Rate the War Ability

[Letum]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327005542' post='2902993']
Compare it to MHA's losses.
120+ nations, 9 million strength and 450k Tech.

Done.

Shall we also compare it to Fark's losses?

I get everyone around here loves to toot their own horn...but....
Who are we trying to fool saying Sparta didn't get off relatively (hell, I'd go further and say considerably,) well compared to their other allies?
[/quote]

Saving pixels at the cost of any semblance of a good reputation you ever had is not what I would call relatively better off.

This world functions on diplomacy. Being the laughing stock of CN is much more damaging than your nations being hurt.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Letum

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1327060623' post='2903521']
This world functions on diplomacy. Being the laughing stock of CN is much more damaging than your nations being hurt.
[/quote]

I will take this opportunity to remind you that you're replying to Myth.

[Velocity111]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327058663' post='2903514']
Yes. The difference is that Sparta took significantly less damage.
[/quote]
Yes, and GPA took significantly less damage. And before you say that Sparta fought a war... nope, only some of them did. The rest of them were about as much involved in the war as GPA.

[Goldie]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1327008359' post='2903017']
MHA fought, however poorly.
Fark fought, however poorly.
Sparta kept between 50 and 66% of it's alliance in PM.

So...yah. Therein lies the difference.
[/quote]

MHA fought and has people ready to move past the war with them and even initiate diplomacy.
Fark fought and pissed a lot of people off toward the end but at least they did fight, people can move past that.
Sparta half-assed fought, pissed everyone off with how they started and ended their front, and more people want to roll them now a second time in the future as a result.

Sparta basically followed the game plan of NPO in Karma, of NpO in BiPolar: Piss everyone off enough in your first time getting stomped and you can guarantee yourself a second one.

[IYIyTh]

Reputation doesn't mean anything so long as you're allied with the victors. It's pretty simple.
Although, Sparta is allied to Umbrella, right Lusitan? MHA too, iirc, but that's for another few years down the road...

I'm having a hard time figuring out where GPA came from.
Hell, one of you actually cited NPO and positive PR itt. Irony. And please save your breathe on how they're reformed because they're on the in-roads to your side of the treaty web.

As for the lecture on Diplomacy, I don't know how we got on the subject considering this thread is literally titled "Rate the War Ability..."

There is more than just allowing for yourself to get curbstomped that factors in one's war ability. Hell, I doubt even now MHA could send the amount of nations Sparta did to peace mode.

I would say "in before someone says peace mode isn't a war tactic," but I fear we're too late.

Here, I'll say it again so everyone can stomp their feet or provide an ad-hominem argument: Sparta fulfilled its obligations while damaging its opponents just as much as MHA did from what you all claim to be "completely in peace mode." They did not suffer the losses that Fark nor MHA did, but successfully defended themselves as much as possible in which their entire coalition was on the defensive from the moment it started. Other alliances in Sparta's coalition probably should have taken some notes.

I have one actually in response, "I forgot talking about reality is taboo and rhetoric pervades discussion in Cybernations."

I'd have to say of the three in XX who faced the bulk of the alliances arrayed against them, pound for pound (to date, Fark may have the ability to inflict significantly more damage if it stays at war,) Sparta clearly performed and came out the best while fulfilling its obligations.

Note: Their obligation is not to destroy themselves for your entertainment. In fact, I would argue taking an ass-kicking in stride says less about their reputation than kissing-ass and aligning with the people who made it possible. I would say that's the easy way out.

Also, something about e-peen in an OOC thread here.

Your comments are p much all quintessential on why no matter what you do, you lose as part of a losing coalition. That's about the only thing I can gleam from it.
Great talk everyone, let's do this again soon.

Edited January 20, 2012 by IYIyTh

[janax]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327069370' post='2903555']

I'm having a hard time figuring out where GPA came from.
[/quote]
GPA didn't take much damage this war either was the point. Their contribution to the war was only SLIGHTLY lower than Spartas

[quote]
There is more than just allowing for yourself to get curbstomped that factors in one's war ability. Hell, I doubt even now MHA could send the amount of nations Sparta did to peace mode.
[/quote]

Curbstomp? For all this talk of Sparta getting dogpiled, let's run the numbers.

PF - 100 nations
KDF - 110 nations
NPO - 390ish (also fighting Fark and Fan)
UE - 80 at the time
Invicta - 58
Olympus - 66 (were the defenders, fighting Fark as well)
BAPS - 41 (defenders, fighting Fark as well)
TIO - 86 (also fighting Fark, chained mainly)
TPF - doesn't matter, no wars launched, chain exclusively

So...we have about 340 nations worth focused exclusively on Sparta, they had 330ish nations to begin with. You include all of the people fighting multiple alliances together and you get about 2.5 to 1 advantage, assuming every war launched was against Sparta. (Pro-Tip, it wasn't even close to that)

The amount of damage they inflicted was PATHETIC compared to what it should be. You think they are the only alliance to ever face those kinds of odds and actually fight?
BiPolar: Argent vs RIA, Silence, CRAP, VE (last few days only for VE)
3 million NS 60 nations vs 9 million NS 360 nations (not including VE)

We surrendered eventually. We also decimated the oppositions top tier and cycled in and out of PM. Not sat there to minimize damages. We basically made sure that RIA couldn't do any new warring on TOOL. Sparta didn't help Fark out. Within a cycle of all of us hitting Sparta, Olympus and Baps were free to declare anywhere they wanted, because there weren't enough non-dove nations to prevent it.


[quote]
I would say "in before someone says peace mode isn't a war tactic," but I fear we're too late.
[/quote]
Peace mode is a tactic, CYCLING in and out is more than valid, it's what any competent alliance should do. Sitting there isn't a war tactic, it's a hiding tactic. You have to be in the war at some point for it to be a war tactic.

[quote]
Here, I'll say it again so everyone can stomp their feet or provide an ad-hominem argument: Sparta fulfilled its obligations while damaging its opponents just as much as MHA did from what you all claim to be "completely in peace mode." They did not suffer the losses that Fark nor MHA did, but successfully defended themselves as much as possible in which their entire coalition was on the defensive from the moment it started. Other alliances in Sparta's coalition probably should have taken some notes.
[/quote]

Sparta did almost nothing for damage, while basically prolonging a war they were completely ineffective in. They didn't relieve any pressure on Fark. They didn't take losses because they only partially fought. The losses on the nations that did fight were at least as severe as the beatings MHA and Fark took, if not worse. They didn't defend !@#$, basically. They hid.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327058663' post='2903514']
Yes. The difference is that Sparta took significantly less damage.
[/quote]

The damage to reputation is far worse than any infra-tech damage. That can all be rebuilt with time. Reputations, not so much.

[janax]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1327076506' post='2903619']
The damage to reputation is far worse than any infra-tech damage. That can all be rebuilt with time. Reputations, not so much.
[/quote]

Nothing is worse than tech damage [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif[/img]

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1327078173' post='2903635']
Nothing is worse than tech damage [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Friends over infra. Tech over friends.

[janax]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1327078260' post='2903636']
Friends over infra. Tech over friends.
[/quote]

T.R.E.A.M.

Words to live by

[Daimos]

I will not be surprise if XX disbands after this war.

[queenhailee]

[quote]Here, I'll say it again so everyone can stomp their feet or provide an ad-hominem argument: Sparta fulfilled its obligations while damaging its opponents just as much as MHA did from what you all claim to be "completely in peace mode." They did not suffer the losses that Fark nor MHA did, but successfully defended themselves as much as possible in which their entire coalition was on the defensive from the moment it started. Other alliances in Sparta's coalition probably should have taken some notes.[/quote]

Sparta did a great job of defending themselves with their peace mode strategy. But they didn't contribute to their coalition's effort in a meaningful way. Not only didn't they do much to defend FARK as they didn't take much of the load from their shoulders, they also left Guru Order out to dry. Whether they are allies with GO or not, they came into the war together on a common opponent--with a common cause. After the initial declarations on Olympus, Sparta mostly left us alone, leaving GO facing us without help as FARK didn't have many folks able to declare to help them out. Fark took a lot more damage because Sparta thought more of their stats than they thought of Fark. And Fark's allies did, too.

There's no shame in losing a war. There is plenty of room for shame in other actions, though.

[Alterego]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1327074789' post='2903603']
Curbstomp? For all this talk of Sparta getting dogpiled, let's run the numbers.

PF - 100 nations
KDF - 110 nations
NPO - 390ish (also fighting Fark and Fan)
UE - 80 at the time
Invicta - 58
Olympus - 66 (were the defenders, fighting Fark as well)
BAPS - 41 (defenders, fighting Fark as well)
TIO - 86 (also fighting Fark, chained mainly)
TPF - doesn't matter, no wars launched, chain exclusively

So...we have about 340 nations worth focused exclusively on Sparta, they had 330ish nations to begin with. You include all of the people fighting multiple alliances together and you get about 2.5 to 1 advantage, assuming every war launched was against Sparta. (Pro-Tip, it wasn't even close to that)

The amount of damage they inflicted was PATHETIC compared to what it should be. You think they are the only alliance to ever face those kinds of odds and actually fight?
BiPolar: Argent vs RIA, Silence, CRAP, VE (last few days only for VE)
3 million NS 60 nations vs 9 million NS 360 nations (not including VE)

[/quote]

Had they not put 200 nations into peace and really went for it they could have decimated some of the alliances they were fighting and forced a couple of surrenders. This is why I rate the will of an alliance more than the stats of an alliance. Far too often in the history of warfare sanctioned alliances have been irrelevant while those outside the sanction won wars*

*There are exceptions

Edited January 20, 2012 by Alterego

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='queenhailee' timestamp='1327085652' post='2903693']
Sparta did a great job of defending themselves with their peace mode strategy. But they didn't contribute to their coalition's effort in a meaningful way. Not only didn't they do much to defend FARK as they didn't take much of the load from their shoulders, they also left Guru Order out to dry. Whether they are allies with GO or not, they came into the war together on a common opponent--with a common cause. After the initial declarations on Olympus, Sparta mostly left us alone, leaving GO facing us without help as FARK didn't have many folks able to declare to help them out. Fark took a lot more damage because Sparta thought more of their stats than they thought of Fark. And Fark's allies did, too.

There's no shame in losing a war. There is plenty of room for shame in other actions, though.
[/quote]

Perhaps that is another discussion entirely. Their objective wasn't to do as much damage while taking a 2.6 - 1 odds. Their objective (like what MHA should have done,) was to do general damage and cycle down and get peace in a hopeless war asap. Janax, you're not focusing on the reality of their position, which any rational alliance would do is cycle enough nations in and out, take your lumps and wait for a time when the odds are not only not stacked against you, but in your favor. Then they can complain about someone else using peace mode or "not coming out so we can destroy them." In that scenario, where their bloc was hopelessly outnumbered (and knowing that they were all on the same page,) it's not as brazen or ridiculous of an action as some would like to make it. Which aside from the pretty well justified ODN cancellation (Honestly, there was another more justified cancellation that probably should have went as well,) there is little to gripe over Sparta being more competent than another of their allies at putting their members in peace mode, which was begrudingly acknowledged to be a war tactic. (Not just a minor one, mind you.) While Fark is quite content on fulfilling their mission they have a different strategy and would seem to want to get their nations cut down as they now have tier supremacy at the bottom. Now, that's again nothing to comment on as being "smart," "dumb," "irrational," or anything of the sort, but fact of the matter is even 150 well coordinated Fark nations with the wonders they have at the lower level could considerably cripple an alliances ability to attract new members not perpetually, but quite substantially.

Argent - 58
Gramlins - 32
Invicta - 58
NPO - 390
Olympus - 66
OMFG - 22
State of Nirvana - 42
IO - 86
TPF - 119
tr- 22
UE - 111
BAPS - 41

= 1047 nations.

3.6-1, Realistically 2.6-1. These aren't terrible odds until you add up the tier disadvantages, unless someone wants to attempt to call me on that as well of which I'll gladly break it down but it's not as beneficial as using the "only 2.5-1 nation," benchmark which is actually more of a red herring more than anything.

As for war ability, in those terms all of XX is currently underrated with the 1, 2's and 3's and more a representation of bias more than anything, with only MHA really coming close to being deserving of the highest of those three marks.
Sparta performed the best of all three, and there was very little benefit to providing Fark an extra month or so before it reached where it currently is. In fact, the best benefit would be to fight a limited and well-cycled war, and be ready to help them rebuild and/or look out for their own interests in the future. It's not a coincidence that this is exactly what happened.

If you want, I can calculate the damage MHA did vs. the damage Sparta did. You're not going to like what I'll find.
Unless we are to argue that "War Ability," is actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But that's problematic for obvious reasons.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1327076506' post='2903619']
The damage to reputation is far worse than any infra-tech damage. That can all be rebuilt with time. Reputations, not so much.
[/quote]

While this is academic and a bit off topic at this juncture, you are a former Athenian who has led a CnG merger/Athens dominated alliance into being one of the first to reach out to the New Pacific Order. It's not as if Olympus is small change either. Reputations, or rather, points of speaking of which certain spheres or powers emphasise in order to get others to follow or do what they want less they be the one with the poor "reputation," are rather meaningless and are more indicative of relative treaty position or individual power rather than actual reptuation. There are a couple exceptions, but generally "reputation," is a political tool rather than something worth arguing or risking one's security over itg. For quite a few alliances those who claim to have a reputation their reputations are more often than not quite different depending on whom you ask and thus it is a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.

Realistically, and again this is off-topic, Sparta had nothing to gain from damaging itself for [i]perceived [/i]"reputation," from alliances that just as soon would castigate them for taking the more rational approach. Some of you have claimed they would "alleviate pressure," from Fark, but as is they currently don't seem to want/or are given amiable terms that they would accept at the moment anyway, and thus taking unnecessary damage that would be better well-spent in a future war when they hold the gun to someone elses head likely with the agreement of their treaty partners is not an impossible route for them take or have taken. In fact, most of the comments itt would probably justify my point more than anything else I could say.

Edited January 20, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Crymson]

I think that at this point we should all simply accept that Myth is irredeemably dense, and leave him to that.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Crymson

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1327095146' post='2903809']
I think that at this point we should all simply accept that Myth is irredeemably dense, and leave him to that.
[/quote]

Thank you for your valuable contribution the discussion.

Edited January 20, 2012 by IYIyTh

[tarman2010]

Coalition of Royal Allied Powers: -37.5
Everyone else: pi

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1327066435' post='2903540']
MHA fought and has people ready to move past the war with them and even initiate diplomacy.
Fark fought and pissed a lot of people off toward the end but at least they did fight, people can move past that.
Sparta half-assed fought, pissed everyone off with how they started and ended their front, and more people want to roll them now a second time in the future as a result.

Sparta basically followed the game plan of NPO in Karma, of NpO in BiPolar: Piss everyone off enough in your first time getting stomped and you can guarantee yourself a second one.
[/quote]

Yeah I totally agree and the funny thing about it that Sparta had a pretty favorable opinion on both sides.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1327074789' post='2903603']Curbstomp? For all this talk of Sparta getting dogpiled, let's run the numbers.

PF - 100 nations
KDF - 110 nations
NPO - 390ish (also fighting Fark and Fan)
UE - 80 at the time
Invicta - 58
Olympus - 66 (were the defenders, fighting Fark as well)
BAPS - 41 (defenders, fighting Fark as well)
TIO - 86 (also fighting Fark, chained mainly)
TPF - doesn't matter, no wars launched, chain exclusively

So...we have about 340 nations worth focused exclusively on Sparta, they had 330ish nations to begin with. You include all of the people fighting multiple alliances together and you get about 2.5 to 1 advantage, assuming every war launched was against Sparta. (Pro-Tip, it wasn't even close to that)[/quote]
I remember being very worried about this war because Sparta stacked up so well against us. We had a numerical advantage at the upper tier, but not much of one, and this advantage flipped at about 70K NS.

This could have been a fairly brutal front of the war, but instead, we walked pretty much all over them and were able to have three nations declare down on every single Spartan in war mode except Hellas and maybe Ethan.

[raasaa]

It is quite difficult to rate an alliance's individual war ability cos most wars are fought using coalitions. What one alliance lacks , the other alliances in the coalition make up for it. Out of all the alliances that i have fought against or fought alongside, very few have a war ability worth mentioning....

Umbrella is definitely top on my list....their technology levels and activity make up for anything they might lack in the war department. They are the only alliance i have seen that were able to continue pounding alliances even when they were dogpiled. During bipolar, they attacked Nueva Vida, got countered by NATO and TFD. The odds were pretty much 2:1...nearly 3:1 against Umbrella....but they still managed to inflict heavy damage to all the nations that were hitting them....scary chaps, but at this rate they wont have anyone left to fight and will end up being a mighty yet worthless force :S

BAPS is the next on my list....may not have as much tech as umbrella....but they make for it in fighting spirit. In the latter part of bipolar, they were fighting with nearly 5:1 odds against them, but they were still lobbing nukes and carrying out successful ground attacks...and making life difficult for our allies. Most alliances faced with such odds would have turtled and bcome benign.....not BAPS though. If the conflict had continued for another 10 days, countering BAPS nations would have been a formidable task....

NEW also deserves a mention.....they may not be the most organized fighting force, they may lack co-ordination....but like BAPS they have the fighting spirit and can dish out bucket loads of damage.

The alliances that i would gladly go to war with are Viridian Entente and FOK/iFOK......brilliant co-ordination within the alliance and with their allies. Their nations/leaders never complained about the odds being stacked against them or their fighters being over-extended. Regardless of the target, their members followed through with target assignments. Damn good fighting alliances given their member count a year back or so......

Most alliances that i have come across, friend or foe, always start off on a fantastic note, with a near perfect deployment on day 1 of the DoW.....with loads of enthusiasm, which fizzles out by day 7 of the battle. More than half the alliances do not retain the capability to redeploy and keep the enemy nations out of peace mode....cos they were over enthusiastic and over extended their fighting power. Luckily in the most cases the enemy is battered and beaten down in that span of 7 days and doesn't really take advantage of the situation either :S

I dont have think i have seen any single alliance capable of doing a perfect stagger and then repeating it after 7 days of war.....without the help of their coalition....

[JoshuaR]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327093633' post='2903787']
If you want, I can calculate the damage MHA did vs. the damage Sparta did. You're not going to like what I'll find.
Unless we are to argue that "War Ability," is actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But that's problematic for obvious reasons.
[/quote]
Sure, that would be an interesting statistic regardless of the result.

[janax]

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1327110423' post='2903975']
Sure, that would be an interesting statistic regardless of the result.
[/quote]

It will be impossible to calculate, due to the multiple alliances fighting.

From the stats I have, Sparta took more damage than it inflicted on PF, KDF, Invicta. UE has no stats available. If you attribute ALL losses by Olympus and BAPS to Sparta it finally becomes even. WHich only leaves TIO (12 total wars), TPF (0 wars) and NPO.

Considering that in a "3v1" you should be doing more damage than you take, it's still sad.

[Monster]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1327076506' post='2903619']
The damage to reputation is far worse than any infra-tech damage. That can all be rebuilt with time. Reputations, not so much.
[/quote]

Considering we had to force NPO out of pm and not even all of their nations and you're de facto MDPed to them, give me a break, and you did the real fighting so TPF didn't have to. xfd

edit: It certainly didn't do Polaris any favors with you to cycle their nations outwith maybe like 10 and lose 3/4ths of their NS.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Roquentin

[potato]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327148325' post='2904146']
Considering we had to force NPO out of pm and not even all of their nations and you're de facto MDPed to them, give me a break, and you did the real fighting so TPF didn't have to. xfd

edit: It certainly didn't do Polaris any favors with you to cycle their nations outwith maybe like 10 and lose 3/4ths of their NS.
[/quote]

Am I completely misreading/misunderstanding this or did Rush leave TLR? Because I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Roq.

[Monster]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1327152215' post='2904160']
Am I completely misreading/misunderstanding this or did Rush leave TLR? Because I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Roq.
[/quote]

I'm trying to say he doesn't really care whether or not an alliance leaves PM or not. His actual opinions will be shaped by other factors.

edit: nah

Edited January 21, 2012 by Roquentin