Post-War Ratings

[bigwoody]

With the Cluster$%&@ War drawing to a close, lets go ahead and hear how you think people did. How did your opponents do? How did the people you directly fought with do?

Carried over from a less well suited thread...

TOP was absolutely jaw-dropping. They simply dismantled their opposition across the board. With better odds, TOP in your coalition is a game-changer, and that cannot be said about any other alliance.

IRON continues to improve. Their performance this war was hurt by low warchests, due to their Karma beating, but they fought with higher morale and have shown great resilience. Certainly they made it hurt.

DAWN are scrappers. Small in number, so their impact isn't as visible, but they dealt far more damage than they took.

Mushroom Kingdom are good, and have a handful of elite fighters, but they're a victim of over-hype (mostly their own). 8/10 is about right.

IAA are a mixed bag. Some of their top ranks are well prepared an coordinate effectively, and are thus as dangerous as anyone. Most of them are not this way, and spent more time trying to weasel away from the nukes I was dropping than fighting back (though bill lock may have played a role).

ODN have improved significantly over previous wars. They are not yet an elite fighting alliance, but they're above average.

The Nexus alliances flopped hard and were, to be honest, outclassed. I knew from the moment they tried to threaten us over their getting nuked that they were weak hearted.

The Resistance surprised me. They were well prepared, and had good tech levels...their nukes hurt and were hard to bill lock.

Edited April 18, 2010 by bigwoody

[shilo]

[quote name='shilo' date='18 April 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1271611995' post='2265028']
I can only go by what I know from personal experience, ie those alliances I fought against, and those I fought with.

For me personally, in significant numbers, I fought against IAA, FARK, gRAMlins. I fought with IRON and TORN for the most part.

Here, as opposition, Fark impressed a lot: they had for the very large part good or really good WCs, coordinated nicely, good wonder setup. For a large alliance, very impressive.
IAA had the spirit, but lacked the WCs and wonders to be effective.
Having concentrated on gRAMlins in the last two weeks, I was disappointed with their WCs for the very large part, except a few exceptions, they have no WCs worthy of an elite alliance. As almost all of them turtled, I cannot judge their fighting ability, the one gRAMlin I fought earlier in the war fought ok, mostly owned me though due to a sizeable tech advantage.

TORN as partners impressed quite a lot, they got in one of the few surrenders during the war for our side, those who fought them will likely agree they definitely knew to handle themselves.
IRON was engaged by about 30 alliances, and their fighting spirit is still unbroken after this war, considering gRAMlins basically cut them off from their internal aid suppliers, and the performance during the last war and the gRAMlin conflict so far, quite impressive.
[/quote]

[alyster]

I think neutrality served us well. We're #3 now while still under ToS

I'm just sad about friendly allainces

[Natan]

All of the people known to be "good fighters" showed why they're known as such. I expected nothing less of what they put out there.

The rest of CN showed how jaw droppingly useless you can be at war.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Natan

[Scorponok]

It's The Resistance, not "The Revolution" .

And I'd like to put an obligatory o7 TOP here, but nothing needs to be said.

[Sal Paradise]

I have to agree with the OP that my allies fought impressively and with resilience while my enemies were over-hyped and cowardly.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[Ashoka the Great]

I have nothing negative to say about Nordreich's former opponents, as they fought with honor and determination.

Well....except for one alliance that, to NoR's collective shock and disappointment, transmogrified into shelled reptiles almost from Day One.

[Goldie]

I can imagine had the fight gone on long enough I would have been able to say from firsthand experience 'Argent are a !@#$@#$ force'.

[Lennox]

The Guru Order and Fark nations were absolutely pathetic. (At least the people I fought). RnR was decent and the guys I fought from CSN were pretty badass. Props to those CSN nations. The rest could learn a thing or two.

[Alekhine]

A few of the IRON guys I fought were complete flops, although one of them was a victim of inactivity and didn't even log on during the duration of our war. Another of the IRON guys gave a good fight (kozmo101), although I had a tech advantage that he couldn't overcome. The Old Guard guy that declared on me fulfilled his purpose (keeping me in anarchy and unable to declare where I wanted), and was content to only use enough resources to do that. Two more Old Guard guys I fought, but that was right before the ceasefire/peace agreement, so we only had a couple days of shot firing there, and one of those guys was inactive as well.The only DAWN nation I fought was Golan 1st, who had a large tech advantage on me and was active enough to make it hurt.

Overall, based on the reports of some of my alliance mates, our opponents overall were good fighters, except when we hit the inevitable inactive nation. Our performance was pretty good, although not as good as what I would've liked it to be.

[MagicalTrevor]

[quote name='Natan' date='18 April 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1271615079' post='2265091']
All of the people known to be "good fighters" showed why they're known as such. I expected nothing less of what they put out there.

The rest of CN showed how jaw droppingly useless you can be at war.
[/quote]
Pretty much this, nobody that i expected to be good was bad, nobody i expected to be bad was good. FEAR were impressively bad though (those i fought anyway)

[James I]

My direct opponents: I fought people in TOP, TSO and FEAR. I was left unimpressed by the FEAR opponent, while I'd say that my TSO and TOP opponents were at the same sort of (decent) level on average, but TOP's fighters tended to be a little more erratic than TSO's - either very good or not very good. Small sample size, of course.

TSO had the best banter.

As I say, you only get a small sample, and although you can get a decent understanding of how proficient your opponents are from a 7-day war, it can often still be very hard to assess them accurately. There's a lot of luck involved in fighting, even if you know what you're doing tactically.

I wasn't involved in the war planning in any great detail, so feel ill-equipped to comment on how each alliance fared as a whole.

Oddly, I fought one of my TOP opponents in the noCB War for MK when he was at TORN.

[leprecon]

I hope I am not too hasty in saying this, but the VE didn't do much. Sure we declared on 4 or 5 alliances, but most of them surrendered pretty fast.

I am not trying to brag here, we declared wars on the 19th 20th and the 24th, while we got surrenders on the 21st and the 24th, and some other day I don't know about. There was also the declaration on the NpO around the 3rd (before all the others) but due to the fustercluck-ness there wasn't much fighting and most of the slots were taken.

Edit: Turns out I am misinformed.

Edited April 18, 2010 by leprecon

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='18 April 2010 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1271620514' post='2265209']
Pretty much this, nobody that i expected to be good was bad, nobody i expected to be bad was good. FEAR were impressively bad though (those i fought anyway)
[/quote]

Depends on the individuals you fought. That's always been FEAR's issue, was inconsistent performance between members. Some are extremely good, and others not so much.

[cookavich]

I can only comment on the nations I actually fought, but out of all my opponents (2 \m/, 1 GOD, 2 VE, and 1 FOK) only the FOKker knew what he was doing.

[Uralica]

[quote name='Lord Boris' date='18 April 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1271623497' post='2265273']
Depends on the individuals you fought. That's always been FEAR's issue, was inconsistent performance between members. Some are extremely good, and others not so much.
[/quote]

Same can be said for TOOL. Trust me, I'm in the alliance.

[aaannndddyyy]

ODN has shown improvement as stated in the OP.

neneko from MK was the only good fighter I fought in MK and I fought like 6 or 7.

province of troy from The Resistance is the one that destroyed my nation. He knew what he was doing.

Shout out to ODN and The Resistance I guess

[lebubu]

All the TOP guys I fought sucked because [b]I hate them so much[/b],

[Tarikmo]

out of all 5 nations I fought, shout out to FOK especially, they had 2 nations attack me within a minute of each other, and every attack they did was synchronized, not to mention the tech level, what really surprised me was there customer service! A FOK govt member (I think) asked me how the wars going for me! How nice

\m/, I only attacked one, but he gave me a hard fight, and if it wasn't for the other 2 Polar attacks, I'd be in some serious trouble.

PC only had one guy attack me, and he was just sorta, ok, I was expecting more though.

[LJ Scott]

I got confirmation that several alliances I thought to be pitiful, were inded pitiful.

And that several alliances I knew to be pitiful, are still pitiful.

[Sandwich Controversy]

TOP performed as expected (good)
IRON performed as expected (horrendous)
DAWN had hilarious warchests. Good work Golan 1st, I don't think I've seen a top 100 nation tumble that quickly. Seriously, it's obvious to see why their avg went from 80k to 12k.
FEAR, hit or miss.
TSO I didn't fight, but I heard they were ok.
TORN miraculously have not disbanded. Kudos. They were average.

MK of course was the best.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='18 April 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1271631764' post='2265456']
MK of course was the best.
[/quote]

Confirming this. Our enemies, after all, never stood a chance.

Personally I mostly fought TOP. They were certainly more competent than past enemies of MK's, all things considered. A tad overrated however. Plenty of warrior nations (with military wonders and mammoth warchests), but also plenty of nations that were bill-locked or close to bill-lock a few rounds in and/or otherwise did little.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='SirWilliam' date='18 April 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1271632538' post='2265467']
Confirming this. Our enemies, after all, never stood a chance.

Personally I mostly fought TOP. They were certainly more competent than past enemies of MK's, all things considered. A tad overrated however. Plenty of warrior nations (with military wonders and mammoth warchests), but also plenty of nations that were bill-locked or close to bill-lock a few rounds in and/or otherwise did little.
[/quote]
You mean all 200 members [i]didn't[/i] have $7b warchests???

[Vladimir Stukov II]

MK was great. Even though they like to say they are the best, they know we would beat them 1v1.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Well of course not, on average your nations killed our statistically before the war

But [i]now...[/i]