Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' timestamp='1283216260' post='2436351']
yet another false and misleading statement.... NATO paid it's part. Would be nice to see veterans like yourself take the high road at least once. I honestly feel bad for you and how things in your life must be to act this way all the time.





[i]Those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace.
-Buddha[/i]
[/quote]


[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1283216269' post='2436352']
Just for the pleasure of correcting you



EDIT: Still no idea where you picked UCN in that
[/quote]
Bad memory, apologies.

[Andre27]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283252169' post='2436926']
Every alliance has good and bad fighters.
[/quote]

Most certainly true. I do not consider myself the very best, but i always make sure i'm prepared for at least two months of continuous warfare.
Preparation is key, coordination is second.

[Louisa]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283252169' post='2436926']
But, we were engaged with IRON, GGA, MCXA, NADC, Echelon, and TUF all at once. And still held on to the #1 spot.
[/quote]

I have always hated statements like this, because they are so silly. They give the impression that you all by yourself had to face six Alliances, and fails to mention that all those Alliances had to fight others beside you. (Why not mention all your allies helping you out against this dirty half-dozen?) Number of Alliances involved means nothing.

Also, useless poll, will not vote

[Vladimir]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1283246938' post='2436890']There is literally no other conclusion this poll can show--NO MATTER HOW VOTES ARE CAST--other than "NPO > Sparta".[/quote]
Some things are just fact.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1283196144' post='2435991']
Really? Because I thought TOP/IRON just aggressively attacked C&G with no treaty being activated with with this CB, "We don't like them. And they might attack one of our allies in the future."
[/quote]
That was FAN's CB on IRON, except they skipped the second sentence.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1283200367' post='2436071']
Lol, as far as I can recall you fought only Opgefokt in the Second Unjust war and thethirdMark in the Karma war so I guess you were lucky. Opgefokt just dismissed his entire navy and made an infra jump just before the war tensions, which was kinda unlucky but he still fought the Molon labe toptier and took you on too. He has now a much bigger nation than yourselves and he was far from "annihilated" after the war. Also you were fighting our reserves. Remember that in the Second Unjust war we first had our round of wars with the Aztec bloc, NpO, CCC, NSO and some smaller alliances.
[/quote]
We had our first round of wars in that war too you know

Opgefokt was the guy I was talking about, yeah. He has more infra than I do now but my guess is his warchest is still around 500M or so at the most. For several months I had more infra than he did; after the war he didn't even get back to 8K due to insufficient warchest.

Yes, he's got a bigger nation than I do. But that's because he buys tech, while my slots are directed to other purposes. He's just going to get slapped silly in the next war by someone who knows how to keep a warchest. Again.

And that was the problem in general with FOK; no clue on warchests.

TTM had a decent warchest but he fought NPO for way too long. Someone should have told him "No, rebuild yourself" and switched another nation in to fight Pacifica.

iFOK was even worse. I still remember the wave of newbies they sent at me, it was hilarious. The guys didn't even fire CMs, and I didn't have time to bill-lock them.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1283200367' post='2436071']
After that we fought a few Invicta nations but we were mainly fighting Molon labe, MCXA, Echelon, Wolfpack USN and some smaller alliances like Menotah.
[/quote]
Yes, you fought Molon Labe and a group of other alliances that are, well, not known for their military proficiency. Good for you.

I talked to the ML guys, they loved seeing you lot in their slots.

[hizzy]

we need a poll on the multiple reasons why Battalion has absolutely horrible (albeit funny, but we're laughing at you not with you) logic and reasoning, and should elect to never create another poll again.

[Drai]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' timestamp='1283246938' post='2436890']
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.
[/quote]Despite all that, your performances have been absolutely terrible. I can only think of one other alliance that was as hard to reach as you guys in terms of ensuring staggers and target coordination. And this is saying something considering you guys had the 2nd-most nations on our side. Your performance was even worse in Karma. One of the large nations you had in the minority that was willing to fight made a non-nuclear agreement with a TOP member. (yeah it's just one nation but I don't exactly have a lot to base your upper tier on considering how many of them were actually willing to fight).

Get over yourself. This poll isn't great in terms of setup but if you're beating out alliances like Legion, MHA, and UPN you need to take the hint that your alliance is pretty awful at war. You would likely still be winning your side of the poll if everybody listed in the 'best military' category was also listed in the 'worst military category'. There's no way you can try and convince anyone that you're even close to average.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1283257699' post='2436970']
we need a poll on the multiple reasons why Battalion has absolutely horrible (albeit funny, but we're laughing at you not with you) logic and reasoning, and should elect to never create another poll again.
[/quote]
It's hilarious in how he thinks he's so clever and above the rest.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Drai

[KingEd]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283252169' post='2436926']
Wow, people sure get upset about an opinion poll, huh?

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.
[/quote]

Yes because apparently clinging onto your #1 spot is more of a victory to MHA than being the military powerhouse it should be. Please correct me if I'm wrong but when has MHA ever had more than 3000 nukes at one time ? For an alliance of its size it should be a given yet you seem to have trouble reaching that mark.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283253325' post='2436934']
Bad memory, apologies.
[/quote]

Worry not, there have been worse mistakes

[SiCkO]

[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]

you guys were just completely worthless

I always laughed when a spartan would attack me since it meant a free war slot filled up, not to mention you somehow let your target list get out.

[Cable77]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283252169' post='2436926']MHA didn't fight in a vacuum during the last war.[/quote]

[quote name='Louisa' timestamp='1283255254' post='2436953']
I have always hated statements like this, because they are so silly. They give the impression that you all by yourself had to face six Alliances, and fails to mention that all those Alliances had to fight others beside you. (Why not mention all your allies helping you out against this dirty half-dozen?) Number of Alliances involved means nothing.[/quote]

That's why I prefaced with the above statement. I do acknowledge we had help. And you can acknowledge we didn't fall like a rock despite all those battles.

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283260258' post='2436980']
Yes because apparently clinging onto your #1 spot is more of a victory to MHA than being the military powerhouse it should be. Please correct me if I'm wrong but when has MHA ever had more than 3000 nukes at one time ? For an alliance of its size it should be a given yet you seem to have trouble reaching that mark.[/quote]

I was just pointing out facts. Most Hitchhikers don't even want the #1 spot much less consider it a victory. Thanks for telling us what we should be, though. I'll be sure to take it under advisement.

[The Corrupt Teacher]

Voted MK for best Military alliance. Seriously in Unjust War 2 and for the Athens-TPF war they had over 100 people (out of 150 at the time) online. Most of which who had good warchests and fighting exp. I mean you can't beat that kind of coordination.

As for worst. MHA while Sparta is another alliance I was tempted to vote for (sorry guys) they at least can muster oh about 1/4 of their total NS as a coherent fighting force and can fight when called upon. I just remember them being a pain coordinating with Karma because they were never ready and couldn't pull their own weight. They pretty much fought like an alliance 1/10 of their size and overall were just a nice big meatshield to absorb attack from IRON.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283257950' post='2436972']
Despite all that, your performances have been absolutely terrible. I can only think of one other alliance that was as hard to reach as you guys in terms of ensuring staggers and target coordination. And this is saying something considering you guys had the 2nd-most nations on our side. Your performance was even worse in Karma. One of the large nations you had in the minority that was willing to fight made a non-nuclear agreement with a TOP member. (yeah it's just one nation but I don't exactly have a lot to base your upper tier on considering how many of them were actually willing to fight).

Get over yourself. This poll isn't great in terms of setup but if you're beating out alliances like Legion, MHA, and UPN you need to take the hint that your alliance is pretty awful at war. You would likely still be winning your side of the poll if everybody listed in the 'best military' category was also listed in the 'worst military category'. There's no way you can try and convince anyone that you're even close to average.


It's hilarious in how he thinks he's so clever and above the rest.
[/quote]


We understand that our perform is Karma was subpar. However, if you are talking about this year you are wrong sir. I would ask you a favor. Ask MK gov, [s]who[/s] the ones in your alliance that were really running the war show, if they think that our performance on the last war is bad. If they say so, I will shut my mouth.

This is of course, if you want to be honest and fair. If you don't please don't waste my time.

Edited August 31, 2010 by King Louis the II

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1283264658' post='2437029']
We understand that our perform is Karma was subpar. However, if you are talking about this year you are wrong sir. I would ask you a favor. Ask MK gov, [s]who[/s] the ones in your alliance that were really running the war show, if they think that our performance on the last war is bad. If they say so, I will shut my mouth.

This is of course, if you want to be honest and fair. If you don't please don't waste my time.
[/quote]
No, not bad. There were of course many within Sparta that gave subpar performances as MK and TOP members will attest to, but by and large your nations were able to mobilize quickly and provide invaluable aid, especially in the early days of the war. It was by no means a great performance or something to brag about, but enough to show that Sparta had come a long way since the embarrassing "500 warriors. 12 man blitz." performance of the noCB War. There were many more disappointing alliances fighting in the last war (even some previously recognized as military goliaths) that Sparta doesn't really deserve to win this by any measure. Maybe I had low expectations from the past by for me Sparta was a pleasant surprise v[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]v

MHA is much more deserving of the flak Sparta gets.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283257950' post='2436972']
Despite all that, your performances have been absolutely terrible. I can only think of one other alliance that was as hard to reach as you guys in terms of ensuring staggers and target coordination. And this is saying something considering you guys had the 2nd-most nations on our side. Your performance was even worse in Karma. One of the large nations you had in the minority that was willing to fight made a non-nuclear agreement with a TOP member. (yeah it's just one nation but I don't exactly have a lot to base your upper tier on considering how many of them were actually willing to fight).

Get over yourself. This poll isn't great in terms of setup but if you're beating out alliances like Legion, MHA, and UPN you need to take the hint that your alliance is pretty awful at war. You would likely still be winning your side of the poll if everybody listed in the 'best military' category was also listed in the 'worst military category'. There's no way you can try and convince anyone that you're even close to average.
[/quote]

I have to respectfully say you're wrong. I found numerous alliances harder to work with than Sparta on staggers, perhaps in the past Sparta was not much to be wreckon with, but about 50% of those alliances listed on the worst military alliances are judged entirely by past rep, when I know for a fact some have made strides, even if I still think it won't work.

Sparta in specific had a very simple to reach government to help Asgaard when we needed someone during our war against Legion to defend them. Hell, when Asgaard was about 80% in nuclear anarchy and unable to engage in round two with Legion, Sparta and friends picked up our slack for us.

They've ejected nations unwilling to fight, they're refining their military, and I believe next war we can judge fairly if the recent waves of expulsions, efforts to improve, and their new programs have made an impact or not. Until then I respectfully reserve the right to laugh at anyone making claims that Sparta is the worst when there are alliances out there like UPN who avoid wars, Legion who have a group of good fighters but then a significant drop in education after that first probably 50 people, especially with the MASH merger, and NADC who didn't even nuke me in Karma despite facing 3 nuclear nations and having no SDI back then.

I'd say Sparta is just so voted in here because that the opposing political side has seen enough shens on the forums in the past two months that they have their new punching bag for the forums, and many of them probably don't even know Sparta's fighting ability first hand, just assuming.

The ironic thing here, is that a large majority of those listed as "worst fighters" were also on the losing side of the previous conflict, leading to the assumption that losing a war somehow labels you as the worst fighters, and since those alliances majorily were on the same side and lost together, they would pick someone the group/front fought against to try and feel better about themselves and pretend someone is worse than they potentially are.

If you've read or followed this wall of text, I will give you a slice of pie.

E: To be quite honest Sandwich, I was most baffled by WAPA and R&R's performances in the last war of all alliances. But I think I just blocked out MHA since they fought GGA and that was boring.

Edited August 31, 2010 by lonewolfe2015

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283265383' post='2437039']
Sparta in specific had a very simple to reach government to help Asgaard when we needed someone during our war against Legion to defend them.
[/quote]

To comment on this, there was a two week period where none of Sparta's government was available. Otherwise I agree completely with everything you've said. RnR was completely broke within only a week or two, which was completely infuriating when we needed alliances to redeploy to help other failures. Truly terrible. WAPA I knew about because we've fought them twice.

MHA, in my view, is largely responsible for so much of IRON being able to hit peace mode. I was hoping such an enormous alliance would be able to put out a three figure number of declarations throughout the entire war.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[Earl Dumarest]

I don't understand why some people are bickering. It's only a silly poll; pretty meaningless really.

Despite this I voted WAPA, my own alliance as worst. Feel my pain.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283199279' post='2436048']
I also know WAPA are truly terrible and worthy of more than a few votes here. Keeping them from surrendering turned into a real issue partway into the war.
[/quote]
Yes and No. We had many nations of all sizes totally unprepared, both unprepared for the war, & unprepared for the consequences. Surrendering was never on the cards though. I know that certain parties did portray our initial peace talks as "WAPA surrendering", in order to further their own motives.


[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283199404' post='2436050']
Their members needed to grow a spine. I can only hope they did after their last performance.
[/quote]
Agreed, and I'd echo the hope that maybe having lost a good quantity of bad apples we are now a little stronger than we were


[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1283206657' post='2436169']
On the downside though, their warchests were simply terrible, with 14k infra nations having less than 2 million stored.
[/quote]
Sadly, we still have nations like that. It is unbelievable. Where's that facepalm picture?

[thaone]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283256584' post='2436963']
We had our first round of wars in that war too you know
[/quote]
FOK fought: NpO, NSO, 1TF, 2 smaller alliances- a few days of peace - MCXA, Echelon - you guys.

Like Timmehhh already told, FOK seriously engaged on NpO with seventy of their most active nations striking and getting redeclared upon.
The blitz on MCXA was the best I've ever seen in a planning sense.

[quote]
Opgefokt was the guy I was talking about, yeah. He has more infra than I do now but my guess is his warchest is still around 500M or so at the most. For several months I had more infra than he did; after the war he didn't even get back to 8K due to insufficient warchest.

Yes, he's got a bigger nation than I do. But that's because he buys tech, while my slots are directed to other purposes. He's just going to get slapped silly in the next war by someone who knows how to keep a warchest. Again.

And that was the problem in general with FOK; no clue on warchests.

TTM had a decent warchest but he fought NPO for way too long. Someone should have told him "No, rebuild yourself" and switched another nation in to fight Pacifica.
[/quote]

I know you would not be able to tell such a thing, but opgefokt is a fine example why FOK has a tier two military like the fine gentleman from VE told. He is not super active, but still ready to fight if called upon, like almost all FOK nations showed in the last war.

And to be honest, a warchest of 500M isn't really a lot at his infra level, but also not ridiculously low. I highly doubt if you'll ever get into bill-lock with such a chest.

[quote]
Yes, you fought Molon Labe and a group of other alliances that are, well, not known for their military proficiency. Good for you.

I talked to the ML guys, they loved seeing you lot in their slots.
[/quote]
Still they surrendered pretty quickly, so FOK's goals were reached.

--

I voted for MK as I don't really know about the current strength of Umbrella and if that would overcome the other meatshields we can throw at them.

Worst is IMO MCXA, who didn't have a clue about the fact that MHP's were important and their only superweapon emperor_tiberius also didn't really help.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283265125' post='2437034']
No, not bad. There were of course many within Sparta that gave subpar performances as MK and TOP members will attest to, but by and large your nations were able to mobilize quickly and provide invaluable aid, especially in the early days of the war. It was by no means a great performance or something to brag about, but enough to show that Sparta had come a long way since the embarrassing "500 warriors. 12 man blitz." performance of the noCB War. There were many more disappointing alliances fighting in the last war (even some previously recognized as military goliaths) that Sparta doesn't really deserve to win this by any measure. Maybe I had low expectations from the past by for me Sparta was a pleasant surprise v[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]v

MHA is much more deserving of the flak Sparta gets.
[/quote]

Thank you for your response sir. I never wanted to say that we are a fantastic powerful machine. We are not there yet. However, I think unfair the flak that we are under, wich clearly are for pollitical reasons.

I thank you again for your honesty.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283265706' post='2437045']
To comment on this, there was a two week period where [b]none of Sparta's government was available.[/b] Otherwise I agree completely with everything you've said. RnR was completely broke within only a week or two, which was completely infuriating when we needed alliances to redeploy to help other failures. Truly terrible. WAPA I knew about because we've fought them twice.

MHA, in my view, is largely responsible for so much of IRON being able to hit peace mode. I was hoping such an enormous alliance would be able to put out a three figure number of declarations throughout the entire war.
[/quote]

There was? I guess being a direct ally I just knew who to get ahold of, but between Link, Wilhelm, Hyp, Sethly and Tulak I'm pretty sure I always could find someone. But Asgaard also entered in the later stages of defense since we weren't a primary alliance, so it's possible you're referring to that time period.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283265936' post='2437049']
There was? I guess being a direct ally I just knew who to get ahold of, but between Link, Wilhelm, Hyp, Sethly and Tulak I'm pretty sure I always could find someone. But Asgaard also entered in the later stages of defense since we weren't a primary alliance, so it's possible you're referring to that time period.
[/quote]
I could find none of those people for that whole period, even in the back planning channels. I guess you were out of the war at that point.

[Louisa]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283263647' post='2437019']
That's why I prefaced with the above statement. I do acknowledge we had help. And you can acknowledge we didn't fall like a rock despite all those battles.
[/quote]

Well, I possibly could, except I have no idea what was going on then (I am not sure if I was playing then, maybe it was between my re-rolls).

And it was not a attack on your performances, just a general statement against your phrasing. Sorry to have offended

[Andre27]

[quote name='thaone' timestamp='1283265788' post='2437047']
I know you would not be able to tell such a thing, but opgefokt is a fine example why FOK has a tier two military like the fine gentleman from VE told. He is not super active, but still ready to fight if called upon, like almost all FOK nations showed in the last war.

And to be honest, a warchest of 500M isn't really a lot at his infra level, but also not ridiculously low. I highly doubt if you'll ever get into bill-lock with such a chest.
[/quote]

500M WC for a nation with 14K infra is pretty awful. In a full scale nuclear war especially at that infra level it's two weeks worth at best. Double that amount would be a place to start, but nowhere near comfortable.

I know nations half my size which have larger war chests than that. With all due respect a 500M war chest for a 14K infra nation is not asking, but begging for bill lock.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Andre27

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283266701' post='2437063']
500M WC for a nation with 14K infra is pretty awful. In a full scale nuclear war especially at that infra level it's two weeks worth at best. Double that amount would be a place to start, but nowhere near comfortable.

I know nations half my size which have larger war chests than that. With all due respect a 500M war chest for a 14K infra nation is not asking, but begging for bill lock.
[/quote]
Actually, Andre, it was 15K infra. And 400M.

And no CIA.

And in a curbstomp war, where there were roughly twice as many attacking nations as targets, he decided to tripleteam himself by attacking me and two Molon Labe nations, all already in nuclear anarchy. The fail runs thick.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283257950' post='2436972']
Despite all that, your performances have been absolutely terrible. I can only think of one other alliance that was as hard to reach as you guys in terms of ensuring staggers and target coordination. And this is saying something considering you guys had the 2nd-most nations on our side. Your performance was even worse in Karma. One of the large nations you had in the minority that was willing to fight made a non-nuclear agreement with a TOP member. (yeah it's just one nation but I don't exactly have a lot to base your upper tier on considering how many of them were actually willing to fight).
[/quote]
I'm kind of surprised to hear that considering all we did for you guys last war. We may not be MK, but we backed your ass up within minutes of IRON's blitz...and got off 120 wars within 20 minutes at that. We had the largest top tier on our side, and were more than willing to take on TOP's. Did we have a few that were !@#$%*^? yep...but we kicked the dead weight's asses out and ZI'd them immediately following the war. We also took out Legion in a week with Asgaard after umbrella moved on to NATO, took out TOOL's top tier when RIA asked us to (while taking on TOP staggers), and got anyone who [i]wasn't[/i] full of defensive wars from the seven different alliances attacking us to stagger ODN's mid range targets.

We aren't the most active alliance. We aren't the most stat heavy alliance. But when you needed us, we were there, and we came heavy...[i]for you[/i]. It just kinds of stings to put in everything you have into something only for the people you helped to be unappreciative. I only hope the MK gov members I worked with in the first half of the war (before I had to go back to doing college things) don't hold Sparta to such a low standard.


[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283265706' post='2437045']
To comment on this, there was a two week period where none of Sparta's government was available.
[/quote]
That was my fault. I tried to do the 10 hour days for as long as I could during the war, and that meant me missing the first two weeks of class that semester. I had to go back some time, and in the end I just couldn't keep up doing what I was doing for the war. I hope you understand.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Hyperion321