This has gone on long enough

[Penkala]

The hilarity in his "apples to oranges" metaphor being, that he is comparing apples to oranges. An alliance that did not disband vs an alliance that did disband.

EDIT: The NpO coalition in the NoCB war faced even worse odds than UJP did. You might just be the thickest poster around.

Thing is I'm talking about how well each fought during the time they did fight, which is pretty easy to you. Yet you keep pointing to \m/'s disbandment as in indication of their individual nations fighting poorly which makes... well, absolutely zero sense to anyone with a brain. Let's forget disbandment here. Let's forget what happened after the war. I'm talking about \m/ having fought harder during the 10 days than Polar fought during their 30, and I've put up proof of it.

Do you have any proof (THEY DISBANDED HURRR doesn't count, that has nothing to do with how well they fought) that Polar fought harder/better during their war?

EDIT: The NpO coalition in the NoCB war faced even worse odds than UJP did. You might just be the thickest poster around.

Not really. I'd say the award for that goes to you, because as I proved earlier, \m/ was facing over a dozen alliances. Yes, the odds for the Unjust war were more even. No, the odds against \m/ were not more even. Every defensive slot on \m/ was filled. I was there. I couldn't find a slot on them.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penkala

[Dochartaigh]

Someone draw Musso a picture: it doesn't !@#$@#$ matter. I'll spell this out for you. The. Circumstances. Were. Different. If you want to look at war performance, measure metrics that matter - how many hid in peace mode and how many fought, how effectively they fought, how much NS they lost how fast etc. I'd argue that the first isn't relevant either and is unfair to NpO - they chose a tactic. But the second and third are highly relevant, and \m/ seems to come ahead in those to me. NpO wasn't fighting those who wanted it to disband.. that doesn't make their military might any more effective.

Oh please, it was clear from day one that Cit and SF weren't going to force NpO to disbandment.

Cit- the only alliance in Cit that fought Polaris was Umbrella. TOP and Gre were both Q members at that time. as was Valhalla and MCXA. i love how most put all these other blocs as the power behind the Coalition that formed against Polaris except the one who had the majority of alliances involved, Q.

Q was the power behind this not Cit and definitely not SF. i think SF had Fark and RoK possibly involved. but again, the majority of alliances were Q and thus, had far more say than Cit or SF.

[Mussolandia]

I can't forget disbandment when I'm talking of alliance wars. The alliance existing is sort of important when you're discussing a conflict between alliances.

\m/ MEEETAAAAAAAAALLLLLL \m/

[El Hefe]

Caffine... why the hell did you make this thread?

[Penguin]

If you want me to respond, Penkala, I will oblige. Just promise me that you won't consider this post bawwwing. Bawwwing is the most despicable thing any leader can do ever and any ruler caught bawwing should never see the light of day again!

Fact: NpO hid in peace mode to avoid fighting.

To clarify (to the best of my knowledge): 61 Polars began the war in Peace Mode. All but about ~25 came out of Peace Mode and fought. Nations that were not properly staggered hit Peace Mode; some came out and some did not. The approximately 25 Polar nations that saw no war were all within the Top 30 nations ordered to give 75,000 tech as reparations. Of those 30, 29 hit (or came very close to) Zero Technology while paying reparations while 1 was uncooperative. There is only one nation present for the war that did not feel any of its effects.

Also, I was not particularly disappointed with our military performance though it wasn't anything to write home about, but again I feel that it was never used as a basis for our pride. I do think you have at least slightly overstated how awful we performed, but I have thick enough blubber to take it.

Fact: Despite this, they still dropped in NS like a rock.

To clarify: I'd say we dropped more like a penguin colony on an iceberg flipping under the weight of a hungry Orca but people tell me I need to cut down on my penguin metaphors.

Fact: \m/ disbanded after 10 days.

To clarify: Yeah that's pretty accurate.

If you're willing to debate me on facts, that's fine. But so far in this thread Penguin has been the only one that's tried (although Hizzy has been relatively good about not making stuff up too). And as usual, NSO provides no factual basis for anything they say. Color me surprised.

Strange as it may be, I haven't seen a lot of things I strongly disagree with from either side. Comparing \m/ and Polaris was an exercise in futility from the start. Not only were the situations so drastically different, but it's clear that the only people who actually care to settle the questions are those who are so emotionally invested that their testimony ought not be treated as anything resembling "fact" to begin with.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penguin

[Penkala]

I can't forget disbandment when I'm talking of alliance wars. The alliance existing is sort of important when you're discussing a conflict between alliances.

\m/ MEEETAAAAAAAAALLLLLL \m/

Not when you're talking about how well they fought, no, it isn't important. I know you can't forget it, though. Because if you did you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

This really isn't hard and I have faith you can figure out what I'm saying. Here, try this. Stop thinking about disbandment, or terms for Polar, because I'm not talking about that.

[Voytek]

Penkala, do you mind me asking if you were actually around for either UJW or noCB?

[Mussolandia]

Not when you're talking about how well they fought, no, it isn't important. I know you can't forget it, though. Because if you did you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

This really isn't hard and I have faith you can figure out what I'm saying. Here, try this. Stop thinking about disbandment, or terms for Polar, because I'm not talking about that.

\m/ fought so well they did not survive the war.

[raasaa]

Caffine... why the hell did you make this thread?

duh...isnt it obvious....to discuss the circumstances behind \m/'s disbandment....

Edited December 18, 2009 by raasaa

[Penkala]

Penkala, do you mind me asking if you were actually around for either UJW or noCB?

I have been around for three years, yes. I think the problem here is communication - I'm really not trying to argue that \m/ had as much perseverance as NpO. They didn't (but they did face drastically different outlooks and that clouds any comparisons). I'm saying I believe \m/ fought better than Polaris did, based on how far NpO fell despite \m/'s drastically higher war-to-member ratio.

I'm not arguing that \m/ had a stronger community than NpO, or 'more balls' or courage, or any of that. I'm talking about how they matched up when fighting in a losing war. Does this help clarify?

\m/ fought so well they did not survive the war.

Congratulations, your opinions on this topic are now meaningless. Do Polar's large tech reps mean they fought worse than all alliances in history except Pacifica and those that disbanded? Because following your logic, where outcome of alliance war = how well the alliance fought, Polar is one of the worst fighting alliances of all time.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penkala

[RandomInterrupt]

Not when you're talking about how well they fought, no, it isn't important. I know you can't forget it, though. Because if you did you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

This really isn't hard and I have faith you can figure out what I'm saying. Here, try this. Stop thinking about disbandment, or terms for Polar, because I'm not talking about that.

Bob Bobson was the best race car driver ever! His first lap around the ring was so good it broke records set 10 years ago. Of course he was going so fast he crashed into a wall in the second lap and died in a fiery wreck... But man were the other drivers jealous of that first lap!

[Mussolandia]

I have been around for three years, yes. I think the problem here is communication - I'm really not trying to argue that \m/ had as much perseverance as NpO. They didn't (but they did face drastically different outlooks and that clouds any comparisons). I'm saying I believe \m/ fought better than Polaris did, based on how far NpO fell despite \m/'s drastically higher war-to-member ratio.

I'm not arguing that \m/ had a stronger community than NpO, or 'more balls' or courage, or any of that. I'm talking about how they matched up when fighting in a losing war. Does this help clarify?

Congratulations, your opinions on this topic are now meaningless. Do Polar's large tech reps mean they fought worse than all alliances in history except Pacifica and those that disbanded? Because following your logic, where outcome of alliance war = how well the alliance fought, Polar is one of the worst fighting alliances of all time.

Ok, \m/ fought so well, but I mean so well, that they did not survive the war.

[Penkala]

Bob Bobson was the best race car driver ever! His first lap around the ring was so good it broke records set 10 years ago. Of course he was going so fast he crashed into a wall in the second lap and died in a fiery wreck... But man were the other drivers jealous of that first lap!

I'm sure \m/ disbanded because after 10 days they were ALL bill locked. Couldn't be that they saw no hope or anything (though I do see what you're getting at, I think the disbandment was more of 'no use continuing something useless, might as well spare our members' futures' and less of 'welp we have nothing left in the tank, let's head home!')

[Nintenderek]

Thing is I'm talking about how well each fought during the time they did fight, which is pretty easy to you. Yet you keep pointing to \m/'s disbandment as in indication of their individual nations fighting poorly which makes... well, absolutely zero sense to anyone with a brain. Let's forget disbandment here. Let's forget what happened after the war. I'm talking about \m/ having fought harder during the 10 days than Polar fought during their 30, and I've put up proof of it.

Do you have any proof (THEY DISBANDED HURRR doesn't count, that has nothing to do with how well they fought) that Polar fought harder/better during their war?

Not really. I'd say the award for that goes to you, because as I proved earlier, \m/ was facing over a dozen alliances. Yes, the odds for the Unjust war were more even. No, the odds against \m/ were not more even. Every defensive slot on \m/ was filled. I was there. I couldn't find a slot on them.

Penkalaland is a growing, mostly developed, and old nation at 339 days old

Also, Polar was at war against Valhalla, GGA, MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK, RnR, FARK, Pyramid, PAIN and CMEA. I think there was even more then I've listed.

\m/ was at war against NpO, NoV, IRON, GDA, FCO, ODN, UPN, Legion, TAB and CSE. If you look at all the statistics, Polar actually had way more against it then \m/ ever did. Also, \m/ folded against the Legion and disbanded. If that doesn't say something, I don't know what will.

[El Hefe]

duh...isnt it obvious....to discuss the circumstances behind \m/'s disbandment....

I skipped 10 pages to find that, and was kinda taken back at first when I saw the new topic.

But seriously, even if he just drank all the cans in the picture there's no reason why he should have posted this.

[Penkala]

Also, Polar was at war against Valhalla, GGA, MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK, RnR, FARK, Pyramid, PAIN and CMEA. I think there was even more then I've listed.

\m/ was at war against NpO, NoV, IRON, GDA, FCO, ODN, UPN, Legion, TAB and CSE. If you look at all the statistics, Polar actually had way more against it then \m/ ever did. Also, \m/ folded against the Legion and disbanded. If that doesn't say something, I don't know what will.

Rerolls are IMPOSSIBLE I say. \m/ was 300 members and at war with 13 alliances. You forgot several. They were outnumbered like 10 - 1, as was Polar. Every. Single. Defensive. Slot. on \m/ nations over 3k NS was taken as far as I can tell. I was small then and I STILL couldn't find a slot.

And yes, that does say something that \m/ disbanded against the likes of Legion.

[RandomInterrupt]

I'm sure \m/ disbanded because after 10 days they were ALL bill locked. Couldn't be that they saw no hope or anything (though I do see what you're getting at, I think the disbandment was more of 'no use continuing something useless, might as well spare our members' futures' and less of 'welp we have nothing left in the tank, let's head home!')

So after all of this, we agree. \m/ disbanded because they were so shortsighted they didn't want to risk their nations by fighting a while and earning decent surrender terms. See, we had no reason for arguing at all. We both agree that \m/ were spineless infra huggers without the proper leadership or dedication to survive a war. The only one talking about nations ability to fight wars is you. Glad to clear that up!

[Nintenderek]

Rerolls are IMPOSSIBLE I say. \m/ was 300 members and at war with 13 alliances.

Polar was at war with at least 12 alliances, most of which were either sanctioned at the time, or sanctioned soon after. Also, Polar retained most of its membership after the war. How many \m/embers were still in \m/ after UJW?

Also, stop bringing up the slots thing. Of course \m/ had less slots. They had less members.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Nintenderek

[raasaa]

I skipped 10 pages to find that, and was kinda taken back at first when I saw the new topic.

But seriously, even if he just drank all the cans in the picture there's no reason why he should have posted this.

i guess he was smoking some weird !@#$ then....

[KinKiac]

I'm sure \m/ disbanded because after 10 days they were ALL bill locked. Couldn't be that they saw no hope or anything (though I do see what you're getting at, I think the disbandment was more of 'no use continuing something useless, might as well spare our members' futures' and less of 'welp we have nothing left in the tank, let's head home!')

But fighting yourself into bill lock at 10 days into war is not good fighting performance is it?

[Penkala]

Polar was at war with at least 12 alliances, most of which were either sanctioned at the time, or sanctioned soon after. Also, Polar retained most of its membership after the war. How many \m/embers were still in \m/ after UJW?

What? Polaris lost hundreds of members. I *think* though I'm not sure that \m/ had higher retention rates than Polar. But that's not fair to Polar because 1) Polar was at war much longer, thus allowing people who stopped collecting to be deleted, and making it more likely for members to quit after weeks of warfare and 2) Polar had hundreds of members that were 'just there', whereas \m/ was a bit more tight knit with fewer people who joined the alliance but never participated and would have run at the first sight of war.

So that doesn't really matter. What I'm looking at is \m/ losing a lot less NS than Polar and doing less 'turtling', although the numbers Penguin gave show there were fewer than I thought originally in peace mode (he said what, 68? I thought it was more around 85 - 100.)

But fighting yourself into bill lock at 10 days into war is not good fighting performance is it?

My point is that they didn't. They still had money left (albeit they were terribly prepared by modern standards and not so well prepared even by standards of the time).

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penkala

[RandomInterrupt]

What? Polaris lost hundreds of members. I *think* though I'm not sure that \m/ had higher retention rates than Polar. But that's not fair to Polar because 1) Polar was at war much longer, thus allowing people who stopped collecting to be deleted, and making it more likely for members to quit after weeks of warfare and 2) Polar had hundreds of members that were 'just there', whereas \m/ was a bit more tight knit with fewer people who joined the alliance but never participated and would have run at the first sight of war.

So that doesn't really matter. What I'm looking at is \m/ losing a lot less NS than Polar and doing less 'turtling', although the numbers Penguin gave show there were fewer than I thought originally in peace mode (he said what, 68? I thought it was more around 85 - 100.)

How can you lose more than 100% of your infra and 100% of your nations? Polar lost very few nations in the UJW. I don't have numbers, but it was a very popular war and moral was high throughout it.

[Nintenderek]

What? Polaris lost hundreds of members. I *think* though I'm not sure that \m/ had higher retention rates than Polar. But that's not fair to Polar because 1) Polar was at war much longer, thus allowing people who stopped collecting to be deleted, and making it more likely for members to quit after weeks of warfare and 2) Polar had hundreds of members that were 'just there', whereas \m/ was a bit more tight knit with fewer people who joined the alliance but never participated and would have run at the first sight of war.

So that doesn't really matter. What I'm looking at is \m/ losing a lot less NS than Polar and doing less 'turtling', although the numbers Penguin gave show there were fewer than I thought originally in peace mode (he said what, 68? I thought it was more around 85 - 100.)

\m/ loss less NS because they had less NS to start with. You also don't take into account the inflation of statistics. There were generally higher NS nations when Polar got rolled then there were when \m/ did. Do the math yourself. The fact is, \m/ lost enough to disband, and Polar didn't. Do I need to write this a hundred times for you or something?

Also, this doesn't even count the higher numbers of technology in NoCB and the invention of the WRC, which made it a lot easier to beat down on Polar then to beat down on \m/.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Nintenderek

[New Frontier]

What? Polaris lost hundreds of members. I *think* though I'm not sure that \m/ had higher retention rates than Polar.

\m/ lost ALL their members, buddy.

[Penguin]

I have been around for three years, yes. I think the problem here is communication - I'm really not trying to argue that \m/ had as much perseverance as NpO. They didn't (but they did face drastically different outlooks and that clouds any comparisons). I'm saying I believe \m/ fought better than Polaris did, based on how far NpO fell despite \m/'s drastically higher war-to-member ratio.

I'm not arguing that \m/ had a stronger community than NpO, or 'more balls' or courage, or any of that. I'm talking about how they matched up when fighting in a losing war. Does this help clarify?

On principle, I completely agree that \m/ and Polar facing different scenarios "clouds any comparisons". On that same note, Polaris and \m/ faced different enemies with different levels of military strength. You may have had all your slots filled but the alliances attacking you (yes, including Polaris) were not military heavyweights. Tech was less important. \m/ faced few nuclear armed nations in general. There were far fewer ways to damage infrastructure and your opponents were on average smaller than you. Polaris faced a much more heavily armed foe which had a large tech and nuke advantage and a much higher Damage/Time output. This makes any comparison of military fortitude pretty cloudy as well. Either way, we're both still losers.

I am disappointed in my own bawwwing now. Grub will lock me in the cellar.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penguin