Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 13, 2007 2:34:14 GMT
Had some cloak-and-dagger work yield some major dividends into Pantheon's agenda tonight. Essentially, was able to penetrate their highest circles of political leadership.
Unfortunately, I'm too tired, and need to be up too early, to get it all down in a post tonight. I'll have it up by morning (at the rifle range all day tomorrow) tomorrow night. The following are just notes for my reference to elaborate from...
1. "Alliance coordination" tools. 2. "Swarming" attacks. 3. DIGG Split. 4. Precision personnel targeting. 5. "Dry run" against HoS. 6. Post-War Dissolution. 7. "Cata Orgies". 8. DDOS attack. 9. "Stonethrower Bunkers"
|
|
AeroS
Luxor Admin
Timmons[HAWK]
Posts: 1,138
|
Post by AeroS on Sept 13, 2007 2:44:34 GMT
We shoudl pact with HoS just to Chiavata! with their heads ;D JK.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 13, 2007 15:14:40 GMT
1. Alliance Coordination Tools. --> Pantheon has developed a "mysterious" tool designed to revolutionize inter-alliance coordination in warfighting. The tool is LAMP based (I have no idea what that means), and they are uncertain it will perform properly with such a new volume of users.
2. "Swarming" attacks. --> Apparently, sending 100 single-LWS attacks with 5 spears each produces a 23% advantage in kills vs sending a single 100-LWS fleet with 500 spears. They have run extensive statistical studies and are quite confident that the numbers hold up, and are now using it exclusively against uninhabited islands - though saving the discovery against human-foes to prevent DIGG from finding out prematurely.
3. Their objective is to see DIGG split into multiple alliances. Plain and simple. They do not believe warfare is possible with the looming DIGG "kampf" over everyone's heads, so they are all nervous to war anybody. Therefore, they are committed to remain until DIGG separates into multiple alliances. However, they have such specific requirements that it is pure fantasy - "no more than 2 alliances per coalition", "at least 6 alliances", "no shared forums"...
4. They know DIGG leadership relatively well. They intend to target "those with an emotional attachment to their account", and believe those individuals to be Lane, Phil299, JRo, Dominic, and a few others I cannot recall offhand. They appear to be preparing comprehensive evaluations of who to target and who to bypass.
5. They want a dry run to test their stoner bunkers, leadership coordination, and "LAMP-based" tool site for inter-alliance coordination. HoS appears to be the leading candidate.
6. They make no illusions about remaining as a single alliance after DIGG splits into various alliances. They intend to return to thier alliances of origin once DIGG splits.
7. They do not intend to colonize DIGG islands. They describe "Cat Orgies" wherein DIGG players are made to feel significant pain and hopelessness.
8. They are aware that Jackrats has been AWOL for 2-3 weeks, and that his tool site is critical to DIGG's warfighting. Pain proposed a "DDOS attack" on it (again, I have no idea what that computer-lingo means).
9. They are currently stacking up 1k LWS+ islands as local "stonethrower bunkers". They are actively seeking DIGG's stonethrower reserve system (it is decentralized entirely), and their's appears to be replicating the "hub" system that Empire used to only limited success in the Empire-DIGG war.
|
|
Arminius
Morkin Admin
Ich bin Bl?cher
Posts: 4,148
|
Post by Arminius on Sept 13, 2007 15:39:49 GMT
LAMP: Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP - it means it's a website with a database backend. Pretty much like our espionage database.
DDOS: distributed denial-of-service attack. Not sure what that means in this context. Basically attack everybody to paralyse the alliance, as it's not possible to find out which attacks are real and which are fake?
And, according to Dan the Digger, DIGG is about to split. So let's see what the Pandemonium does then.
|
|
Shendemiar
Morkin Admin
Mmmm, free goo!
Posts: 6,751
|
Post by Shendemiar on Sept 13, 2007 21:12:13 GMT
DOS attack on digg tools site means huge amount of ping etc. requests so that the server cannot handle legit requests. Thus denying the service it provides.
|
|
SkulkrinBait
Morkin Admin
Haxx0rs == Suxx0rs! v4
Posts: 6,680
|
Post by SkulkrinBait on Sept 13, 2007 22:24:14 GMT
They're trying to fish for information I think, so I dropped in a tasty tidbit without giving much away, bottom first.
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Sept 13, 2007 23:53:25 GMT
What is the statistical probability of Kampfing someone?
Would sending 100 fleets give you a 1 in a 100 chance?
|
|
AeroS
Luxor Admin
Timmons[HAWK]
Posts: 1,138
|
Post by AeroS on Sept 14, 2007 0:03:13 GMT
2. "Swarming" attacks. --> Apparently, sending 100 single-LWS attacks with 5 spears each produces a 23% advantage in kills vs sending a single 100-LWS fleet with 500 spears. They have run extensive statistical studies and are quite confident that the numbers hold up, and are now using it exclusively against uninhabited islands - though saving the discovery against human-foes to prevent DIGG from finding out prematurely. I have a hard time believing this.
|
|
Shendemiar
Morkin Admin
Mmmm, free goo!
Posts: 6,751
|
Post by Shendemiar on Sept 14, 2007 0:31:57 GMT
There are many phenomenas with complex formulas and computers that may twist results in some unpredicted ways, but they are usually highly dependant of what the defender has.
|
|
Clausewitz
Luxor Member
Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mori.
Posts: 1,437
|
Post by Clausewitz on Sept 14, 2007 1:19:22 GMT
There are many phenomenas with complex formulas and computers that may twist results in some unpredicted ways, but they are usually highly dependant of what the defender has. Indeed, I am aware that the loss formula is dependent upon the size of the defense force. Perhaps we can put together a task force of folks with 100 LWS fleets that could give it a try on the next local rulerless island they intend to clear? Even if the losses inflicted are 23% less rather than more, I'd be willing to throw 100 LWS into the experiment... EDIT: I shot 37/40 in my quarterly weapons qualification today with the M-4 Carbine. Rather pleased with myself, personal best But let's stay on topic in spite of my sidenote here!
|
|
|
Post by ashimar on Sept 14, 2007 1:31:21 GMT
Still I kind of like what they are trying to brew here. Seems rather exotic and voodoo voodoo. I'm always a Suca minchia! for the occult, so let them start throwing chicken and amulets at eachother.
|
|
2kcastle
Luxor Admin
Supreme Prosecutor
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by 2kcastle on Sept 14, 2007 16:09:23 GMT
EDIT: I shot 37/40 in my quarterly weapons qualification today with the M-4 Carbine. Rather pleased with myself, personal best But let's stay on topic in spite of my sidenote here! Sidenotes are more fun ! What range were you shooting the M-4 over ?
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Sept 15, 2007 0:12:44 GMT
What is the statistical probability of Kampfing someone? Would sending 100 fleets give you a 1 in a 100 chance? That's something I have wondered myself. Given that sometimes a small fleet can work wonders, could it be usefull to send, say, 20 realatively small fleets at a heavily defended isle and hope that one of the fleets miraculously kampf the entire garrison?
|
|
|
Post by ashimar on Sept 15, 2007 1:20:06 GMT
That's like buying hundreds of 1/5th statelottery tickets hoping one willl give you the jackpot, well, 1/5th at least. ;D
I don't think it works. Urban legend.
|
|
eproxy
Luxor Admin
Oceans old & new
Posts: 1,941
|
Post by eproxy on Sept 15, 2007 10:36:18 GMT
I ran quite a few tests on this myself back on IKUK and earlier on here but to my knowledge bigger fleets are always better. Of course you do still have to take into account the defending units (and perhaps more importantly their ratio of units; the Stonewall level is also critical).
|
|