Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Diogenes]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283114839' post='2434945']
Whatever rocks your boat, considering your attitude you would not even admit it if evidence to the contrary war shown.
As i said earlier, in my opinion MK has a good military but they're not the best.
[/quote]

That's all good and well, but as babyjesus has pointed out, your opinion is objectively flawed. Thanks for playing!

[Sulmar]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283114744' post='2434943']
Biased towards who or what? Lol, I'm totally neutral here, you're just mad.
[/quote]
The fact that there really is no way to tell who is the best military alliances leads everyone to just pick their favorite alliance. To be clear, the poll is not biased in any significant way (except for NSO's exclusion ), just the fact that there is no true measure leads to biased results.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Sulmar

[Alterego]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1283115520' post='2434962']
So how about the reps being a punishment for declaring on an uninvolved party?
[/quote]
Plenty from your side did it before them just picking alliances they didnt like with no CB or treaty. Were you going to sit there and watch your allies burn without lifting a finger?

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283114744' post='2434943']
Biased towards who or what? Lol, I'm totally neutral here, you're just mad.
[/quote]

I would like you to make arguments as to why you think NPO is a "bigger, better version" of us. If you manage to make legitimate arguments, then you can claim to be objective. Otherwise, it just sounds like you talking out of your ass.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283116291' post='2434978']
Plenty from your side did it before them just picking alliances they didnt like with no CB or treaty. Were you going to sit there and watch your allies burn without lifting a finger?
[/quote]
Because C&G was fighting IRON's allies at the time. Of course!

[Matt Miller]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283113695' post='2434904']
And that they stayed in peace mode until Gre destroyed itself. An incredible feat!
[/quote]
I beg to differ. I actively participated in the destruction of many Gramlin nations as did many other IRONers. I spoke with and convinced many of them to quit Gre (not an act of self-destruction), watched as 5 of them that I fought before the signing of the ESA allowed themselves to delete within weeks of finishing my round with them, and kept on beating on anything else in my range with only one short break from late January until the day they finally accepted our offer of white peace (6 months later). I am not by any means alone in that process either.

We methodically climbed the ladder and utter destroyed them while taking the least damage possible. Like I said this was accomplished by isolating them one by one as well as actively convincing dozens of others to leave Gre high and dry. That is a tactic that I think worked to near perfection. I don't personally care if it was at a pace that was too slow for your liking, we did it nonetheless. I think your bias is clouding your judgment.

[Believland]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283115338' post='2434955']
I thought they were so bad they barely scratched you guys. Yet you hit them for super reps. The other day SC told me Sparta got a clean slate for being rubbish on the battlefield. He is either playing down IRONs ability or you are just a bunch of money grabbing liars.
[/quote]

[img]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/88/blaho.png[/img]
... Goes to join NSO

[Alterego]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1283116569' post='2434984']
Because C&G was fighting IRON's allies at the time. Of course!
[/quote]
So its an acceptable practice for you and your friends only.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283116291' post='2434978']
Plenty from your side did it before them just picking alliances they didnt like with no CB or treaty. Were you going to sit there and watch your allies burn without lifting a finger?
[/quote]
Ok let me put in a simpler 'yes or no' form: when an alliance declares war on an uninvolved party and loses, is it OK for the victor to demand reps as a punishment?

[Alterego]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1283116652' post='2434987']

... Goes to join NSO
[/quote]
Cute, you must be a C&G groupie.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1283116732' post='2434989']
Ok let me put in a simpler 'yes or no' form: when an alliance declares war on an uninvolved party and loses, is it OK for the victor to demand reps as a punishment?
[/quote]
You dont get to tell me what my asnwer is before you ask a question. I speak for myself out here in the free world.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Alterego

[Gobb]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283117037' post='2434995']
You dont get to tell me what my asnwer is before you ask a question. I speak for myself out here in the free world.
[/quote]
Sorry.
So how is it? Is it OK to demand reps as a punishment from an alliance that declares war on an uninvolved party?

[LegendoftheSkies]

I believe Kronos will be declaring on whoever wins Best Military Alliance, so be sure to vote Kronos so we can declare on ourselves

[Alterego]

[quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1283117226' post='2435000']
Sorry.
So how is it? Is it OK to demand reps as a punishment from an alliance that declares war on an uninvolved party?
[/quote]
That depends on what you mean by uninvolved. If you answer this I will answer you. Did you intend abandoning your allies in that war and not entering?

[Believland]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283116782' post='2434992']
Cute, you must be a C&G groupie.
[/quote]

You caught me, bro.

[Supertwigs]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283117418' post='2435003']
That depends on what you mean by uninvolved. If you answer this I will answer you. Did you intend abandoning your allies in that war and not entering?
[/quote]
at the time of the attack, we were not in conflict
therefore, we were uninvolved bystanders

sure, at some point later we may have jumped in, but at the time, we were not in the heat of battle
we were attacked for no reason, and unjustly, therefore we required reps for wrongful damages

if you werent so biased, youd say this makes sense

[Gobb]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283117418' post='2435003']
That depends on what you mean by uninvolved. If you answer this I will answer you. Did you intend abandoning your allies in that war and not entering?
[/quote]
I am and have never been MK (high) gov so I don't fully know what our intentions in that war were before the TIDTT attack. Up until that moment our government members were very much pursuing peace for the war and trying to prevent further escalation, as they had been doing since the very start of the war.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283110491' post='2434829']
Best is New Pacific Order for intensive training to their members and a long history of fighting large, long wars, which in turn gives them a lot of experience. There are also countless other reasons, but I'm too lazy to type it out.
[/quote]

Question: Have you ever fought the New Pacific Order? Because I have, and I wasn't all that impressed.

Also, what you said about NSO was stupid.

[Masterof9puppets]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1283117332' post='2435001']
I believe Kronos will be declaring on whoever wins Best Military Alliance, so be sure to vote Kronos so we can declare on ourselves
[/quote]

I verify this statement.
/s/

Edited August 29, 2010 by Masterof9puppets

[Alterego]

[quote name='Supertwigs' timestamp='1283117784' post='2435009']
at the time of the attack, we were not in conflict
therefore, we were uninvolved bystanders

sure, at some point later we may have jumped in, but at the time, we were not in the heat of battle
we were attacked for no reason, and unjustly, therefore we required reps for wrongful damages

if you werent so biased, youd say this makes sense
[/quote]
Their treaties demanded they enter. If you posted a notice of neutrality then you were attacked then you might have a point.

[Andre27]

[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1283116195' post='2434976']
That's all good and well, but as babyjesus has pointed out, your opinion is objectively flawed. Thanks for playing!
[/quote]

It's always refreshing to see such totally unbiased towards their own alliance members of MK.
Face up to facts fellows ridiculing other people's opinion does not signify your own ( unless off course you mean i erred with regard to MK having a good military, in that case I'm more than willing to accept my mistake).

[Banksy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283118302' post='2435019']
Their treaties demanded they enter. If you posted a notice of neutrality then you were attacked then you might have a point.
[/quote]
Of course, their MADP with TOP!

[Branimir]

To judge the best armies of the game in 2010., best way is on the basis of their performance. Thus, NPO (for the lack of waring this year) really has little to nothing to do with the poll.

I believe its quite glaringly obvious that TOP was the most powerful army in 2010. It was a huge hammer that everybody waited to fall. And it did this year. There really is no contest here.

Yes, I am using past tense, but its to judge the best one in 2010. generally thus far, and that army was the best even if its not anymore on its peak due to war attrition and reps.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Branimir

[Gobb]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1283118302' post='2435019']
Their treaties demanded they enter. If you posted a notice of neutrality then you were attacked then you might have a point.
[/quote]
After NSO entered the war against FOK, the alliances that declared on them were R&R, GOD, Fark and GO.
IRON, who had a treaty with NSO then declared with their buddies only on CnG (a bloc that had members on neither front) and not on any of the above.
How did their treaties demand that?

Edited August 29, 2010 by Lord Gobb

[Manwe]

Stay on topic please.