. The fact the Nazi's were shattered by a coalition of allies is actually irrelevant mostly because I made no refrence to how the Nazi's where beaten in my analogy because as an indivual event it is non-comparable. Furthermore the Nazi's did also have a tactically inept leadership and a propaganda minister spinning as much rubbish as he possibly could and a series of rebellious Generals... Seems almost as if its a near perfect comparison to be honest...

TD made headway before the "Storm Hit", However by that point it was obvious that Apoc had already lost.

A more accurate analogy: If lightening strikes a pride of lions, vultures (TD) may circle the carrion. It does not mean they killed it. They may pick over the lions bones, this does not mean they defeated them, that would be one of the most fallacious arguments this forum has ever seen.

So in your analogy, GPig, Exo and Nubs are the lightening and they were effectively able to kill Apoc?.. HAHAHA.... I would love to hear Exo's views on that analogy.... That really does not say much for the diplomacy of Apocs leadership who were obviously unable to diplomatically work out a situation however does it, Do I need to quote yourself and Archi using some of the kind things that you have used to describe GPig previously as a player?

the formidable Gpig
Original Quotation

Sir Codfish said:
Our general, guineeapig, stands alone in defiance of tyranny.
....................
stg28minmagcheatshe_358537k.jpg
Original Quotation

Yep GPig definetly did stand up in defiance of Tyranny... :D

If GPig was Apocs "general" was such a "formidable" commander standing "alone in defiance of tyranny" why was he and the rest of the expendables hung out to dry by yourselves Considering that after all they where clearly Apocs best attacking players?. All he did was point out something that I have been observing for months now... Its almost like North Korea where decenting against the leadership opinions are crushed and only the voice of those in power is acceptable. It was nice to see the Expendables where shown a great display of loyalty and respect from the tactically inept Apoc leadership in their treatment however.. Amazing how opinions change isnt it?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm so delighted that SC is back here , and nice to see brandr here = without him we would not of investigated GGN's double accounting. now everyone can see the stats - TD are an alliance founded thru cheating (see founder Nates double accounting and numerous lies) which continued in founder GGN'd philosophy. where it matters to anyone who plays Grep properly they were crushed by an alliance much smaller than they - they then rallied to a simmers victory in WW by inviting a massive amount of simmers to their side as well as decimating their opposition by taking on a band of mutineers whom by their own hand admitted they hated TD and every member but were desperate for the simmer crown -proof of TD's simming can be found in their blatant failure on every other server they have graced since... Simmers crown to TD, and self delusion crown to GGn for believing that stats since 90 % of apoc quit matter to anyone but him and the GM, desperately trying to make up for TD's abysmal city take when players were actually playing the game in opposition.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The Codfish Express can confirm, it never said city conquests win the WW era. Making false claims so they can be attacked doesn't lend credibility to the Hermonassa Guardian.

GGN_talks_poop.png


Selecting one factor, out of many from "the perfect storm" is an excellent example of cherry picking. Our paper assumes this was a form a self deprecation?
On a related side note, the expendables actually asked the lovable Codfish to lead their rebellion, being of noble heart he refused, so they went to bed with their old enemy, TD. GP is still a great player, even if he followed his friends into betrayal.

While the stats clearly show TD were not very good at the War part of this war game, they did win the crown, through vulturous means or no. Both statements are equally true. However, it's important to note, many people that play for war, don't continue onto the WW era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser48096

Guest
The Codfish Express can confirm, it never said city conquests win the WW era. Making false claims so they can be attacked doesn't lend credibility to the Hermonassa Guardian.

And the Guardian never said you did. The Guardian was simply pointing out to the Express that in the grand scheme of things these statistics are meaningless since the criteria for victory has nothing to do with city conquests, Unless its a wonder island. And even on them Apoc failed...

Selecting one factor, out of many from "the perfect storm" is an excellent example of cherry picking. Our paper assumes this was a form a self deprecation?

Your the one highlighting this cherrypicked timeperiod, Not me. All Iam doing is observing that it fails to account for the bigger picture.

On a related side note, the expendables actually asked the lovable Codfish to lead their rebellion, being of noble heart he refused, so they went to bed with their old enemy, TD. GP is still a great player, even if he followed his friends into betrayal.

I wonder if Laur will confirm that story.. [Edit:] He didnt..

Noble heart, HAHAHAHAHAHA. If your heart was noble you would never have turned your back on the coalition.

While the stats clearly show TD were not very good at the War part of this war game, they did win the crown, through vulturous means or no. Both statements are equally true. However, it's important to note, many people that play for war, don't continue onto the WW era.

While I would agree that this is a war game, I would also question if Apoc were even that good at the attacking part of it. Seeing as they where unable to secure the crucial targets and take wonder cities like TD did, Conquest numbers aside you cannot deny that TD suceeded in this area where Apoc failed. I would argue that while Apocs attack was more abundant and frequent, TD's was more clinical. Bear in mind that we did crash the server twice with our attacks..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The GM

Phrourach
it's important to note, many people that play for war, don't continue onto the WW era.

Can't be said about your team though can it? You all continued on and even tried to launch the odd counter attack to keep morale up.

It was only after you had been well and truly destoyed that your so-called bigger players decided to leave. Strange though, most of Apoc's better players are still around. How do I know this? Well the odd attack and EQ etc indicates this.

(Disclaimer: The above does not include of course Archi or JoHnny who both ran for the hills at the first sight of a spy hitting their cities. Neither does this report factor in Jamovic1 who has proven his worth with his one lovely city. )
 

DeletedUser48096

Guest
In your mind Jamo one lie and that person is doomed for eternity and forever branded as a liar.. Its almost as if you yourself has never told a lie..... Oh wait.......

Jamovic1 said:
TD are an alliance founded thru cheating
TD foundation had nothing to do with cheating, It was simply annoyance with the lack of leadership in Wreckless Inc.

which continued in founder GGN'd philosophy
Prove it.

where it matters to anyone who plays Grep properly they were crushed by an alliance much smaller than they
Define properly?

and self delusion crown to GGn for believing that stats since 90 % of apoc quit matter to anyone but him
And you try and mock me for not making sense.. 90% of Apoc quit?, Really? That would be news to the simmers that remain in Apoc I suspect....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
sorry this standing for too long without challenge? what happened EN72? YEs GGGN you are a liar and a cheat but I can't prove because I will get ban again, froggy tried and he got full time ban from the server.. just rest assured with rep and Mods growing laziness, that GGN is a liar and a cheat ( as well as a boring boring, self delusional narcasstic, person ofm questionable parentage ;) )

As for GM we are allies now on another serve , i won't comment bad about him here anymore. redemption is granted by serbian Jesus :)
 

DeletedUser48096

Guest
Froggy tried? Pretty sure he did the same thing you have done all along..

Iam curious? Why would they ban a player in game for in-discressions from posting here on the forum?. After all they didnt ban you in-game when you where banned for a short time here did they?..

The answer is simple, They wouldn't as Froggy isnt banned from posting on this forum so if he has evidence he is welcome to present it here. In fact to be honest I hadn't noticed or cared that froggy was banned and I actually genuinely have no idea why he was banned but Iam sure there is a good reason for his ban otherwise he would have been able to appeal it.

Assert all you want Jamo but you are making some very large assertions in your arguements.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
GGN you have more red lights than Amsterdam now !

Anyway a monumental day has been reached in en72. the comeback is on in time for Halloween, 2 cities and thanks to TD's reckless attacks 14 slots to fill..think I will take over 66 :p
 

DeletedUser48096

Guest
Great I love Amsterdam, Lovely city and there is some lovely cups and cakes on sale there..

What was your point again? Oh right, you claimed you where going to quit EN72, but now have clearly changed your mind. Knew you weren't much of a man of your word..
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Why giving me bad name and grapes sour?

I playinge not this world I trying. I not bad man or liar you like many man such as Archimedes or Sir Codfish?

I am Croatia, and good lover I am.

Thread: The Codfish Express...
Very glad we aren't in the same alliance either, GM. At least this C.L. sock puppet has some mild entertainment to it. Unfortunately fate has decided you are not allowed into positive rep territory and therefore a disapproval is what you get. - Archi
 

DeletedUser48096

Guest
Lol very good Croatian, Seems like you have a friend in me if Archi the coward doesn't like you. After all the phrase and logic of, "The Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend" worked will enough with the Expendables.. I think what Jamo hasn't quite figured out is that you are no differnt from him. I reckon you are on Herm and like him are playing using differnt account across differnt worlds. I think I have figured out your account name on Herm.

Not GM, Thats too obvious.. But I reckon I know who you are, Your spelling of "Archimedes" was the give away..

Nice to see that Archi admits to giving negitive rep to people he doesn't like, Rather than giving rep to those who actually make valid points.. Which is what the system was created for.

Jamo, You founded a city.... WOW what a display of dominance... :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Archidiamedes

Phrourach
Of course, CL, being a TD member, selectively fails to point out that he is the one who started things with me, as is always the case. Unlike certain members of TD, I don't message people out of the blue and start talking cr*p (shout-out to GGN, GM, and Exo). And we're supposed to believe that his attempt at negative rep'ing my post was actually due to my post and not because he doesn't like me? Yeah okay.

Note the times:

49c7491818b9b52c9e2d0d1762cd8c34.png


3e409cba95ac8a0a82b43e252b94a02b.png


And who says I don't give out positive rep? :)

2a090d2ae0b6d770f564c3258cae4d85.png


You guys should be glad I don't give out rep either way more often though, or you might have even more negative rep, not that I have done it nearly as much as you think I have. Looking at my list I see I have given it to you and GM exactly one time each. I don't read enough of the other forums to be able to spread it to you again, and this forum doesn't have enough people. They don't let you keep giving it to the same people.

5bc26771da33a864bdf7d2b956af24cb.png

Nice to see that Archi admits to giving negitive rep to people he doesn't like, Rather than giving rep to those who actually make valid points.. Which is what the system was created for.

Is it now? That's why there are two options. Seems to me like that means you can choose either one and that was "what the system was created for." Did CL negative rep me for the post or because I'm a "bad man"?

There are no valid points in this post either, by the way:

a9384e6a70dda1eddc9142de09e30044.png
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
CL has also loaded my account with neg reps. None of them are worth showing though. I suppose we could run a seperate thread and take votes as to who is behind this sock puppet. The winner gets this special mug donated by Generic Greek Name......... :eek:
i_love_my_croatian_wife_mug.jpg
 
Top