Jump to content

Question


Neo Uruk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've noticed a lot of people nominating Atlas for "worst military" and I'm not sure I can put my finger on why that is. Overall, Atlas may be performing poorly, but factors at play -- including coalition politics -- have impacted that and so I've taken it with a grain of salt.

The fact that Atlas is rated as poorly as NSF, Guinness, etc. is fairly puzzling to me. A negative ratio doesn't make a case for "hey, this is a bona fide elite alliance" but I would not consider it bottom 10 for "major" alliances, much less the worst. An alliance's first war usually would look similar to this when composed mostly of, for lack of a better word, non-veterans.

Considering this is entirely subjective, though, I'm willing to listen. And unlike most nominations, this one actively puzzles me. Why is Atlas the worst military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I had to guess, it would be Atlas' failure to activate their treaty with NSF during the Guinness conflict, especially when Riot Society steppes in. It looked like they didn't care if their friends burned.

or the move to the brown sphere and getting closure to GATO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, it would be Atlas' failure to activate their treaty with NSF during the Guinness conflict, especially when Riot Society steppes in. It looked like they didn't care if their friends burned.

or the move to the brown sphere and getting closure to GATO

 

Is that more FA than military though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, it would be Atlas' failure to activate their treaty with NSF during the Guinness conflict, especially when Riot Society steppes in. It looked like they didn't care if their friends burned.

or the move to the brown sphere and getting closure to GATO

 

We never called on Atlas to assist us in the Guinness affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more likely to be because there's a level of sensitivity about it that makes certain reactions to it rewarding for the more confrontation minded among the community.

 

Good thread btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more likely to be because there's a level of sensitivity about it that makes certain reactions to it rewarding for the more confrontation minded among the community.
 
Good thread btw.

I suppose that could be the explanation, but there's much better bait to be laid. Unless the goal of said bait is a one-thread "but why" instead of a full-scale defcon 1 freakout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that metric, MK was the worst military in both 2009 and 2011, which they split with Umbrella. Weird, I remember them being pretty heralded.

Another thing I remember, though, is Kashmir being an alliance that wasn't mouthy and didn't care about public perceptions. Times have changed, after all. Maybe MK was the worst military.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I just looked at the ratio's and saw theirs was utterly terrible and they were on the winning side. I didn't exactly put research paper skills into CN awards. Oh well. :v:

By no means are we an amazing wrecking ball or anything, but a good deal of that ratio is more to blame on timing and the fact that we don't have many "soft targets" in Invicta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire thing is subjective and ego-stroking. The amount of self-nominations by people is ridiculous in my opinion. I think that unless there is no other alliance that is even on par with your own, you should not nominate your own alliance and definitely should not nominate yourself. But that is just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically I do not know, as I only fight wars with individual nations, and none in Atlas.  I can safely say that, on average, the worst "Alliance" that I have fought is either TLR or R&R, but I wouldn't dare feel safe enough in assessing an entire alliance's skill on my 2 wars with each, they probably aren't representative.  This is why some of these awards are just dumb, and the political ones in the group should not make nominations for some of these awards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By no means are we an amazing wrecking ball or anything, but a good deal of that ratio is more to blame on timing and the fact that we don't have many "soft targets" in Invicta.

Very true. But like I said I put absolutely no effort into it, and you were chosen based entirely off surface facts and nothing else. It's just CN awards. Don't think many care as everyone just nominates friends for the good and enemies for the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By no means are we an amazing wrecking ball or anything, but a good deal of that ratio is more to blame on timing and the fact that we don't have many "soft targets" in Invicta.

/me rubs beard

 

I don't know I'm pretty soft ...and fuzzy. 

 

Are you saying I'm not soft and fuzzy Rey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you're fighting invicta, just like many other people are and yall are getting rekt unlike anyone else fighting them (not to take away from invictas ability.. one of the stronger militaries in the game imo, but they are outgunned). They've almost done double damage to yall then you've inflicted when they really shouldnt even be able to declare offensively at this point. You have a bunch of nsf/guiness members. You have the 3rd worst stagger rate, 7th worst dpw, 2nd worst dpn, and 5th worst aid slot usage.

I usually don't think the last one is a great barometer because if everyone has solid WCs you don't need to move funds but cmon. 10%?

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10% is terrible but we're not exactly doing tech deals atm (though I have no idea what it was pre-war as well)

The rest of it is mostly due to who we are fighting, not easily controlled due to ~coalitions~, and nation make-up, which again is largely not easily controllable due to nation seniority etc. By no stretch would I call this war effort the worst we've seen this year.

I guess that's all fair though, Smurf.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you're fighting invicta, just like many other people are and yall are getting rekt unlike anyone else fighting them (not to take away from invictas ability.. one of the stronger militaries in the game imo, but they are outgunned). They've almost done double damage to yall then you've inflicted when they really shouldnt even be able to declare offensively at this point. You have a bunch of nsf/guiness members. You have the 3rd worst stagger rate, 7th worst dpw, 2nd worst dpn, and 5th worst aid slot usage.

I usually don't think the last one is a great barometer because if everyone has solid WCs you don't need to move funds but cmon. 10%?

Could it also be the case that Atlas was simply entering their first proper war, that their nations had not been building their nations properly for warfare and that Invicta had been in war for enough time to become nuke turrets when Atlas engaged?

 

As an aside, I think the Lavender Town contingent has a better damage taken / given ratio than Atlas as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...