Proest Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326369646' post='2898031'] 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. [/quote] Well, if put into the context of alliances capable of fighting extended wars.... you'd likely need to take into account multiple tiers of fighting so Umbrella would be out of the top as would MK and the others due to having focused tiers (Umb is top, MK middle), though, one could argue that MK by being a middle-weight alliance could fight quite awhile as seen during the DH/NPO war Jan-April 2011. Alliances that can fight for long periods of time against multiple alliances while [i]dealing[/i] damage to their opponents and not just sustaining it -- those are few. I'd venture to say that TOP/IRON would be more than capable of such a thing but would have lower-tier problems after a month or more. I really don't think there's any alliances that can fight totally on their own for more than two months against more than one alliance that is bigger than them. It's all about political strategy and the ability to end it before it starts to hurt you. But we all know there's just some alliances that just don't give a damn and would rather let everything burn than give in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326369646' post='2898031'] 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. [/quote] No, you're really, really missing the point. Regardless of whether or not an alliance has been tested to their breaking point, we can still reasonably assess and compare military capabilities. Fighting on the bottom end of extreme numbers for extended periods is not some mysterious deal breaker. Believe me, I've been there. Even though Umbrella, for example, hasn't faced a beatdown like TPF did, I can confidently say that Umbrella is more militarily capable than TPF. Whether Umbrella's brand of military preparedness has actually overshot the rest of the world is another debate altogether. When I was in NoV, we were declared on by The Continuum itself. Sure, not all of the alliances actually participated in the beat-down but I'd say roughly 60% of tC alliances had some helping hand in that war. Does that mean that NoV was the military equivalent of 60% of the Continuum? Of course not. That's stupid. Don't be stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326347365' post='2897921'] 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.[/quote] They are a "tough out". A baseball expression for a batter that will make your pitcher throw an excessive amount of balls to them and therefore run up their pitch count. A tough out does this by not swing wildly at bad pitches, fouling off good pitches, and doing their best to hit the ball where your fielders aren't. Note that a tough out doesn't necessarily have a good batting average, or many homeruns, but they are still good to have in your line up. Everything you say about TPF could be true. In my observation however when you stick them in the line of battle you do so knowing they aren't going to break and run. This frees up other forces who otherwise might have to be sent in to back up TPF elsewhere. On the other hand, there have been times they stayed well past the point that sensible alliances would have thrown in the towel--that has caused them permanent damage through the years through lost members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bordiga Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 While I could just generalise about all the alliances out there I wll just stick with the ones I have fought. Most likely no one will ever see this way back here on the 11th page anyway. In chronological order: Crimson Sun Empire: [b](3)[/b] Very young alliance, pretty weak until their friends were called in. Tinpot dictator Pironious totally incompetent also. Black November: [b](5)[/b] Also a young alliance, definitely better than CSE due to seeing themselves as militaristic, but not much by modern standards I would say. Avenguard Crusade: [b](5)[/b] Mostly ex-CSE members, with a bit more experience by this stage, but still not much of a threat. FOK!Alliance: [b](8)[/b] Militarily very competent, pity about the rest. Viridian Entente: [b](6)[/b] Reasonably coordinated, lower tiers who fought against us however were pretty easy pickings. Andromeda: [b](5)[/b] I can't remember anything except that their leader was not bad at war, despite being many other things. Democratic Republic of Argonaut: [b](5)[/b] Not much chop, little on the blaise side of things, lots of members but not much else. Confederation of Imperial States: [b](4)[/b] Supposedly they were at war with us. Global Order of Darkness: [b](8)[/b] Definitely the strongest military I have fought, warchests were the highest I've dealth with (which might not be saying much). Too bad about Xiphosis being a scumbag. United Blue Directorate: [b](2)[/b] Two days of war seemed like a leisurely stroll. I think my opponent had a warchest 1/10th of my size, and the average was only a few hundred million. And this was in the mid-upper tiers where we fought. While I have fought in a few wars, I don't think I have the best understanding due to the gap between wars. I have fought a few decently influential alliances; VE, FOK, GOD but the rest are only important for very few left I would say. I also fought NPO, Old Guard, ODN and The Righteous Fist when they were all slaves to power (unlike now! ), but I can't recall the difference between the combatants so I have left them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1326380299' post='2898059'] They are a "tough out". A baseball expression for a batter that will make your pitcher throw an excessive amount of balls to them and therefore run up their pitch count. A tough out does this by not swing wildly at bad pitches, fouling off good pitches, and doing their best to hit the ball where your fielders aren't. Note that a tough out doesn't necessarily have a good batting average, or many homeruns, but they are still good to have in your line up. Everything you say about TPF could be true. In my observation however when you stick them in the line of battle you do so knowing they aren't going to break and run. This frees up other forces who otherwise might have to be sent in to back up TPF elsewhere. On the other hand, there have been times they stayed well past the point that sensible alliances would have thrown in the towel--[b]that has caused them permanent damage through the years through lost members.[/b] [/quote] I agree with all except the bold - IMO, they have lost nothing by removing folks who won't go the distance / Remeber the Great Wars, and ludicrous surrender numbers that were an embarrassment to behold. // Didn't expect to be a TPF defender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='hammer' timestamp='1326382631' post='2898073'] I agree with all except the bold - IMO, they have lost nothing by removing folks who won't go the distance / Remeber the Great Wars, and ludicrous surrender numbers that were an embarrassment to behold. // Didn't expect to be a TPF defender [/quote] On the contrary, while it made them an even tougher out, it also meant that they were less likely to see reason and hold out while others in their coalition had already surrendered and were beginning the process of rebuilding for next time. Generally you only get to die for your principles once or twice as an alliance before your membership numbers go into serious decline, your NS stagnates relative to other alliances, and you're on the road to irrelevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Caparo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [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] This guy proves that NEW doesnt stick around and ask questions, they do all there attacks whenever they are on, they dont wait for stupid things like update where you might not even get on, especially when our update is between 1pm and 4pm, ie, work hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1326380299' post='2898059'] Everything you say about TPF could be true. In my observation however when you stick them in the line of battle you do so knowing they aren't going to break and run. This frees up other forces who otherwise might have to be sent in to back up TPF elsewhere. On the other hand, there have been times they stayed well past the point that sensible alliances would have thrown in the towel--that has caused them permanent damage through the years through lost members. [/quote] I can stick a boulder in the middle of your yard and no matter how many times you punch it, I have confidence that the boulder will not surrender. That does not mean the boulder has more fighting capability than you do. This also frees my forces to engage your beer fridge in the garage. But this does not make the boulder a master strategist. If you want to credit TPF with heart, go for it. I for one don't buy it, but you could make the argument. But the argument for military capability is just not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) First off I want to make a point. This thread is about an individual alliance's ability to wage war, not an alliance war. Therefore the Doomhouse argument makes little sense. Although yes, no one honestly believes that any war will be fought without using allies. [quote name='Proest' timestamp='1326376740' post='2898045'] Alliances that can fight for long periods of time against multiple alliances while [i]dealing[/i] damage to their opponents and not just sustaining it -- those are few. I'd venture to say that TOP/IRON would be more than capable of such a thing but would have lower-tier problems after a month or more. I really don't think there's any alliances that can fight totally on their own for more than two months against more than one alliance that is bigger than them. It's all about political strategy and the ability to end it before it starts to hurt you. [/quote] I can think of one. IRON has done this very thing in each of the last two global wars which we were involved in. Fighting for multiple months, while being dogpiled on, and dealing out damage at least 10x what we were taking. Edited January 12, 2012 by The Warrior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326385553' post='2898115'] I can stick a boulder in the middle of your yard and no matter how many times you punch it, I have confidence that the boulder will not surrender. That does not mean the boulder has more fighting capability than you do. This also frees my forces to engage your beer fridge in the garage. But this does not make the boulder a master strategist. If you want to credit TPF with heart, go for it. I for one don't buy it, but you could make the argument. But the argument for military capability is just not there[/quote] Aye, you might get to my beer fridge, but it won't be through that boulder. Terrain features channel your advance. Similarly, historically whomever you send after TPF will bog quickly in nuke anarchy and not be of any use elsewhere. The more you send, the more forces get bogged down. That helps me at the strategic level in a number of ways. As for the balance of your comments, let's get back to my first post in this thread...there is a reason that I rate TPF as 'good' and Nordreich as 'elite'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1326387615' post='2898131'] Aye, you might get to my beer fridge, but it won't be through that boulder. Terrain features channel your advance. Similarly, historically whomever you send after TPF will bog quickly in nuke anarchy and not be of any use elsewhere. The more you send, the more forces get bogged down. That helps me at the strategic level in a number of ways. As for the balance of your comments, let's get back to my first post in this thread...there is a reason that I rate TPF as 'good' and Nordreich as 'elite'. [/quote] Flinders has hated us for going on 4 years now. He's not going to give us credit for anything. We trimmed a lot of fat during Karma and I'd say we've fought more total days than any alliance on Bob since then. We have experience. Over 80 percent of our members have the MP, so even our lower tiers are going to be brutal for most alliances. We do not run, fold, disband or walk away from fights. Honestly, we aren't that tech heavy, but that goes back to the fact that we've spent so much time in nuclear war for the past 3 years. I've personally lost over 12000 tech during that time. Even in a losing effort last war we brutalized MK's under 60k nations during DH/NPO and that was while also fighting Athens, LOST, GOONS and some others. Honestly out of DH MK took it very hard. UMB were out of range to fight us, GOONS was mostly too small to fight a large portion of us. That basically meant we had a slight numbers advantage on MK until CnG hit us and honestly they weren't that effective either. I would declare on two nations and only got one counter the rest of the way after the first round of DH/NPO. Edited January 12, 2012 by Vol Navy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtamdraugr Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Sorry, but RL duties have tamed my CN stance as of late, and so.. a late retort... [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1325964485' post='2894965'] You had the advantage on PC and you were obliterated. [/quote] This must be a new and strange definition of "obliterated". We lost a war we knew we were going to lose before it even started...but we did our job and we are still here. Where is PC again? Despite the, ahem, less than honorable tactics presented on that battlefield... we're still here and PC is not. Obliterated indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1326394990' post='2898190'] Despite the, ahem, less than honorable tactics presented on that battlefield... we're still here and PC is not. Obliterated indeed. [/quote] Yes, PC's former members now compose a large segment of one of the most powerful alliances in the game. They're not doing so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 [quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1326394990' post='2898190'] Sorry, but RL duties have tamed my CN stance as of late, and so.. a late retort... This must be a new and strange definition of "obliterated". We lost a war we knew we were going to lose before it even started...but we did our job and we are still here. Where is PC again? Despite the, ahem, less than honorable tactics presented on that battlefield... we're still here and PC is not. Obliterated indeed. [/quote] The fact that PC is no longer with us had zero to do with your war lol. They decimated your alliance, end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326395518' post='2898195'] Yes, PC's former members now compose a large segment of one of the most powerful alliances in the game. They're not doing so bad. [/quote] I don't think he's referring to that, but it was kind of a cheapshot anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326378923' post='2898052'] No, you're really, really missing the point. Regardless of whether or not an alliance has been tested to their breaking point, we can still reasonably assess and compare military capabilities. Fighting on the bottom end of extreme numbers for extended periods is not some mysterious deal breaker. Believe me, I've been there. Even though Umbrella, for example, hasn't faced a beatdown like TPF did, I can confidently say that Umbrella is more militarily capable than TPF. Whether Umbrella's brand of military preparedness has actually overshot the rest of the world is another debate altogether. When I was in NoV, we were declared on by The Continuum itself. Sure, not all of the alliances actually participated in the beat-down but I'd say roughly 60% of tC alliances had some helping hand in that war. Does that mean that NoV was the military equivalent of 60% of the Continuum? Of course not. That's stupid. Don't be stupid. [/quote] I'm saying you can't reasonably assess and compare military capabilities because the only time people care to take a look is during or immediately after a conflict, and in doing so forget that there are a multitude of factors going into making a determination of whether an alliance is or isn't a capable war fighter ( War Ability.) You then go on to make an assumption about reputation ignoring the point you responded to that we are ultimately making a judgment on an alliances military ability sheerly based on a numerical advantage rather than anything other than glancing elementary statistical information. I don't know why you're accusing my intelligence of being circumspect but I'll assume it has something with disagreeing with what amounts to a bunch of people saying their alliance is the best as being an inadequate measure of War Ability. Further, that no real correction is even attempted is more telling that what this is is merely a straw poll of assumptions, not based in fact. When I see people taking it seriously, I die a little inside and thus challenge for a more objective and statistically driven analysis rather than phallus comparison and three year old encounters as the basis for military preparation and/or "War Ability." Edited January 13, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Overall, so far I give this thread a 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoo Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1326435233' post='2898620'] Overall, so far I give this thread a 4. [/quote] Folks, we have a winner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='The Warrior' timestamp='1326387338' post='2898129'] I can think of one. IRON has done this very thing in each of the last two global wars which we were involved in. Fighting for multiple months, while being dogpiled on, and dealing out damage at least 10x what we were taking. [/quote] Don't be so modest. It was probably 20 or 30x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtamdraugr Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1326407375' post='2898289'] The fact that PC is no longer with us had zero to do with your war lol. They decimated your alliance, end of story. [/quote] I did not mean to suggest that RoK had anything to do with PC going extinct... but that your usage of the word "Obliterated" was erroneous and ironic, considering PC isn't here anymore. [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326424071' post='2898483'] I don't think he's referring to that, but it was kind of a cheapshot anyway. [/quote] And to take a cheap shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1326479618' post='2898907'] but that your usage of the word "Obliterated" was erroneous and ironic, considering PC isn't here anymore. [/quote] Just because we don't exist doesn't mean it didn't happen. You had 150 nations compared to our 60 and we left you with nobody standing above 30,000 NS. To put that into perspective, you had nations above 120k NS at the start of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 PC did do a serious number on RoK, that's a fact that can't be disputed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326235014' post='2897037'] That sure is a lot of excuses for an alliance that you rated as 'elite'. [/quote] Seerow it wouldnt matter if we blew through MK you still wouldnt give us any credit. So really take your hate put it in a pipe smoke it and keep holding it in so you can stay warm this winter. [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] Yeah comming from the We will fignt but surrender a couple of weeks later crew sure thing. God I really hope I get to have you for a chew toy some day. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1326335544' post='2897794'] The Legion: 2 RnR: 2 Nusantara Elite Warriors: 2 (possibly N/A. my interaction and observance has been limited) Valhalla: 2 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) [/quote] LOL you rated us the same as Legion Banksy really. While we cant take all the credit by any means we just helped take two AAs that were around 5 mill NS and leave them at a combined strength of maybe 4 mill. See comment to seerow keep holding on to the hate. Honestly I have no desire to do this ranking crap. What I will say is this. GOD is good, Val could have done better, but im always more critical of my guys than anyone else. BN ASG were both awesome to work with. BN if it were bigger would give any AA a run for its money. Awesome co ordination as well as activity. As for the rest of the list it is what it is. You will find great fighters in pretty much any AA and youll find !@#$%* ones as well. My RIA oppenents both were terribel my GOD oppenent was mediocre. I dont rate the entire AA on that but hey. Edited January 13, 2012 by Buds The Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1326489037' post='2899019'] Seerow it wouldnt matter if we blew through MK you still wouldnt give us any credit. So really take your hate put it in a pipe smoke it and keep holding it in so you can stay warm this winter. [/quote] You've managed to find the biggest "if" in the world. Congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1326489037' post='2899019'] /snip/ Honestly I have no desire to do this ranking crap. /snip/ [/quote] Oooo... I think this thread has a chance! I think I might be able to rank this thread as mission accomplished.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.