Rate the War Ability

[Monster]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1326270900' post='2897325']
Then don't bring it up like you did. There were only a few places we could hit then and we had problems with GGA at the time. So why not utilize that in an already limited ability to get into the war.
[/quote]

I didn't really phrase it properly, but GGA only had one WRC and Wolverine ditched. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55147&view=findpost&p=1456266 Yes, the rationale was good as I said before.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Roquentin

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1326270270' post='2897320']
I do want to say I agree with one of the points brought up a few posts ago.

I would tend to agree that Umbrella is not an elite military force. They are an elite upper tier military, but that is more of a problem to them than a compliment. Umbrella could say "We declare war on XYZ alliance." and I would giggle for two reasons. First, their targets would be limited. And second, their targets fall out of range very quickly. Then what? How elite is the force that is glaring menacingly from above while the force below dances about merrily like nothing happened?
[/quote]
This is an interesting point that I have been pondering recently, on the basis of how quickly FAN nations slipped out of range for the upper tiers and much of the middle tiers of the alliances they are facing, due to the superior numbers (and, possibly, deliberate tactics on their part). Some posters have claimed that wars are won in the upper tiers, but perhaps it is more-accurate to say that wars (or, at least, longer and drawn-out wars) are [i]financed[/i] by the upper tiers, with the other tiers having to do most of the grunt work after the first couple of rounds.

I prefer to think of alliance war ability in terms of an alliance's efficiency as a percentage of its NS or number of nations, where efficiency is measured by the activity, skill and setup of individual nations. Thus, 100% efficiency would represent an alliance with nations that are all active throughout the war, coordinate effectively and largely autonomously, and have good setups relative to the NS of each nation (i.e. warchests, improvements and wonders). This way, an alliance could be ranked highly even if it is on the receiving end of a curbstomp. However, that efficiency is relative to the alliance's NS and number of nations, which ultimately determine the alliance's effectiveness along with overall strategy.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Sir Humphrey

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schmoo' timestamp='1326261150' post='2897264']
I hate to break it to you guys, but if your alliance cannot fight effectively in all three military tiers, you are nothing but a one trick pony. Without your allies, you are not a self-sustainable fighting force.

Sure, some of you one trick ponies can devastate an upper or a lower tier. What would you do then without allies, go out like Gre?

There are a few well rounded, capable in all three tier alliances: ODN, NPO, IRON, NpO. I'm sure I have overlooked a couple, but these four stand out from other large three tier alliances.
[/quote]
"One trick ponies" can work pretty well. Umbrella for instance has nothing to fear from alliances with low and mid tiers. And they have plenty of upper tier to take on anyone. None of that lower or middle tier can attack Umbrella so why does it matter if they don't have those tiers? GOONs as another example has no real upper tier. So our two or three guys in that range will get attacked and then fall, and then what? A top heavy alliance can't do anything to us so they're no threat. You can only be threatened by people who have nations in the same tier as you. Or as your allies, which is the whole point of having allies.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL5.jpg[/img]

Your argument takes all alliances into a vacuum. You're citing "without allies," but how often are people going to fight without allies? Isn't the point of having allies to utilize them? If you have an ally who covers your missing upper tier who is always available, isn't that the same thing as having an upper tier yourself? What exactly is the difference between Alliance A + Alliance B always supporting eachother, and all those people being on the same AA?
[right][img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisR9.jpg[/img][/right]

How often do you think Umbrella rides off to war by themselves, without GOONs or someone else there to catch people that fall?
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris9_9L4.jpg[/img]

Edited January 11, 2012 by Beefspari

[Schmoo]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1326278342' post='2897348']
"One trick ponies" can work pretty well. Umbrella for instance has nothing to fear from alliances with low and mid tiers. And they have plenty of upper tier to take on anyone. None of that lower or middle tier can attack Umbrella so why does it matter if they don't have those tiers? GOONs as another example has no real upper tier. So our two or three guys in that range will get attacked and then fall, and then what? A top heavy alliance can't do anything to us so they're no threat. You can only be threatened by people who have nations in the same tier as you. Or as your allies, which is the whole point of having allies.
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL5.jpg[/img]

Your argument takes all alliances into a vacuum. You're citing "without allies," but how often are people going to fight without allies? Isn't the point of having allies to utilize them? If you have an ally who covers your missing upper tier who is always available, isn't that the same thing as having an upper tier yourself? What exactly is the difference between Alliance A + Alliance B always supporting eachother, and all those people being on the same AA?
[right][img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisR9.jpg[/img][/right]

How often do you think Umbrella rides off to war by themselves, without GOONs or someone else there to catch people that fall?
[img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aeris9_9L4.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


I agree, and I did not mean to insult with the one trick pony comment, I apologize. I just wanted to muddy the waters a bit

[Schad]

[quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1326270270' post='2897320']
I do want to say I agree with one of the points brought up a few posts ago.

I would tend to agree that Umbrella is not an elite military force. They are an elite upper tier military, but that is more of a problem to them than a compliment. Umbrella could say "We declare war on XYZ alliance." and I would giggle for two reasons. First, their targets would be limited. And second, their targets fall out of range very quickly. Then what? How elite is the force that is glaring menacingly from above while the force below dances about merrily like nothing happened?
[/quote]

Yeah, Umbrella's somewhat limited if fighting against just one or two opponents, because they'll obliterate any semblance of their top tier in a round or two and be left with nothing to do. The real value from a coalition standpoint is that, if desired, they can hit several alliances at once or in sequence, force those fronts toward a resolution and move on, similar to what they did in BiPolar.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326186727' post='2896828']
Should we rank alliances by the amount of firepower it takes to bring them down, considering we're equating some alliances ability to fight one multiply engaged opponent the same as those fighting...8+
[/quote]

No one's addressed this

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326281072' post='2897356']
No one's addressed this
[/quote]
I thought you were leaving?

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326281072' post='2897356']
No one's addressed this
[/quote]

Your criteria should revolve around: average nation strength, number of members, actual/perceived warchest, willingness to take damage, and most importantly how honor bound are they? Alliances like TPF would rate extremely high for their size because of their stubbornness and willingness to stand and die for principles. Alliances that tend to duck out of fights early or tend to pick soft targets when on the offensive would rate much lower.



edit: grammar is our friend

Edited January 11, 2012 by ChairmanHal

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1326290717' post='2897387']
I thought you were leaving?
[/quote]

We rekindled his fire.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326268553' post='2897310']
The thing is, it wasn't their intent to take on the world. They had gotten the "okay" to do it and it would have helped them a lot if everyone on their side before it hadn't peaced out and switched out.

Feanor has even said if FOK hadn't attacked them(weren't counting on it), a lot of their plans would have gone through.
[/quote]
The "okay" we received wasn't about hitting CnG but was an assurance from the NpO that their treaty with the Mushroom Kingdom would not be activiated. Now, we never intended to take on the world but we were very much aware of the who we were hitting (CnG was by far the strongest bloc in terms of fighting ability on that side) and who would be countering us in return (Sparta, that one alliance full of multis, ect...) The move was highly questionable in terms of it working (still better than going through the NSO-SF front) and we knew there was only a small chance of success if the Polar sphere of alliance had held firm.

One month into fighting 21 alliances we still had a slight advantage/even number of high end nations. We were planning on launching an offensive against those high end nations but FOK attacked us about two days before we were going to do it. From that point on we pretty much started fighting the war as a defensive one rather than an offensive action. That along with our history of FOK is a big reason why some of us dislike them till this day.

[kriekfreak]

In FOK's defence, I really don't understand why you thought hitting their direct treaty partner (when you weren't allied anymore) wouldn't mobilize them.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1326290717' post='2897387']
I thought you were leaving?
[/quote]

Nope. He just wanted attention.

[Blue Lightning]

The hurt stemmed from the fact they left our side in the first place. We always had FOK's back, always. So it was hard to watch you walk away from us, and especially embittering when you were hammering the nails into our coffin.

Same applied to Umbrella in my book. Not that this is much to do with the thread topic.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1326306799' post='2897460']
The hurt stemmed from the fact they left our side in the first place. We always had FOK's back, always. So it was hard to watch you walk away from us, and especially embittering when you were hammering the nails into our coffin.[/quote]

Let's not forget the manner in which the leaving was done. I'm certain that axing our treaty was on Harry and Tromp's agenda from the moment they entered office. In the event, we were treated by them like garbage, after which they deliberately manipulated their membership against us and finally served us a ridiculous ultimatum that they knew we would say no to. So really all it took for the destruction of our very long-lasting relationship with FOK was the election of two high-government members who didn't like our treaty relationship.

This all did, fortunately, at least provide one priceless moment: Tromp throwing a hissy-fit and rage-quitting FOK when the membership overruled his unilateral decision to take the side opposite us in the TPF-Athens war (in the event, the decision the membership reached was to defend FOK's allies on both sides of the war).

Edited January 11, 2012 by Crymson

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1326298112' post='2897415']
In FOK's defence, I really don't understand why you thought hitting their direct treaty partner (when you weren't allied anymore) wouldn't mobilize them.
[/quote]
Its not about their treaty obligations. No one faults them for honoring it. Its more about the history between our two alliances and how it spiraled out badly ending in their ultimatum and how it was ironic that they of all alliances were the ones who tipped the scales against us.

Edit. Im not sure if it was Tromps objective to destroy the the relationship but the only person I can think of that we had to deal with that was worse than him was Ramirus of GRE. I understood that they wanted to go play on the other side of the playground than us and I was fine with that but the manner it which it was all handled was absolutely horrible.

I think this is getting a bfit of topic though

Edited January 11, 2012 by Feanor Noldorin

[Sephiroth]

GPA wins for sure, how quickly they folded without firing any nukes when NPO attacked them for having the top spot was truly an amazing display of war talent.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326306745' post='2897459']
Nope. He just wanted attention.
[/quote]

Well, from you, this cuts deep.

[Steve Buscemi]

In all honestly, things probably have worked out for the better for TOP. Sure, no one likes to lose a war, but TOP's DoW on an entire bloc will always be one of the most ballsy moves in CN history.

You are in a bloc now that seems far more compatible than the Citadel was and you are getting some long-overdue revenge on the NpO.

I know it's a bit beside the point...but whatever.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1326319423' post='2897594']
In all honestly, things probably have worked out for the better for TOP. Sure, no one likes to lose a war, but TOP's DoW on an entire bloc will always be one of the most ballsy moves in CN history.

You are in a bloc now that seems far more compatible than the Citadel was and you are getting some long-overdue revenge on the NpO.

I know it's a bit beside the point...but whatever.
[/quote]
Johan delivered us back into the Promised Land.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326307413' post='2897466']
Let's not forget the manner in which the leaving was done. I'm certain that axing our treaty was on Harry and Tromp's agenda from the moment they entered office. In the event, we were treated by them like garbage, after which they deliberately manipulated their membership against us and finally served us a ridiculous ultimatum that they knew we would say no to. So really all it took for the destruction of our very long-lasting relationship with FOK was the election of two high-government members who didn't like our treaty relationship.
[/quote]
The issue was that we didn't want another TPF war scenario, in which we would be in conflict because our allies were or would be on opposite sides of the war. Given the fact that TOP pushed hard for siding with TPF (seriously, TOP wasn't even allied to them) and we didn't want to have anything to do with that corner of the world at that time, we came to a logical conclusion: we didn't share much interests anymore, and took appropriate action afterwards.
I'm not sure why you credit me with the 'ultimatum' though, I wasn't in government at the time.

[quote]
This all did, fortunately, at least provide one priceless moment: Tromp throwing a hissy-fit and rage-quitting FOK when the membership overruled his unilateral decision to take the side opposite us in the TPF-Athens war (in the event, the decision the membership reached was to defend FOK's allies on both sides of the war).
[/quote]
It certainly wasn't unilateral. The Council had decided upon a course of action, which was carried out until some later changed their mind due to outside pressure. A change in policy had to be approved by the President though, but unfortunately, they decided they couldn't wait for his return. I resigned in protest, as what was happening was not according to our Charter. I temporarily ghosted iFOK so that in case war would still break out, I'd always be on FOK's side.

Certainly, at the time it was difficult for the alliance, but at least we learned from it. Perhaps I should thank you?

Anyway, this is indeed a bit off topic, so in case anyone wants to continue you can send me a PM.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Tromp

[Banksy]

Green Protection Agency: 0
World Task Force: 0
Independent Republic Of Orange Nations: 3 (didn't look too good in this war. personally, haven't fought them for a while though)
Umbrella: 4
Orange Defense Network: 4 (i know they have a good system for a mass member alliance and they have a growing upper tier, which shows they are active)
New Pacific Order: 4 (same reasoning as the ODN really)
Mostly Harmless Alliance: 1 (collapsed in this war)
Non Grata: 5 (looks solid. active. don't know if they will hold up, but they look good).
Sparta: 3 (never seemed as bad as their reputation)
Global Alliance And Treaty Organization: 3 (possibly lower. i've never seen them perform 'well,' but at the same time they seem motivated)
Viridian Entente: 3 (tbh, i don't really know them enough to give a ranking)
The Order Of The Paradox: 5 (solid. reading this thread so far, they are probably a little hyped, but they were great in bipolar and they're still more active than most other alliances)
Mushroom Kingdom: N/A (but we're better than p much everyone here. just under 50 people on irc as i write this, the activity speaks for itself. i doubt many alliances could beat that as a figure or a ratio - certainly not both).
The Last Remnants: 3 (seems good, but i imagine the quality varies hugely as its a merger)
New Polar Order: 3 (well ordered, held back by bad nations and pm mentality)
Nordreich: 4 (has always performed well)
The Democratic Order: 0
The Legion: 2
FOK: 3 (would have been a 4 a year ago, may even be lower now due to the inactivity. it's a shame, they were great).
RnR: 2
The Phoenix Federation: 4
Fark: 1 (absolute joke)
NATO: N/A
Nusantara Elite Warriors: 2 (possibly N/A. my interaction and observance has been limited)
The Templar Knights: N/A
Ragnarok: N/A
Valhalla: 2
Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism: 3.5 (great as a lower NS alliance (i.e. a 4) but overall limited because of their structure. hence the 3.5)
Deinos: N/A
Legacy: N/A
Argent: 4 (seems good from what i've seen, although again, that is limited)
Multicolored Cross-X Alliance: 2 (possibly a 3, i didn't see how they did in this war and don't feel able to comment)
The Foreign Division: N/A
Green Old Party: 0
The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons: N/A
LoSS: N/A
Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics: N/A
The International: N/A
The Imperial Order: N/A
Coalition Of Royal Allied Powers N/A

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1326293741' post='2897400']
Alliances like TPF would rate extremely high for their size because of their stubbornness and willingness to stand and die for principles.
[/quote]
I have to disagree with you completely here. Just because an alliances claims to fight for something does not automatically mean that they know how to fight. TPF has never really been impressive to me in their military prowess. I've never caught myself saying "nicely done" to anything TPF has ever done. And let's not forget that TPF has not always been a bastion of honor and dignity. What they did with their little slice of power during their peak wasn't really anything to be proud of. And now they're kinda just background noise.

[Monster]

Well put.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Roquentin

[Proest]

Just because it takes a large sum of alliances to take one alliance out of the fight doesn't mean that alliance has any sort of elite level of fighting to it. It just simply means they don't feel like surrendering. That's called being stubborn.

Basically, I agree with Weiss.




EDIT: Grammar.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Proest

[IYIyTh]

That's missing the point. Fighting under certain kinds of duress are something entirely unknown to even some (caveat, not all,) of those people here are considering "top elite," military forces... and yet we're comparing apples and oranges anyway.

Ah well.

Edited January 12, 2012 by IYIyTh