Rate the War Ability

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1326233453' post='2897021']
I have seen this from a couple GOD members and its rediculous, first off if ours WC's were less then others they still far outstripped the Avg GOD member....FAR outstretched. We have fought in [i]every[/i] war besides the last war(so 1 of 13 or so including 2 dogpile rollings) which also FAR outstripps GOD's war outings. So basicly we have had to spend far far more money on rebuilding in the past years then many many alliances out there(Our own money without help in some instances becuase of certain things like no outside aid clauses etc etc ). So we did the best we could with our WCs for the one period of peace we had that others did not and came into this war as prepared as possible.
[/quote]

Chefjoe, when it comes to war chests, the wars you fought two, three, and four years ago simply do not matter.

[Lord Levistus]

Meh, if we're a Six, then GOD, RIA and Pola rmust be Two or Three, and UPN gets a free pass because we don't grade the special ed classes the same.

Honestly though, this grading thing is worthless. Umbrella has the stats that they could be the worst fighters in the world and be effective, others are on the opposite spectrum. Everything in between is purely subjective and no one is going to start saying their allies suck at war.

[Trigger]

[quote name='Holy Empire of Halin' timestamp='1326201984' post='2896856']<br>Its ok, I'll hold his hand through it.<br>Dear Non Grata member, I gave your alliance a 2.5 rating (from 10) in a sarcastic manner to reflect the hilarity that was in Cuba's post. Thank you for the lack of humor. I expected you to get it, considering Arexes avatar in the Non Grata forums (which is hilarious).<br>[/quote]<br>Sorry, my bad. I was just quickly skimming posts before leaving for work and really wasn't reading substance. My sense of humor is back on full so continue with the sarcasm.

Edit because satellite internet SUCKS

Edited January 11, 2012 by Trigger

[Bob]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1326238002' post='2897074']
Chefjoe, when it comes to war chests, the wars you fought two, three, and four years ago simply do not matter.
[/quote]
Complete garbage. You will (read: should) have more money the less wars you have fought, as you had time to build warchests/infra, and weren't spending money over those years on rebuilding/war. If a significant portion of his membership has been there constantly in the past few years, wars they have fought in the past few years are completely relevant to their warchests. Same goes for any alliance and really any individual. If MK had never fought TOP, they would be much larger with better warchests and vice versa for TOP. Every war impacts your future warchest and that of your alliance, provided you do not have a significant amount of turnover within your alliance.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Penlugue Solaris

[Holy Empire of Halin]

[quote name='Trigger' timestamp='1326240396' post='2897090']
<br>Sorry, my bad. I was just quickly skimming posts before leaving for work and really wasn't reading substance. My sense of humor is back on full so continue with the sarcasm.

Edit because satellite internet SUCKS
[/quote]

Its cool. Real Non Grata rating is prolly a 7 if you need to know IMO. I love the level of activity you guys have just by counting the ops in #nongrata.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Holy Empire of Halin

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' timestamp='1326232472' post='2897014']
Sorry for my lack of english, but 'retarded' word would be some insult for me personally
I wrote privates/corporals/sergeants on my post that you quoted, means new members of NEW that sometimes did nuking without consider their tech due their 1-2 first GWs that also mean have low casualties
If you doubt about damages that NEW could deal please ask our former opponents.
[/quote]
I wasn't trying to say you are retarded. I understand English is not your first language. I was just saying that the policy of maximising casualties, if it means worse fighting power, is retarded. If that isn't NEW's policy, and was just some newer members getting confused, it is understandable.

I don't know much about NEW, but you had some pretty good statistics last time I looked.

[Lanore]

[quote name='kerschbs' timestamp='1326226292' post='2896984']
Unfortunately you didn't talk to the right people then. MK brought a couple of nations with us who were doing this, and we tried to get the problem alleviated. This mainly happened with nations who are no longer very forum active, and was an unpleasant surprise because many of these people know better. If you could forward me any of the nations you remember who did this, I would really like to have a talk with them, as this is completely unacceptable.
[/quote]
Pretty much this. Bring me names so I can tear them a new one. Anyone in nuke range in GATO should know better.

[Ironfist]

Stats are nice and all, but if you've got a limited membership that can only fight maybe 10% of CN's population, you're not going to do much at war. Some "elite" alliances cannot be rated elite at war, only stat collecting.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Ironfist

[Artigo]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1326221737' post='2896938']
Hahaha you had that issue coordinating with them too?
[/quote]

God yes. Luckily I only had endure one round with them.

[quote name='kerschbs' timestamp='1326226292' post='2896984']
Unfortunately you didn't talk to the right people then. MK brought a couple of nations with us who were doing this, and we tried to get the problem alleviated. This mainly happened with nations who are no longer very forum active, and was an unpleasant surprise because many of these people know better. If you could forward me any of the nations you remember who did this, I would really like to have a talk with them, as this is completely unacceptable.
[/quote]


http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=199460

Edited January 11, 2012 by Artigo

[janax]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1326243043' post='2897114']
Stats are nice and all, but if you've got a limited membership that can only fight maybe 10% of CN's population, you're not going to do much at war. Some "elite" alliances cannot be rated elite at war, only stat collecting.
[/quote]

Most elite alliances have higher activity and coordination to go with the warchests, tech and all the collected wonders. There is a reaosn they have those great stats (hint, the reason is they aren't complete morons).

[alyster]

[quote name='Ironfist' timestamp='1326243043' post='2897114']
Stats are nice and all, but if you've got a limited membership that can only fight maybe 10% of CN's population, you're not going to do much at war. Some "elite" alliances cannot be rated elite at war, only stat collecting.
[/quote]


I'm sure alliances like Umbrella are very worried about 20k NS nations.

Edit: !@#$ that's where I come in

Edited January 11, 2012 by alyster

[hammer]

Members of alliances I have fought with this nation or a previous one since GWII:

Genmay - 1 war - was excellent, but was only just in range and fighting down to hit me. Didn't waste the advantage though. (Hello, Irons82 now of Umbrella).
\m/ (1st incarnation) - 1 war - they were terrible. Absolutely clueless.
NATO - 4 wars - mixed bag. Didn't mess the stagger, technically middle ground, but no banter. Someone what soulless and dull TBH. A dissapointment.
NPO - 9 wars - universally dull. No fight, no co-ordination. Just rolled over and took it, even when supposedly giving a beat-down left the allies to do the heavy lifting. (yes, yes, currently at war with them, but I mean this rather than propaganda).
NpO - 2 wars - nuked the !@#$ out of me in VietFAN, when unable to fight back. Almost apologetic for not fighting "fair".
TPF - 10 wars - Impressive. Competent, co-ordinated, good banter to boot. Would fight again
Valhalla - 3 wars - Same as TPF

Alliances I have fought alongside with this nation or a previous one since GWII:

FARK - solid performance. When sober enough to remember there's war on. (Holy war and current war both, ironically enough)
LUE - Back in the day, not too shabby, but [b][i]very [/i][/b]undergunned
NAAC - Overrated. CN community views with rose-tinted spectacles. Good folks, but no powerhouse.
WAPA - Keen, but lacked strategy or discipline. Fun though.
NoR - Solid and dependable
MK - Solid and dependable
GOONS (sadism incarnation) - The SA crowd does love a war...
Umbrella - Solid and dependable
PC - Solid and dependable
DT - Solid and dependable. Some didn't grasp that the guy with 2k more tech should lead nukings though

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1326233453' post='2897021']
Anyhow spout all the personal bias against us you would like, still ends up with us haven beaten you this time.
[/quote]

Its my opinions, I (and other members of my alliance) actually respect Valhalla as a war fighting alliance. I don't think you'll find a single GOD member denying our defeat at your hands, either. We simply expected more from you and yours, and thats it. It wasn't a personal attack on your alliance. Just a remark that we expected more from your warchests because [i]you did[/i] sit out last war with the rest of duckroll, given that you had since bipolar to save for this war.

[Freddy]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1326239529' post='2897083']
Meh, if we're a Six, then GOD, RIA and Pola rmust be Two or Three, and UPN gets a free pass because we don't grade the special ed classes the same.
[/quote]

If UPN gets a free pass, then how would you rate the six opponents dogpiled on me that I beat? And again, another six in the next round? And another six in the round after that?

[Aurion]

This war:
BN 8.5/9, Val 6, TSC 5, NEAT 4.

BN - Well-coordinated, well-prepared. If they had a few more people, they'd be a legitimate nightmare. Val - Not as good as I had thought, but we might have simply had impossibly high expectations. TSC - *Shrug*. NEAT - *Shrug*.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Aurion

[Bob]

[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1326248356' post='2897143']
If UPN gets a free pass, then how would you rate the six opponents dogpiled on me that I beat? And again, another six in the next round? And another six in the round after that?
[/quote]
You have 800 strength, and it looks like you have never been over 10k. You aren't exactly fighting the cream of the crop here..


[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1326248444' post='2897145']
This war:
BN 8.5, Val 6, TSC 5, NEAT 4.

BN - Well-coordinated, well-prepared. Val - Not as good as I had thought, but we might have simply had impossibly high expectations. TSC - *Shrug*. NEAT - *Shrug*.
[/quote]
To be fair I think Val is being rated lower than expected in part because measuring up to BN's ability at war is damn hard based off what I saw.

!@#$%^&* making others look bad by comparison

Also this war: CSN 4, only had two people fight back consistently, two fight back inconsistently out of twelve wars. Pretty much about the same across the board I think within the alliance.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Penlugue Solaris

[Aurion]

That's also entirely possible, lol.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1326247848' post='2897140']
Its my opinions, I (and other members of my alliance) actually respect Valhalla as a war fighting alliance. I don't think you'll find a single GOD member denying our defeat at your hands, either. We simply expected more from you and yours, and thats it. It wasn't a personal attack on your alliance. Just a remark that we expected more from your warchests because [i]you did[/i] sit out last war with the rest of duckroll, given that you had since bipolar to save for this war.
[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying, and yea we did sit out the last war as stated and have been beating the WC hammer for yrs(TBH I think we were one of the first alliances to start requiring large individual warchests back in the day do to our constant being in one war or another and finding it frustrating and inefficient to keep setting up large aid falls) and specifically made a point of making a silver lining out of sitting out the last war with the increase(most cases anyhow) of our avg long term member nations WC's. Imagine what it would have looked like without such attention to that subject and orders/requirements/harassing in regards to it.....bottom line is fighting thru the years in many many wars and battles takes it toll and I personally felt we did a very good job with the cards we have/had been dealt in this war and thru our past wars and their resource mgt. Apologies if I jumped down your throat a bit but its a touchy subject as it is a very large part of our culture and regime(war preparedness that is) and felt you were being a bit biased in your comment when I had posted previously.

[keeology]

easy rankings

TDO/GPA/WTF-10's

everyone else - 0

that is all

[Freddy]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1326248626' post='2897147']
You have 800 strength, and it looks like you have never been over 10k. You aren't exactly fighting the cream of the crop here..
[/quote]

Idk, like everyone else I can only speak from experience with opponents I actually fought.

[dockingscheduled]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1326248626' post='2897147']



To be fair I think Val is being rated lower than expected in part because measuring up to BN's ability at war is damn hard based off what I saw.

!@#$%^&* making others look bad by comparison

[/quote]


sorry

[Monster]

[quote name='Artigo' timestamp='1326218577' post='2896920']
I would put Umbrella in above average because they haven't fought anyone. You have to consider resume.
[/quote]

Hi.

Please tell that to Xavi and Sceptor who parted with the vast majority of their infrastructure in defense of NG-constituent alliance, Poison Clan, while iFOK and SLCB were fighting the vaunted military powerhouse known as the GGA.

Can you carbon copy that message to threefingeredguy of Craggy Island who had just bought his WRC at the time and set his nation back quite a lot as well? And I'll quote him: [quote name='threefingeredguy' timestamp='1240615156' post='1462809']
Hey Valhalla just wanna say:
From a statistics standpoint I've really been looking forward to this fight. We're very close to each other in score and NS, and though there is a small difference between our membercounts I bet this will be a fun and challenging fight for all.

[img]http://treefinguy.org/umbrellawarflag.png[/img]
[/quote]


Or me, Stathugger Prime, who had Valhalla picked out as a target before they even declared.

When FOK got attacked by AZTEC, I was called crazy by Archon for wanting to just jump in despite no assurances of defense from the FCC and Argent.

So the original NATO/TFD/NADC/NV vs Umbrella/Kronos/AO/GOONS front closed and I insisted on reentering despite the politics of the situation causing problems internally because I saw it as the same war. We then were set to hit the New Polar Order on oA off Kronos, but MK needed its precious Polar staggers. We switched to MASH/Legion because Asgaard was going to have trouble with MASH. MASH was out of the way after four days. So I thought we could still bail out various fronts that the Supergrievances coalition was struggling with. I did say we couldn't hit IRON because Citadel and TOP/Umbrella were still in effect and there was a large mass of NS deployed on them. We then bailed out FoB/WAPA against NATO and TFD. I saw it as the Soviets advancing on Berlin after Stalingrad. Maybe too grandiose of an analogy, but whatever. We were also going to hit TOOL to bail out the various alliances on that front, but Janax asked me not to, so we didn't and let VE handle it. I then totaled my own nation pre-war NS: 84k post-war: 50k NS with military/nukes to happily jump in to help MK/Ronin/GATO out with some problem TSO nations. Not the biggest loss of the war, but it did set me back.

edit: You see, I never got to have those super wonders, so losing most of my infra was usually a setback for my nation a lot of the time.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Opportunity]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1325955682' post='2894838']
The fact that your upper tier didn't hit enough targets (like we asked them to, to share the load of FARK's top tier) and the fact that after week1 there were hardly any new wars on NoR. I think the amount of wars from NoR on FARK can/could be counted on 3 hands.
[/quote]


We were prohibited from hitting FARK targets outside of the upper tiers, because trust me we were eager (a lot of us in NoR are in the alliance because we like war). I was chewed out for declaring at 30k NS and had to send peace. Trust me, the reason we didn't open the FARK front to lower divisions is because of an agreement with our allies and our genius strategists, not because we weren't eager to fight.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Opportunity

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Opportunity' timestamp='1326252238' post='2897189']
We were prohibited from hitting FARK targets outside of the upper tiers, because trust me we were eager (a lot of us in NoR are in the alliance because we like war). I was chewed out for declaring at 30k NS and had to send peace. Trust me, the reason we didn't open the FARK front to lower divisions is because of an agreement with our allies and our genius strategists, not because we weren't eager to fight.
[/quote]
Really?

In any case we are still thankful for your help.

[Opportunity]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1326254751' post='2897219']
Really?

In any case we are still thankful for your help.
[/quote]

Yep, it was basically an undeclared ceasefire between NoR and FARK in the mid to lower tiers. Nothing we could do about it, really, because it was all part of the overall strategy.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1326235631' post='2897050']
The top tier of Nordreich is elite level, but their middle and lower tiers had bad warchests. Lots of nukes though.
[/quote]

Shall I post my last spy attack on you so that everyone can see what kind of WC you were holding on to? I won't. Good war to you.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Opportunity