Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Rugby]

Up until 2010, and including 2010 actually, MHA has never lost a war. Sure our position in the MDP web was a significant factor, but the same is true for NPO. They lost GW1 and Karma when the tables were turned. MHA has consistently gone against larger alliances (The Legion, GOONS. IRONS, and the 6 vs 1 from UJW 2.0) and have never failed to defeat their targets. Just because we gave them white peace instead of ridiculous surrender terms doesn't make it less of a victory every single time.

I wouldn't at all say we were the best, but it seems our inclusion on the Worst is based on presumptions and fallacy, and not on anything approaching reality.

[Batallion]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1283208942' post='2436215']
Do we really?

People keep saying that it's "up until 2010"... Does that mean we should be basing our vote on the POV of December 31st, 2010?
[/quote]

Yeah that sounds about right. That's when the next war is estimated to be afterall.

[anenu]

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1283226579' post='2436566']
Up until 2010, and including 2010 actually, MHA has never lost a war. Sure our position in the MDP web was a significant factor, but the same is true for NPO. They lost GW1 and Karma when the tables were turned. MHA has consistently gone against larger alliances (The Legion, GOONS. IRONS, and the 6 vs 1 from UJW 2.0) and have never failed to defeat their targets. Just because we gave them white peace instead of ridiculous surrender terms doesn't make it less of a victory every single time.

I wouldn't at all say we were the best, but it seems our inclusion on the Worst is based on presumptions and fallacy, and not on anything approaching reality.
[/quote]

while i don't really want to bash on MHA (and i'm sure someone will be around shortly to do such anyway) i do have to point out that having never lost a war should not be a point of pride for any alliance because it generally means that either you either have always made sure to stay on the winning side or that you aren't very old and haven't had enough time yet to prove your loyalty to your friends. As MHA is a rather old alliance i'm sure you see what that makes you seem to be.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1283226579' post='2436566']
Up until 2010, and including 2010 actually, MHA has never lost a war. Sure our position in the MDP web was a significant factor, but the same is true for NPO. They lost GW1 and Karma when the tables were turned. MHA has consistently gone against larger alliances (The Legion, GOONS. IRONS, and the 6 vs 1 from UJW 2.0) and have never failed to defeat their targets. Just because we gave them white peace instead of ridiculous surrender terms doesn't make it less of a victory every single time.

I wouldn't at all say we were the best, but it seems our inclusion on the Worst is based on presumptions and fallacy, and not on anything approaching reality.
[/quote]


I think a good portion of MHA's bad reputation comes from never really having had to face harsh war conditions due to always managing to stay on the larger side of the web. There are several other alliances in the same boat as you who've never really had to fight a prolonged 1 vs 3 war.

Sparta is somewhat in that boat but they are also an extra special case where they actually failed pretty epically in 3 vs 1 warfare and I believe NPO managed to stomp on RoK pretty good because they weren't taking as much heat from Sparta as they should have been. They also allowed NPO to hit PM in mass waves and caused Karma to last at least an extra month.


There are a few allianes out there that have managed to always be on the good side of the treaty web and until they face long odds and show they can hold their own, hold together and then recover afterward, they will be questioned imo.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1283221215' post='2436470']
That was the whole point of VE's entry on half a dozen fronts. We targeted alliances who didn't want to surrender/were putting out a good amount of damage and basically sat on their heads for a day or two until they realized they needed to surrender. Very fun times, I simultaneously had a war with someone in USN, someone in TPF, and someone in Argent.
[/quote]
I remember your whirlwind tour of the ex-Heg side. You're the guys who put us out.

I can say that I didn't really expect it at the time since it was about 10 days into the war.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1283226579' post='2436566']
Up until 2010, and including 2010 actually, MHA has never lost a war. Sure our position in the MDP web was a significant factor, but the same is true for NPO. They lost GW1 and Karma when the tables were turned. MHA has consistently gone against larger alliances (The Legion, GOONS. IRONS, and the 6 vs 1 from UJW 2.0) and have never failed to defeat their targets. Just because we gave them white peace instead of ridiculous surrender terms doesn't make it less of a victory every single time.

I wouldn't at all say we were the best, but it seems our inclusion on the Worst is based on presumptions and fallacy, and not on anything approaching reality.
[/quote]
I can't think of any wars where MHA has taken on an 'equal' opponent. In the last war, for example, you struggled when GGA entered against you and pulled out of the IRON front completely. MHA nations rarely coordinated and were something of a hindrance in the early days because we couldn't contact your military leadership and we had no idea if you would pick up staggers (which you didn't).

I can't accurately talk about previous wars, but I haven't seen any evidence of MHA being a superior military force in the past either.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='adzzz' timestamp='1283224293' post='2436523']
thts not the case at all.

Best = Ragnarok for their effort on NSO
Worst = RIA
[/quote]
I don't mean to bash RoK but they had bump up initial attack and call in 4 other alliances just to hit NSO. If you are judging RoK by their recent effort. against NSO I'd say it was one of their more embarrasing performances.

[Sabertooth]

The poll is biased.

[Rugby]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1283229512' post='2436638']
I can't accurately talk about previous wars, but I haven't seen any evidence of MHA being a superior military force in the past either.
[/quote]

Which is why I very specifically said I don't think we are the best. But we are also not the worst, and that is my point.

[Feanor Noldorin]

Best alliance? TOP, by a large margin.

[caligula]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1283229512' post='2436638']
I can't think of any wars where MHA has taken on an 'equal' opponent. In the last war, for example, you struggled when GGA entered against you and pulled out of the IRON front completely. MHA nations rarely coordinated and were something of a hindrance in the early days because we couldn't contact your military leadership and we had no idea if you would pick up staggers (which you didn't).

I can't accurately talk about previous wars, but I haven't seen any evidence of MHA being a superior military force in the past either.
[/quote]

Oh, we'll give you that. No one's denying that. There were internal changes going on and we had several vacancies due to real life and a lack of talent at the time. The co-ordination in our wars was mangled horribly, but we adjusted and did quite fine. That problem has since been rectified and our latest perssonell in war has revamped our program considerably, (Cable started it and continues to follow through with reform, Madspartus currently.)

Unfortunately the nature of our alliance is not hostile (Harmless, Mostly...) and we didn't have the benefit of choosing when this war occurred. But C'est la Cybernations.

To say that the Mostly Harmless Alliance could not fight a single alliance on the list of Worst Military Alliances (There are also several that we would do quite fine against on our own on the Best side as well,) and is indeed the Worst Military Alliance is a bit tacky. If we're not taking this question literally (as we're arguing about the alliances on the poll, not in the game, as there are several 1 man alliances who probably suck militarily,) the MHA is far from the worst on the board.

Also, having "never having to face severe adversity at war," as it's being called, should never be held against an alliance. If anything it should be a credit. The critique of the MHA's political decisions is another discussion.

OOC: Hint: This is where people would probably say that MHA is politically inept when using the evidence of the contrary to support it. /OOC

Edited: Wordy

Edited August 31, 2010 by caligula

[Il Impero Romano]

I could have sworn we had a thread on this soon after the last war. Would probably be interesting to compare the two and see how peace time has faded the memory of war or whose preparations have made public note, but I think the formats were a bit different if I recall correctly (that one was rank alliance x from 1-10).

I look at it as tiered, with different alliances having different utility in certain situations. Tier one would be Umb, TOP, and MK, their extremely high activity, stats, and general competence distinctively set them apart. Tier two would be FOK, VE, NpO, and perhaps NPO (they fit the bill, despite the obvious difference in situation), high member count alliances with good activity and a proven general competence in war, but without the outrageous level of activity necessary or eye popping stats to put them in tier one. Tier three would be a bunch of other people I'm too lazy to explain right now.

That being said, picking a singular person to say is the "best" from tier one is almost impossible. So yea, I didn't vote.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Olaf Styke]

How convenient... you can only vote Sparta down, and you can only vote NPO and TOP up.

Nah, this poll isn't hugely biased at all; you know exactly what you're talking about.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1283240536' post='2436840']
How convenient... you can only vote Sparta down, and you can only vote NPO and TOP up.

Nah, this poll isn't hugely biased at all; you know exactly what you're talking about.
[/quote]

Lol, yeah, there were a couple of alliances I raised my eyebrow at.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1283240536' post='2436840']
How convenient... you can only vote Sparta down, and you can only vote NPO and TOP up.

Nah, this poll isn't hugely biased at all; you know exactly what you're talking about.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone could objectively claim that Sparta is the best military alliance, nor that TOP or Pacifica are the worst.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1283244360' post='2436865']
I don't think anyone could objectively claim that Sparta is the best military alliance, nor that TOP or Pacifica are the worst.
[/quote]

I agree. TOP and NPO are both decent military alliances. I wouldn't call them the very best though, that's probably Umbrella or possibly MK. But neither do Sparta, ODN, RIA, MHA, GATO or a couple of others on the list of worst military alliances deserve to be.

[King Todd]

Best is NPO. IDK what the worst is. Voted Wolfpack.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1283244682' post='2436869']
I agree. TOP and NPO are both decent military alliances. I wouldn't call them the very best though, that's probably Umbrella or possibly MK. But neither do Sparta, ODN, RIA, MHA, GATO or a couple of others on the list of worst military alliances deserve to be.
[/quote]
Well at least ODN and others got a mention, the commies never even made it onto the worst military list

[Olaf Styke]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1283244360' post='2436865']
I don't think anyone could objectively claim that Sparta is the best military alliance, nor that TOP or Pacifica are the worst.
[/quote]

Nor can you objectively claim that Sparta is the worst military alliance, nor that TOP or Pacifica are the best.

My issue isn't that the poll isn't objective, find me an 'objective poll', my issue is that the poll unnecessarily restricts the expression of people's incredibly biased opinions such that the polls are only capable of expressing negative opinions of one set of alliances but not positive ones, and are allowed to express positive opinions of another set of alliances, but not negative ones.

OP has placed an unnatural restriction on the graph, such that, on a scale where -1 is 'worst alliance' and +1 is 'best alliance', Sparta is only capable of a 'true neutral', zero on the graph, at best and -1 at worst. If 20,000 players thought Sparta was the best military alliance, and one thought it was the worst, Sparta would still achieve a poor rating because ONLY negative opinions can be registered. Similarly, NPO etc. have a restriction such that the lowest they can score is 'true neutral', zero on the graph, and the highest is 'best alliance' (+1). If 20,000 players thought NPO was the worst, and one thought they were the best, NPO would still be registered as a 'good military alliance'.

The practical upshot of which is the poll is designed such that, with even one vote cast for any of the candidates, the poll has been designed to conclude that NPO, TOP, MK, and the rest must ALWAYS be better than Sparta, Legion, UPN etc.

There is literally no other conclusion this poll can show--NO MATTER HOW VOTES ARE CAST--other than "NPO > Sparta".

This really isn't an opinion poll at all, it's just another propaganda stunt designed to try and convince people that Sparta and a handful of other alliances suck, and NPO and another set of alliances are awesome.

Trick polls ftl.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Olaf Styke

[D34th]

Someone got their fellings hurt

[Andre27]

As i stated in my earlier post i only judge on the performance of the alliances i faced.
In the GGA-MHA war i engaged 5 MHA nations.
During that time i won nearly all my GA, 80+% of my spy missions were successful, i maintained naval superiority and even placed full blockades against 4 of them.
All that does not mean that MHA is a bad military alliance.

However the fact that my warchest was actually larger than the combined warchest of those 5 nations (starting NS from roughly 100K to 80K) together, a messed up stagger and failure to redeclare even after Rl prevented me to login until update+12h leads me to nominate MHA as the worst military alliance.
Heck, if the war had not been nuclear i doubt if they would have been able to send me into anarchy.

I'm sure there are able combatants in MHA, but from the state of their military during the last war I'd say they have a long way to go.

[Voytek]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1283249075' post='2436909']
Someone got their fellings hurt
[/quote]
Quality response, A++++ would debate again

[Rugby]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283249110' post='2436910']
As i stated in my earlier post i only judge on the performance of the alliances i faced.
In the GGA-MHA war i engaged 5 MHA nations.
During that time i won nearly all my GA, 80+% of my spy missions were successful, i maintained naval superiority and even placed full blockades against 4 of them.
All that does not mean that MHA is a bad military alliance.

However the fact that my warchest was actually larger than the combined warchest of those 5 nations (starting NS from roughly 100K to 80K) together, a messed up stagger and failure to redeclare even after Rl prevented me to login until update+12h leads me to nominate MHA as the worst military alliance.
Heck, if the war had not been nuclear i doubt if they would have been able to send me into anarchy.

I'm sure there are able combatants in MHA, but from the state of their military during the last war I'd say they have a long way to go.
[/quote]

Well ignoring the fact that you completely contradicted your first point by your last paragraph and showed you were entirely basing your decision to nominate MHA as the worst ever military alliance up until 2010, on one conflict that occurred within 2010, let's not kid ourselves about GGA. The only reason GGA are not including in this poll and uniting the vote for Worst Military Alliance is because they disbanded so the OP didn't include them.

And speaking of the UJW 2.0, I've read of cases where MHA'ers would use GGA attacks to fund their wars against their other combatants. The fact that GGA contributed to attacking their Coalition partners, that TOP had to bail out GGA with war funds, and finally that GGA surrendered and lost the war, all very clearly indicates that when it comes to military capabilities the MHA is most certainly better than the GGA. May they rest in peace.

Edit; And to be clear, I can admit my bias towards my alliance when it comes to replying in this thread. Just wish others weren't trying to present their own bias as fact.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Rugby

[Cable77]

Wow, people sure get upset about an opinion poll, huh?

Every alliance has knocks on it. I was ignoring this thread because I don't consider MHA to be a "military alliance" (maybe it should have been "Best and Worst Alliance Militaries"?). Regular military service isn't compulsory and isn't our primary focus. We don't push hard for military wonders or rush to get nukes. We just do our thing while slowly improving our internal organization and communication.

MHA didn't fight in a vacuum during the last war. But, we were engaged with IRON, GGA, MCXA, NADC, Echelon, and TUF all at once. And still held on to the #1 spot. I'd think that alone would be enough to justify not having the worst alliance military, but of course I'm biased. For every story of attacking MHA nations and winning I've got one of attacking people from those six alliances and winning handily. Every alliance has good and bad fighters.

Did we have issues with communication and coordination? Absolutely. And we've worked on fixing them. We made some tactical errors in my opinion, but with new leadership I don't see that happening again. I'm quite sure we're still not the #1 powerhouse, but I think we're ok. Thanks for the offer to "fix us" Fark, but I'm pretty confident we'll be fine.

[D34th]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1283249322' post='2436912']
Quality response, A++++ would debate again
[/quote]

Who is debating?