Question

[supercoolyellow]

Well, because of this thread, I know who I am going to vote for when the time comes :P

[Neo Uruk]

I didn't nominate/vote for anyone.. but I would've nominated Atlas as the worst military alliance.  The reasoning/excuses given here about why they're doing so poorly doesn't change the fact that they are doing poorly.
They are hiding all but a couple of their upper tier nations in PM while on the side that has a mathematically insurmountable advantage in the upper tiers.
They have a significantly negative damage ratio on the winning side.
 
Even with all of the reasons given here, those two things are facts and they are going to lead people to call them the worst military alliance of 2014 at this point in time.

Yeah bro, all those damned excuses! Wish we would've had legitimate reasons instead of just a bunch of horseshit that doesn't make sense.

 
 

Well, because of this thread, I know who I am going to vote for when the time comes :P

You must feel super epic!

[EViL0nE]

Yeah bro, all those damned excuses! Wish we would've had legitimate reasons instead of just a bunch of horse!@#$ that doesn't make sense.

 
 
You must feel super epic!

That's the point.  None of your reasoning changes the facts.  Whether or not they're legitimate reasons is irrelevent.  The nations are still in PM and the ratio is still terrible for an AA on the winning side.

[Neo Uruk]

Oh, so you mean that despite all these factors that mean our military is better than it would appear on the surface, we should still get the military award because, objectively, only the surface counts?

But wouldn't that mean that the people that surrender to us would be worse, since, y'know, they're surrendering? And if you surrender that must mean you couldn't take advantage of such an awful military! No, no excuses allowed what with the "but we were outnumbered" shit, you lost.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[supercoolyellow]

 You must feel super epic!

 

No, I just feel this thread is super dumb because its going to backfire in the one thing it was meant to address.

[Neo Uruk]

No, I just feel this thread is super dumb because its going to backfire in the one thing it was meant to address.

It's backfiring how, exactly? The only way it "backfires" is if the knuckledraggers who were always going to ignore the points do exactly what they were going to do in the first place. Any argument as to why we are the "worst" military must also address the failures of NSF and other various alliances, and it's simply not even close.

[keeology]

Vote atlas worst military of 2014!

[BringMeTheHorizon]

It's backfiring how, exactly? The only way it "backfires" is if the knuckledraggers who were always going to ignore the points do exactly what they were going to do in the first place. Any argument as to why we are the "worst" military must also address the failures of NSF and other various alliances, and it's simply not even close.

 

I think I did address it, a few posts up actually... There are always counter points to the points you brought up, which I addressed. As in pure numbers, and in excuses. 

[Neo Uruk]

I think I did address it, a few posts up actually... There are always counter points to the points you brought up, which I addressed. As in pure numbers, and in excuses.

You also admitted that Atlas, while not exceptional by any margin, is not the worst. That is the exact point I've made.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

You also admitted that Atlas, while not exceptional by any margin, is not the worst. That is the exact point I've made.

 

Let me re-word it then, you may not have the worst military, you have had the worst showing in 2014. Which leads to the perception of having the worst military. I should also reiterate, being second worse, or being compared to NSF in anyway militarily is not an accomplishment that you should be proud about, or make a topic about to bring more attention to it. 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2014 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Sir Kiloist]

 

Let me re-word it then, you may not have the worst military, you have had the worst showing in 2014. Which leads to the perception of having the worst military. I should also reiterate, being second worse, or being compared to NSF in anyway militarily is not an accomplishment that you should be proud about, or make a topic about to bring more attention to it. 

 

 

Guess that means we have work to do. We'll be ready next time. I'm glad we are getting our teeth kicked in to be honest. I've learned a lot about prepping an alliance for war. 

[EViL0nE]

Oh, so you mean that despite all these factors that mean our military is better than it would appear on the surface, we should still get the military award because, objectively, only the surface counts?

But wouldn't that mean that the people that surrender to us would be worse, since, y'know, they're surrendering? And if you surrender that must mean you couldn't take advantage of such an awful military! No, no excuses allowed what with the "but we were outnumbered" !@#$, you lost.

 

You seem to be confused.  If your military is performing terribly (as Atlas is) it doesn't matter *WHY* their performance is terrible.  If a glass is broken on the floor (as Atlas is) it doesn't matter how it got broken, the pieces are still all over the floor.

 

As for your second question, stop kidding yourself, no alliance will be surrendering to Atlas.  Some alliances may agree to a surrender that Atlas has its name attached to as well, but clearly Atlas isn't going to be the reason they agree to the surrender.

Edited December 24, 2014 by EViL0nE

[YOLO SWAG]

This thread has convinced me to vote Atlas for worst military.

[Neo Uruk]

You seem to be confused.  If your military is performing terribly (as Atlas is) it doesn't matter *WHY* their performance is terrible.  If a glass is broken on the floor (as Atlas is) it doesn't matter how it got broken, the pieces are still all over the floor.
 
As for your second question, stop kidding yourself, no alliance will be surrendering to Atlas.  Some alliances may agree to a surrender that Atlas has its name attached to as well, but clearly Atlas isn't going to be the reason they agree to the surrender.

 Actually, if somebody else breaks my glass, they'll very well be paying for it. The why does matter, as if I break it I can't really point the finger and start screaming. If an alliance's military performance is made to look worse by the opponent it has, it isn't entirely an internal problem.
 

Let me re-word it then, you may not have the worst military, you have had the worst showing in 2014. Which leads to the perception of having the worst military. I should also reiterate, being second worse, or being compared to NSF in anyway militarily is not an accomplishment that you should be proud about, or make a topic about to bring more attention to it. 
 
 

Nice meme, maybe you should try saying something that isn't a pointed opinion to make me believe it. We are not in the bottom 10 of military performances on the year.

[EViL0nE]

 Actually, if somebody else breaks my glass, they'll very well be paying for it. The why does matter, as if I break it I can't really point the finger and start screaming. If an alliance's military performance is made to look worse by the opponent it has, it isn't entirely an internal problem.
 
Nice meme, maybe you should try saying something that isn't a pointed opinion to make me believe it. We are not in the bottom 10 of military performances on the year.

You keep getting stuck on the idea of what the future could be.  The future is irrelevant to the discussion.  Atlas is still doing terribly as a military and the glass is still broken.  The poll wasn't asking who will be the worst military of 2015.  It's asking who is the worst military of 2014.  Atlas is making a good case for itself to win that award.

[Neo Uruk]

You keep getting stuck on the idea of what the future could be.  The future is irrelevant to the discussion.  Atlas is still doing terribly as a military and the glass is still broken.  The poll wasn't asking who will be the worst military of 2015.  It's asking who is the worst military of 2014.  Atlas is making a good case for itself to win that award.

Is English your native tongue? I have clearly explained why this is not entirely on Atlas, and you keep saying weird shit that doesn't make sense.

[hapapants]

Rey, might I introduce you to the term, Reverse Psychology...?

[BringMeTheHorizon]

Nice meme, maybe you should try saying something that isn't a pointed opinion to make me believe it. We are not in the bottom 10 of military performances on the year.

 

Name them, because you have the worst pure numbers on a winning side that is a dog pile than anyone in 2014. Sun may be doing worse than you in pure numbers, but their also in a dog pile on a losing side of the war. So that's out. NSF did better in pure numbers in 2014 than you. Guinness is doing better in pure numbers than you right now. If you want to start naming AA's with worse pure numbers than you, on a winning side of a beat down. Please, start posting these numbers, and showing us how we are wrong in saying Atlas has done the worst in 2014. You can't just keep saying but reasons/excuses for you being horrible, because every AA has excuses, as I showed before. 

 

Start naming. 

 

 

 

 

Also, why do I need to make you change your mind, this thread wasn't made for us to change your mind, This thread was created for you to tell the people voting how Atlas is in fact not the worst military of 2014. So my "pointed" opinion isn't trying to change your mind, it's me saying hey your thread didn't do it's purpose. If you want to change my mind, or other peoples mind who think you were the worst military, it falls on you to change our mind, not us to change your mind. With your excuses/reasons aren't enough, because as shown before, every AA you brought up has just as many if not better excuses than you for doing worse in 2014. So drop the excuses, and show us someone who did far worse than you're doing right now. 

Edited December 25, 2014 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Franz Ferdinand]

 

Name them, because you have the worst pure numbers on a winning side that is a dog pile than anyone in 2014. Sun may be doing worse than you in pure numbers, but their also in a dog pile on a losing side of the war. So that's out. NSF did better in pure numbers in 2014 than you. Guinness is doing better in pure numbers than you right now. If you want to start naming AA's with worse pure numbers than you, on a winning side of a beat down. Please, start posting these numbers, and showing us how we are wrong in saying Atlas has done the worst in 2014. You can't just keep saying but reasons/excuses for you being horrible, because every AA has excuses, as I showed before. 

 

False about Guinness and North Star Federation and you know it.

 

I'll provide a counter-point of an alliance which entered the war in a similar way to Atlas but for the other side (and are only at war with one AA). That being Coalition of Royal Allied Powers who appear to have a worse ratio than Atlas has but as they are on what people seem to call the "losing side" appears to get a bye when it comes to the statistics. So can anyone please explain how Atlas have done worse than the Coalition of Royal Allied Powers. Thank you.

[The Zigur]

Doing badly in war isn't bad if lessons are learned, fat is burned and capable allies are looked to for guidance.

[keeology]

False about Guinness and North Star Federation and you know it.
 
I'll provide a counter-point of an alliance which entered the war in a similar way to Atlas but for the other side (and are only at war with one AA). That being Coalition of Royal Allied Powers who appear to have a worse ratio than Atlas has but as they are on what people seem to call the "losing side" appears to get a bye when it comes to the statistics. So can anyone please explain how Atlas have done worse than the Coalition of Royal Allied Powers. Thank you.

Pretty easy, you got to look at the opponent they are facing. Atlas is hitting a well covered invicta so even if they have nations not properly ready for war they can work with GATO, DS and NPO to get the best out of there nations. CRAP is up against one of if not the best military in CN and on the losing side where having the coverage is not there.

Tywin did say it well that this should be a good learning opportunity for atlas. With there allies they can be taught.

[Unknown Smurf]

We are not in the bottom 10 of military performances on the year.

Yes. Atlas is 100% in the bottom 10.

It could be argued that they aren't the absolute worst considering alliances like LPH existed. But even that is debatable.

[Sir Kiloist]

It could be argued that they aren't the absolute worst considering alliances like LPH existed. But even that is debatable.

 

LPH wasn't the worst military in terms of what actually happened. We did fairly well considering every time we got hit, it was really flimsy reasons and like idk 5 nations getting hit by alliances with 20+ members (exception being Limitless Nexus - but had stonewall throwing nukes at our 5k ns nations) each time and the strongest nation (me at like 20k) was downdeclared on a nation that sold down like 10-20k ns to even hit the nation with a full wonder set when at the time I had only had like 4 wonders. 

[Neo Uruk]

Smurf's just trying to get a rise per usual. He knows he's wrong.

BMTH the "pure numbers" don't tell the full story and you damn well know it.

Kee, you also know better. You know that Invicta is a fairly good fighting AA, and due to being blessed with nearly two years since their last losing effort should have supreme warchests. Add in the fact that CRAP has older nations, and thus a wonder advantage, and you get an objective failure to paint an unbiased picture on your fault.

Atlas would have performed much better had they not been re-assigned targets. There was an optimum window for them to attack, and that window passed. They were tossed onto people who had melted infra off and thus had heavy tech/wonder advantages in their tiers. It is a sloppy effort, surely, but yet again it is not nearly the worst.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Master Hakai]

Name them, because you have the worst pure numbers on a winning side that is a dog pile than anyone in 2014. Sun may be doing worse than you in pure numbers, but their also in a dog pile on a losing side of the war. So that's out. NSF did better in pure numbers in 2014 than you. Guinness is doing better in pure numbers than you right now. If you want to start naming AA's with worse pure numbers than you, on a winning side of a beat down. Please, start posting these numbers, and showing us how we are wrong in saying Atlas has done the worst in 2014. You can't just keep saying but reasons/excuses for you being horrible, because every AA has excuses, as I showed before. 
 
Start naming. 
 
 
 
 
Also, why do I need to make you change your mind, this thread wasn't made for us to change your mind, This thread was created for you to tell the people voting how Atlas is in fact not the worst military of 2014. So my "pointed" opinion isn't trying to change your mind, it's me saying hey your thread didn't do it's purpose. If you want to change my mind, or other peoples mind who think you were the worst military, it falls on you to change our mind, not us to change your mind. With your excuses/reasons aren't enough, because as shown before, every AA you brought up has just as many if not better excuses than you for doing worse in 2014. So drop the excuses, and show us someone who did far worse than you're doing right now.

Re: SUN, they've had the NS advantage this whole war up until NSO's dec,and have consistently put out awful stats. Kashmir's side has more AA's, smaller NS. Not really a dogpile.

Not related to atlas really, but I thought I might point out the typo