Moridin
-
Posts
4,592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Moridin
-
-
[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1295332342' post='2580499']
I am Polar, see my government and behold their peace mode.
[/quote]
[quote name='brickyard' timestamp='1295332054' post='2580465']
..Says the guy in peace mode?
[/quote]
Both of your alliances are smart enough to know using peace mode is a perfectly acceptable tactic, and indeed both of your alliances have used it in the past. It's astonishing that after all these years people still think "you're in peace mode, your argument is invalid!" line somehow has any validity. -
Every nuke fired at the scum shall be a joy. Hail!
-
[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1295315506' post='2579244']
I do not like Polaris. I would like a commitment from VE/PC/iFOK that they will [b]ensure that they disband[/b], or at the very least pay extremely large sums in reparations. Preferably they would pay 1,000,000 tech after being reduced to under 1,000,000 NS.
[/quote]
Good luck with that. -
It's been too long. This'll be fun.
-
This is not really a good metric at all. The skills involved with building up a large nation have nothing to do with the skills involved in leading an alliance. At best you have a correlation without causation, as most leaders of prominent alliances will have had to spent a while getting to the top and therefore have older and larger nations. Plenty of alliance leaders - successful ones - have served their alliance while not bothering to spend effort on their nations. Aside from Ivan, Sponge comes to mind as one that had a miserable nation during his highly successful reign in 2007 because if he built it up at all it would just get nuked back down anyway.
-
As I understand it, the requirement exists as an encouragement for alliances for alliances to actively recruit and thus give new players a place to go in the game. How many of the alliances which would be in that top 19 but not have a sanction actively recruit? TOP doesn't, MK doesn't, Umbrella doesn't, and WTF is actively avoiding the sanction. I'm not sure about TDO, FOK, or FAN, but I'm inclined to think the latter two do not actively recruit from the CN community. So as far as I can tell, the requirement is continuing to do exactly what it was intended to do.
-
It's not that hard to recruit if you want a sanction. Or if you don't want MCXA to get a sanction.
-
It's always good to see hatchets buried. Congratulations on the treaty.
-
[quote name='Engel' timestamp='1293894144' post='2560061']
How is Polaris awesome if it kicks out or threatens their members until they leave? You're just another alliance on the blue team who lost site of what the game meant and think you own blue due to your size. Let the blue people decide!
[/quote]
We don't kick out any members, just the ones that whine and make lame attempts at blackmailing the government. You're special!
-
This is about a year late, but I won't complain.
-
I can respect that, regardless of your choice of target.
-
[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1292398240' post='2540078']
Great lies of Cyber Nations:
2006-2008: The Ordnance of the Orders will never fall!
2010: The Ordnance of the Orders is dead. It can never come back!
[/quote]
I'm not saying it will never come back. I think it's unlikely, personally, but I've learned enough to never say "never". However, the notion that the two alliances are [i]currently[/i] in some some of partnership is absurd. -
[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1292378987' post='2539872']To be perfectly candid, if OoOlite is real, it would be the best thing to happen to Planet Bob in many months, thus fear would be the last emotion I was use to describe my reaction.[/quote]
Wait, what the hell? If it is real? That implies there's actually some remote chance of it. -
[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1292296662' post='2539090']
So, right now I'm leaning towards 'manufactured drama as a ploy to mock those who fall for it'.
[/quote]
Sounds about right! And if it's not, it's still really really petty. No idea why this a thread was necessary. -
Do you people really have nothing better to do than come up with absurd blocs that will never actually form and speculate about who will be in them? Good lord.
-
Congratulations to those elected.
Did Feanor not run? I rather liked him. -
[quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1291950941' post='2535364']
TheAUT quality posting [i]myth[/i].
[/quote]
I don't think anyone has any such illusions. -
[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
I'm not going to get into cold hard stats, it has been stated numerous times already. From someone who has seen Polaris "war machine" operate for awhile, I just want to dis-spell this misconception that Polaris is good at war and why people felt that way. This idea of Polaris being a tremendous military alliance, where did it come from? Let me go ahead and explain why I believe most people are misled.
Polaris right before the noCB war lost a tremendous amount of nations due to the impending attacks on them. They saw it coming from a mile away and knew they couldn't do anything about it. Now I could explain the events leading up to the war since I was there but I won't.
When AlmightyGrub declared war Polaris fully knew they were going to get destroyed. There were talks within BLEU to go in defense of GR while keeping Polaris out just to deny the satisfaction of the Coalition to destroy it. Yet Polaris did fight because they knew they could not delay the inevitable. Now people often think that CnG and BLEU were close leading up to the war, this is absolutely false; we were only drawn into the same conflict due to coincidence. CnG was not a fan of BLEU and even BLEU's attempts to thank MK were just met with, "meh, we were going to do this regardless of what happened to you."
I don't know of many alliances on our side that did well in that war with the exception of MK. Their plan was great and their execution even better. Targeting nations without SDI's to maximize damage with their nukes, the way they cycled in and out of war was impeccable fighting NPO and VE they caused as much damage as they took.
Now Polaris' performance? Abysmal, to say the least. Folded quicker than a lawn chair. Losing their NS precipitously with no real plan to cause damange just awaiting their beating. The damages they caused to the coalition that attacked them was terrible, their "update blitz" on Valhalla that night AlmightyGrub declared war was atrocious. I think all the alliances that fought Polaris gained NS as a result of all the war. People had the feeling Polaris folded due to them hoping that if they don't fight back too hard they'd have an easier time with peace terms. Unlike MK, Polaris was expected to escape the war albeit to get roughed up quite a bit. At one point Polaris higher end nations sat in peace mode as the other side urged them to move out of peace mode as they sat in ivory towers as their middle and lower tiers were getting pummeled. You may say this is a valid war strategy, but hell is it a valid war strategy for a true military powerhouse?[/quote]
Grub and Dajobo have covered this pretty well, but I'll just reiterate what they said. As someone who was in MiniPax in the months leading up to the war, and as someone who sat in on the preparations the night of Polaris' entry (though I wasn't in Polar at that time), I can say a couple things with complete certainty. First, Polar had become complacent in the half a year leading up to the troubles in the summer of 2008. We were fighting a number of small engagements against very outmatched alliances. Our military system had become geared towards executing wars in which Polar was at least on an equal footing.
During the summer, as (real) war began to loom, we realized our mistake and tried to somewhat hastily correct our previous mistakes. There was a major push for SDIs around the time of the planning of the potential war with Grämlins, which continued into July. It's probable that the money would've been better spent on MPs or warchests, and it wasn't because again, we were oriented towards wars where we outnumbered the enemy (which, in terms of nations, could've been true of the potential Grämlins war). Either way, it wouldn't have made a great amount of difference. With the tables turned, at that time few alliances would've performed better. MK certainly did, and I'd expect TOP and the rest of Citadel to have as well. But the majority of large alliances did not push warchests very hard. I had $200 million for ~50k NS, and most of those I encountered in Vox that had defected from alliances in the Coalition had much less. Sheer force of numbers won the war for the Coalition, and while BLEU in general and NpO in particular did not perform terribly well at all, it's not any worse than I would expect of another alliance under the circumstances.
Finally, the misconception which Grub and Dajobo addressed that somehow Polaris was performing an "update blitz" is patently absurd. I sat in on the planning, and it was made expressly clear that maybe a dozen targets were being picked simply to show that Polaris was engaging. The war was expected and planned as a purely defensive one, as MiniPax was well aware of how the numbers added up. The notion that the bankers should've come out of peace mode and fought is equally ridiculous. Polaris did better in the long-run by keeping them in peace mode. Sacrificing the ability to rebuild for some short term glory is a decision some would make, and it is admirable in its own right, but leaving bankers in peace mode was a perfectly sensible decision and ultimately paid off.
So when it comes to the War of the Coalition, you have a couple of facts right, from which you're drawing bizarre conclusions. Polaris did not perform exceptionally in that war, but that a) is not due to the few wars declared on opening night and b) not even remotely relevant to the state of Polar's military today.
[quote]At the end of that war Polaris rebuilt quickly at a furious pace. Building so many nuclear missiles it surpassed that of TOP's reaching 4,000 I believe for the first time ever. With this rapid growth people felt that Polaris, stats wise at least, was a military power although not even being tested. The Karma War passed by with Polaris seeing minimal action so there was really nothing to indicate Polaris was stronger militarily than they had been when they fought in the noCB war. Which leads me to...
What we all know as the Bi-Polar War. Attacking \m/ they should have [i]statistically [/i]wise ran them over quickly. And when FOK and PC attacked? Polaris was being destroyed. From what I saw there wasn't much resistance other than lobbing nukes. The damage they took was catastrophic next to FOK and PC. And when they switched sides and attacked TOP? Talk about a laughing stalk. The damage they caused that war was far less than the damage they took by as much 4-fold. Ridiculous ratio considering they started a war and attacked on two fronts..[/quote]
Polaris had (and has) a very small upper tier. There was no way that there were going to be good results going up against a very top-heavy alliance with quite a lot of military experience. It could've been better, yeah. We were trying out an entirely new military system in the alliance that one the one hand, I believe did a better job matching people up to targets, but on the other hand didn't do a very job of handling defensive wars. This especially became a problem when PC began growing significantly as nations joined in fairly large numbers who were eager for a shot at Polar. It is also perhaps the disadvantage of prohibiting tech raiding, that our members can only experience war when it's the real thing. We had tried a couple methods of familiarizing people with war, but they hadn't amounted to much.
What Polaris lacked in experience, it made up, as others have noted, in persistence and strong discipline. While I was not in Polaris for the duration of the war with TOP, several others in this thread have noted that Polar was one of the few to continue fighting throughout the war. Whatever your feelings on the side(s) Polar picked in the war (I really don't want to turn this into another discussion about how Polar is evil), you can't really deny that Polaris shouldered a lot of the war burden as other alliances lost interest.
All in all, I'd say Polaris today has a strong military. Not as good as some, but better than most. A lot of it comes down to hard statistics. We can't compete with the upper tiers of MK or Umbrella, but against similarly weighted alliances you can expect to see Polar do very well. The 10.10.10 war games showed that Polar is more than a match for most alliances when on an equal footing. Naturally, never is a true war fought such, but it nevertheless provides at least some insight into Polar's military ability. -
[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1291006311' post='2525674']
Are you sure you're not still a Polar?
[/quote]
You're so funny! -
[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1290322423' post='2518905']
Honestly, can you name anyone actively attempting to stir the pot who is in a prime position?
We have a right to complain.
[/quote]
No, I can't, and no, we don't. Everyone seems to want to pass the responsibility to create drama off to some other person or some other alliance without taking any responsibility for themselves. The only two valid positions are being someone who is stirring the pot and complaining that others aren't, or not being someone who does that and not complaining. I chose the latter. Nobody likes an armchair critic, and that's exactly what you're doing here; you're putting the expectation on others to do what you are too bored or inactive to do yourself. -
[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1290283048' post='2518322']
Hate to break it to you, but nobody has cared about your material since CNQ stopped airing.
[/quote]
Speak for yourself, I found it quite entertaining. -
[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1289616516' post='2511556']
If you happen to have eyes, you can see this world is in serious decline. We've dropped to a population of merely 20,000, an atrociously low number of people. There has not been a major war since April of this year, and politics have not changed much since. The population of this world is incredibly centralized, with majority of new alliances washing out, and all older nations staying put with their established alliances, very few new alliances have been able to spring up and create a following. There is simply not enough people joining to fill up the ranks of the unestablished. The MDP web these days makes the MDP web of days long gone, that was thought to be horrible back then, look like a cobweb. The crutch of moralism rules the day of politics. Every issue is focused on the right/wrong of it, even when the "crime" is essentially victimless, or incredibly minor.
So, please explain to me what I've missed, and why this world is ruled by the content, and the bottom feeders have no desire to move up. There is no fire or desire in anyone, anymore. Everyone wants to be friends, and nobody wants to make enemies, aside from the NSO apparently. There was conflict back in the day between the rival factions of The Initiative and The League, with both wanting to rule and finding anyway they could to fight. This tradition was carried on by multiple blocs, but there is no rivalry anymore. The defeated are downtrodden, and the victors and smugly sitting contently.
Drop the moralism act. That was a tool used long ago. In case you have not realized, moralism is a crock of !@#$ made up by the defeated or the opportunistic. I've used it, who hasn't. I bear alot of burden for it, as I used it as a tool of war for months on a very public scale, successfully. But really, back then there was at least a reason to use it, forced disbandments, Permanent ZI's, never-ending alliance wars, etc. These days the moralists will come rushing out about 3 million dollars, and how asking for reps is wrong, and crap like that. WHO CARES. There's absolutely no reason to be crying like a baby over something that small, and if you really have an issue with it, fight them over it instead of waging a PR campaign and hiding behind the treaty web. It makes for a really dull day in the world.
Take a step back and look at yourself, and make adjustments. Ask yourself, "Have I made this world more entertaining, or have I assisted in the stagnation and increasing decline of the world?"
Do you have any ambition left?
[/quote]
I'm pretty tired of hearing this same lined repeated ad nauseum. Yes, alliances aren't ambitious anymore, generally speaking. I have no personal ambition nor the inclination to instill any greater ambition into my alliance. What I'm not doing is complaining about it, and what I don't understand is why you're complaining when the only notable thing your alliance has done since the Bipolar War is fall apart just a [i]little[/i] bit more. As far as I know you've been gone for almost the entirety of that period, so from where do you get the right to lecture the rest of us? The only people who truly have a right to complain about stagnation are the people who are actively stirring the pot, of which there are precious few, if any. If you're not, I'm not interested in hearing your !@#$%^&*.
"Moralism" in the sense that some people object to poor CBs or tech raids has been around for a very long time, and the notion that stagnation is a result of some alliances holding that sentiment is simply ridiculous. The Bipolar War, the single major war in the past year and a half, was made possible by the clash of two sides which you would probably describe as the "moralists" and whatever you call the other ones (amoralists?). Without \m/, PC, et al., there would have been no spark to set off the war. Without the Polar World Police™, it would've simply been a tech raid, albeit a larger one than is par the course - nevertheless, a non-event in the grand scheme of things. -
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1289962421' post='2515578']
While they do have the right to reject foreign diplomats, it is also very poor form to expel an envoy. Such a move is likely to create tensions.[/quote]
It's also poor form to hurl insults at a foreign ambassador, but MK and many other alliances, (yes, Polar included, no need for a "gotcha!") have done exactly that without it necessitating a thread announcing it to the world. This is a petty diplomatic dispute between MK and NPO, and MK for some reason thought they could milk the NPO cow (what an appropriate metaphor!) for more PR. -
Who cares? It seems like this is a pretty minor issue that is purely between you and the NPO.
A Recognition of Hostility
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Sakura' timestamp='1295332611' post='2580523']
Really....
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97239"]Was[/url] it [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97240"]necessary[/url] to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97241"]start[/url] a [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97258"]fifth[/url] thread about this?
Although, this does give me a chance to show off something I brought back... just for Polar.
[/quote]
Yes? It's an announcement. This seems like as good a place as any to make one.
[quote name='lakerzz8' timestamp='1295332734' post='2580535']
Psh, don't you know that going into peace mode is only a valid strategy if YOUR alliance does it. If the enemy does it, it is pure cowardice!
[/quote]
Indeed, I seem to have forgotten the First Law of Cyber Nations. "It's okay when I do it."