Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1283280136' post='2437251']
This was the thread of last year.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=84472

Also I kinda agree with your list but I would include Fark as tier 2 alliance.
[/quote]

It seems more of last April than last year

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283270213' post='2437104']
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.
[/quote]
Don't worry, it murdered me too. (but I still went to class )

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283285766' post='2437329']
Don't worry, it murdered me too. (but I still went to class )
[/quote]
And I still got B's

[Wilhelm the Demented]

Sparta realizes we did poorly in Karma. We realize we improved for the last war, but that there is never such a thing as a perfect performance.

We are working to improve still, see you next war.

Edit: I'm also surprised people still think we have 500-600 members, lol. We expelled over 200 after Karma and haven't been recruiting heavily at all since - we've trimmed down to a healthy 350. I think we had 365ish when TOP and IRON declared on C&G.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Chaoshawk]

[quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1283148666' post='2435565']
I'm the leader of AcTi and in charge of Recruitment, and I don't think Sparta is the worst, and I know why Yew Gate was kicked out of Sparta. We actually have at least 3 or 4 Spartans in AcTi. They are very dedicated guys and have contributed much to the growth of AcTi. Trust me when I say that Wolfpack is definitely the worst military alliance ever. Maybe even Menotah, it's a close call.
[/quote]
Less that they suck at war and more like they're way too inactive to even bother doing anything at all.

Anyways I'd say MK, Farkistan and TOP are good fighting alliances

[Uralica]

[quote name='Wilhelm the Demented' timestamp='1283285982' post='2437335']
Sparta realizes we did poorly in Karma. [b]We realize we improved for the last war[/b], but that there is never such a thing as a perfect performance.[/quote]

This man ain't lying.

Of course I'd like to think TOOL did as well being how this war was something of a "purification by fire" experience where all our pixel-huggers and riff-raff got burnt away. But I will admit, we are far from a military powerhouse, although we do have some good fighters (Cyber King for example).

[Poobah]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283275552' post='2437200']
We don't have 500 members? We have around 350, and if I recall correctly we only had a few more than that during the cluster-$%&@ war.

As for the top tier, we had about 12-13 nations (I think) above 100k. Two of them were going to be out of the country, and one of them just had a kid. Governments from various alliances kept demanding we bring them out of peace mode but if they can't be around CN what are we supposed to do? Call them? I think that is why people think we had lots of insubordination, when in fact it was just a case of our members having crap to do in their RL. Only two of them were unwilling to fight and were kicked/ZI'd as per Spartan policy (why do you think we don't have 600 people anymore. If you don't fight for us, then you become target practice for those who will). The rest of our top tier all fought for the entire war. The reason we didn't always have tons of nations available for you to use was because we had to take out TOOL's top tier at the same time because RIA had their hands full with Argent. We covered as much as we could with what we had but we couldn't be everywhere at once. I'm not saying we were perfect...far from it in fact, but we certainly had more coming to help you than I think you remember.
[/quote]

I pretty much agree with this. From what I've heard, pound for pound you aren't the best fighters, but you have made some very good strides and improvements from where you were before.

[KingEd]

I guess we'll have to wait for the next Global war. It will most probably involve all the alliances named through out the course of this thread...and we'll reevaluate then!

[Floyd]

As being in the top 20 of MK prior to TOP-CG War I was fairly unimpressed with TOP's performance in it, but that was just because the stats were blinding and I was expecting much better coordination and planning into the attack.

So up to 2010 I would say the consistent best military is Mushroom Kingdom simply because of the military strategies employed and the method/madness of the individual Kingdom Nations.

Also I would rank the NPO if it was possible as the worst military I have ever fought against. The only reason at all that in nocb that I lost any amount of infra is that Echelon joined in my individual fights with some tech heavy nations that actually had the means to attack and defend.

[Drai]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283275552' post='2437200']
We don't have 500 members? We have around 350, and if I recall correctly we only had a few more than that during the cluster-$%&@ war.

As for the top tier, we had about 12-13 nations (I think) above 100k. Two of them were going to be out of the country, and one of them just had a kid. Governments from various alliances kept demanding we bring them out of peace mode but if they can't be around CN what are we supposed to do? Call them? I think that is why people think we had lots of insubordination, when in fact it was just a case of our members having crap to do in their RL. Only two of them were unwilling to fight and were kicked/ZI'd as per Spartan policy (why do you think we don't have 600 people anymore. If you don't fight for us, then you become target practice for those who will). The rest of our top tier all fought for the entire war. The reason we didn't always have tons of nations available for you to use was because we had to take out TOOL's top tier at the same time because RIA had their hands full with Argent. We covered as much as we could with what we had but we couldn't be everywhere at once. I'm not saying we were perfect...far from it in fact, but we certainly had more coming to help you than I think you remember.
[/quote]
I thought you had alot more than 350 during the past war. I could be wrong but regardless, 1 war per 3 members is not a great blitz, although I'll admit it's not 'worst military' level by any means.

Of course real life takes priority but you can't tell me that those obligations don't hinder your alliance's ability to be military competent, which is the point I'm trying to make. I'd be curious to see the total number of wars fought per nation by your top 20 that war. I can't imagine many of them had more than 4-5 whereas MK for example was averaging around 10 (a lot of us had 14+, I know I had 17). I say this because you're telling me that the majority of your top tier fought during that war yet I remember there always being a good 30-40% in peace mode and another 10-20% in war mode but not engaged in any wars. These stats aren't just based on the TOP front but take into account any alliance you were fighting, like TOOL. Sparta has a long way to go if they want to prove they are worth their weight on the battlefield.

[quote name='Floyd' timestamp='1283292690' post='2437479']
As being in the top 20 of MK prior to TOP-CG War I was fairly unimpressed with TOP's performance in it, but that was just because the stats were blinding and I was expecting much better coordination and planning into the attack.

So up to 2010 I would say the consistent best military is Mushroom Kingdom simply because of the military strategies employed and the method/madness of the individual Kingdom Nations.

Also I would rank the NPO if it was possible as the worst military I have ever fought against. The only reason at all that in nocb that I lost any amount of infra is that Echelon joined in my individual fights with some tech heavy nations that actually had the means to attack and defend.
[/quote]
I guess it varies from nation to nation but TOP coordinated pretty well on me in the earlier rounds of the war. After 2-3 rounds there was no need for them to as they were just turtling (like most of our nations really).

Edited August 31, 2010 by Drai

[Floyd]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283294789' post='2437505']
I thought you had alot more than 350 during the past war. I could be wrong but regardless, 1 war per 3 members is not a great blitz, although I'll admit it's not 'worst military' level by any means.

Of course real life takes priority but you can't tell me that those obligations don't hinder your alliance's ability to be military competent, which is the point I'm trying to make. I'd be curious to see the total number of wars fought per nation by your top 20 that war. I can't imagine many of them had more than 4-5 whereas MK for example was averaging around 10 (a lot of us had 14+, I know I had 17). I say this because you're telling me that the majority of your top tier fought during that war yet I remember there always being a good 30-40% in peace mode and another 10-20% in war mode but not engaged in any wars. These stats aren't just based on the TOP front but take into account any alliance you were fighting, like TOOL. Sparta has a long way to go if they want to prove they are worth their weight on the battlefield.


I guess it varies from nation to nation but TOP coordinated pretty well on me in the earlier rounds of the war. After 2-3 rounds there was no need for them to as they were just turtling (like most of our nations really).
[/quote]

Well out of 5 TOP nations on me at the time, only two would coordinate at any given attack, usually cause the cm dmg about half the ga and half the aa damage full potential. Although I would assume it would vary from nation to nation experience, still the best nations I have fought against to date.

[Blue Lightning]

The thread is not about whether the TOP nations you fought coordinated. The thread is about which alliance had the best military prior to 2010. If you vote MK then you are effectively saying that you think MK would have beaten TOP in a one on one. Which suggests you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about or you're just being dishonest.

I don't mean to harp on about this, but seeing people voting MK ahead of TOP is just mystifying to me. We demonstrated quite emphatically that we could demolish MK in a one on one during the bipolar war. Was everyone AFK for that or something?

I realise the poll is just being spammed by MK because they always do that, but seeing people actually posting it in the thread as a genuine opinion is what bothers me.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283294789' post='2437505']
I thought you had alot more than 350 during the past war. I could be wrong but regardless, 1 war per 3 members is not a great blitz, although I'll admit it's not 'worst military' level by any means.

Of course real life takes priority but you can't tell me that those obligations don't hinder your alliance's ability to be military competent, which is the point I'm trying to make. I'd be curious to see the total number of wars fought per nation by your top 20 that war. I can't imagine many of them had more than 4-5 whereas MK for example was averaging around 10 (a lot of us had 14+, I know I had 17). I say this because you're telling me that the majority of your top tier fought during that war yet I remember there always being a good 30-40% in peace mode and another 10-20% in war mode but not engaged in any wars. These stats aren't just based on the TOP front but take into account any alliance you were fighting, like TOOL. Sparta has a long way to go if they want to prove they are worth their weight on the battlefield.
[/quote]
Hm, allow me to elaborate.

That 120 wars was just on IRON, and only in the first 20 minutes. I'm not counting our 70k+ nations which were diverted to TOP, nor am I counting the other 60-ish staggers that were launched by our members who were not able to be online at update. In the first two days of the war, we had about 190 of our members on the offensive against IRON. When we hit TOP 4 days later, that number increased to just under 250 Spartans out of our 330-ish non-ghost members. That's roughly 75% of our alliance engaged offensively within the first day of our respective attacks. For an entire week before the TOP attack on C&G, we had over 90 members on IRC at update every night. On the actual night of the attack, we had 97.

I don't have stats to show what our top tier did against who. As for RL hindering our ability to be "militarily competent", I don't see it that way. I just see it as bad timing, and nothing more. If our members need time off we don't hold that against them and we will adapt and use what we have. It sucks but it happens to everyone, even MK (you can't say you've never had anyone who couldn't fight a war because they were going to be away from CN).

We are obviously not the greatest military in the world, but I'm starting to get tired of people belittling our improvements since Karma, and I'm REALLY tired of people saying we don't pull our weight. We launched a large military counter offensive on IRON within minutes despite GRE's best efforts to $%&@-up [i]everything[/i] (they literally asked me what a target list was). We went toe to toe with TOP's top tier with minimal incidents in comparison to Karma, and even did a decent job in knocking them down to the mid ranges. When umbrella moved on to NATO, we took out Legion [i]in a week[/i] in order to get back to helping ODN. We got TOOL's top tier to surrender with [i]one guy[/i]. We kept on fighting and kept on staggering and never gave up despite getting heavily countered by four alliances. Other than the single fighter we sent to neutralize TOOL's entire top tier, we never diverted a drop of our big boys to defend ourselves. We gave [i]everything[/i] to you and never complained or refused your requests for help. Not [i]once[/i]. I don't see anyone ever criticizing polar for their boys refusing to back up Sparta because "they didn't want to fight their friends in TOP". I don't see anyone ever saying [i]anything[/i] except that Sparta doesn't pull our weight.

If doing all of that for the people who ridiculed us for years isn't pulling our weight, I don't know what is.

I am sorry for the anger Drai; I truly am, as I know you aren't one of the blind Sparta haters our there. I am merely using your post as a means to express my general opinion, and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm targeting you. Consider my statements as a message to everyone who constantly puts Sparta down without good reason.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283296956' post='2437544']
The thread is not about whether the TOP nations you fought coordinated. The thread is about which alliance had the best military prior to 2010. If you vote MK then you are effectively saying that you think MK would have beaten TOP in a one on one. Which suggests you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about or you're just being dishonest.

I don't mean to harp on about this, but seeing people voting MK ahead of TOP is just mystifying to me. We demonstrated quite emphatically that we could demolish MK in a one on one during the bipolar war. Was everyone AFK for that or something?

I realise the poll is just being spammed by MK because they always do that, but seeing people actually posting it in the thread as a genuine opinion is what bothers me.
[/quote]
Sorry for double post.

Just because someone has more muscle doesn't make them better. NPO had enough muscle to smother small alliances during their reign, but that doesn't make them the best military, just the biggest. The same applies for TOP, you can't base it off of stats. If MK had the same stats as you, I think they would win. That makes them better imo.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Drai]

I completely understand and I appreciate the numbers as I obviously didn't follow it as closely as you did. I guess my main frustration came from the noticeable decline after your initial declarations (like I said with the approximate percentages in my previous post).

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283299715' post='2437601']
I completely understand and I appreciate the numbers as I obviously didn't follow it as closely as you did. I guess my main frustration came from the noticeable decline after your initial declarations (like I said with the approximate percentages in my previous post).
[/quote]
That was due to a decline in availability of milcom. Our EoD was in Haiti helping with relief, I had to go catch up in college after missing the first 2 weeks for the war, and a couple key officers had to tend to some RL issues as well. Had we all been able to stay at our 10 hour-a-day pace for the entire war I'm sure everyone's opinions of Sparta would be quite different, but alas...we had crap to do. Hopefully the next war is better timed.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283298794' post='2437575']
Sorry for double post.

Just because someone has more muscle doesn't make them better. NPO had enough muscle to smother small alliances during their reign, but that doesn't make them the best military, just the biggest. The same applies for TOP, you can't base it off of stats. If MK had the same stats as you, I think they would win. That makes them better imo.
[/quote]
They didn't have the same stats though, that's the point. We had about 200 members to their 120 or something and our average strength and average tech was still higher than theirs. Warchests were on similar levels from what I gathered of their's and we again had an advantage in terms of military wonders. These things didn't just happen by luck or by accident, it's called preparation.

You can have a thousand of the best fighters in CN but if their nations are all at 10 NS then what use are they as a military? Stats are so important in CN, often too important for my liking, that the best military would be the alliance with the best nations. I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't see how you can call someone the best military alliance without taking the statistics into account, when the statistics are by far the biggest factor in determining who wins and who loses.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Blue Lightning

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283302446' post='2437642']
They didn't have the same stats though, that's the point. We had about 200 members to their 120 or something and our average strength and average tech was still higher than theirs. Warchests were on similar levels from what I gathered of their's and we again had an advantage in terms of military wonders. These things didn't just happen by luck or by accident, it's called preparation.

You can have a thousand of the best fighters in CN but if their nations are all at 10 NS then what use are they as a military? Stats are so important in CN, often too important for my liking, that the best military would be the alliance with the best nations. I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't see how you can call someone the best military alliance without taking the statistics into account, when the statistics are by far the biggest factor in determining who wins and who loses.
[/quote]
Then I suppose we disagree on what matters the most. :-/

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283302446' post='2437642']
They didn't have the same stats though, that's the point. We had about 200 members to their 120 or something and our average strength and average tech was still higher than theirs. Warchests were on similar levels from what I gathered of their's and we again had an advantage in terms of military wonders. These things didn't just happen by luck or by accident, it's called preparation.

You can have a thousand of the best fighters in CN but if their nations are all at 10 NS then what use are they as a military? Stats are so important in CN, often too important for my liking, that the best military would be the alliance with the best nations. I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't see how you can call someone the best military alliance without taking the statistics into account, when the statistics are by far the biggest factor in determining who wins and who loses.
[/quote]

You seem to be quite upset that any alliance is considered for the better military than your "prestigious" TOP.

Perhaps if TOP had come out of the war showing the same bravado, at least NpO rebuilt their militaries and by all appearances seem to be a strong military force again (and a lot quicker post-war) Almost 25% of your top 40 nations don't even hold nukes right now, because you're relying on your terms to keep you protected.

You've barely been able to stay afloat with sanction due to the constant flux in members which was never a trait of TOP, and you're holding in total 200 more nukes with 3x the membership of my alliance. Your stats are washed up, as warriors you put all your cards into play the first fight and showed no tactic and a lackluster ability to regroup post-prolonged war.

MK on the other hand, despite facing heavy losses as well, and not in a situation to mooch protection, has rebuilt their military to grander heights than before.

Whether you had the numbers then or not, you clearly lacked follow through with those numbers, and anyone can you tell you that the saying goes, "It's not how big you are, but how you use it" which would quite easily apply here.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283303670' post='2437667']
You seem to be quite upset that any alliance is considered for the better military than your "prestigious" TOP.

Perhaps if TOP had come out of the war showing the same bravado, at least NpO rebuilt their militaries and by all appearances seem to be a strong military force again (and a lot quicker post-war) Almost 25% of your top 40 nations don't even hold nukes right now, because you're relying on your terms to keep you protected.

You've barely been able to stay afloat with sanction due to the constant flux in members which was never a trait of TOP, and you're holding in total 200 more nukes with 3x the membership of my alliance. Your stats are washed up, as warriors you put all your cards into play the first fight and showed no tactic and a lackluster ability to regroup post-prolonged war.

MK on the other hand, despite facing heavy losses as well, and not in a situation to mooch protection, has rebuilt their military to grander heights than before.

Whether you had the numbers then or not, you clearly lacked follow through with those numbers, and anyone can you tell you that the saying goes, "It's not how big you are, but how you use it" which would quite easily apply here.
[/quote]
You want us to have more nukes? I can cancel the order to not maintain nuclear weapons if you want me to. I can have our pages (the ones helping us pay reps) off our AA in a few days and you can watch our ANS sky rocket.

[President Obama]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283303670' post='2437667']
You seem to be quite upset that any alliance is considered for the better military than your "prestigious" TOP.

Perhaps if TOP had come out of the war showing the same bravado, at least NpO rebuilt their militaries and by all appearances seem to be a strong military force again (and a lot quicker post-war) Almost 25% of your top 40 nations don't even hold nukes right now, because you're relying on your terms to keep you protected.

You've barely been able to stay afloat with sanction due to the constant flux in members which was never a trait of TOP, and you're holding in total 200 more nukes with 3x the membership of my alliance. Your stats are washed up, as warriors you put all your cards into play the first fight and showed no tactic and a lackluster ability to regroup post-prolonged war.

MK on the other hand, despite facing heavy losses as well, and not in a situation to mooch protection, has rebuilt their military to grander heights than before.

Whether you had the numbers then or not, you clearly lacked follow through with those numbers, and anyone can you tell you that the saying goes, "It's not how big you are, but how you use it" which would quite easily apply here.
[/quote]
None of this in any way addresses Blue's argument. I'll ask you, do you think that any alliance pre-war could have defeated TOP one on one? If the answer is no then they're the best military alliance of 2010 is what Blue is saying.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='President Obama' timestamp='1283304280' post='2437676']
None of this in any way addresses Blue's argument. I'll ask you, do you think that any alliance pre-war could have defeated TOP one on one? If the answer is no then they're the best military alliance of 2010 is what Blue is saying.
[/quote]
but the poll question is "Which of the following is the best Military alliance in CN [b]up until[/b] 2010?"

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='President Obama' timestamp='1283304280' post='2437676']
None of this in any way addresses Blue's argument. I'll ask you, do you think that any alliance pre-war could have defeated TOP one on one? If the answer is no then they're the best military alliance of 2010 is what Blue is saying.
[/quote]

If we're talking all of 2010, from January 1st to today, then TOP is clearly not the best, whether anyone could have beaten you guys 1 on 1 or not at your 'height' is irrelevant to how I view the purpose of this thread.

You guys hit the greatest military height, if that's what you're asking for, at least in terms of stats. I do believe MK could have put up a very impressive fight 1 on 1 though (if you factored in their current nations w/ Vanguard) and it wouldn't have been this one sided stomp you guys believe it to be. This is due to the aftermath of your war and how you guys look with those same very nations and their downtrodden stats.

Feanor, I want you guys to look the part if you're going to claim you deserve to be the number one military alliance of 2010. Because right now you're definitely not the best, whether you were at any given point in the year matters very little in my opinion if what you're doing now is sitting and mooching off protection from terms. So yes, [i]I[/i] lonewolfe2015, Tyr of Asgaard, am telling TOP to purchase nukes.

[President Obama]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283304864' post='2437686']
If we're talking all of 2010, from January 1st to today, then TOP is clearly not the best, whether anyone could have beaten you guys 1 on 1 or not at your 'height' is irrelevant to how I view the purpose of this thread.[/quote]
See, that's where we disagree. Agree to disagree at this point?
[quote]
Feanor, I want you guys to look the part if you're going to claim you deserve to be the number one military alliance of 2010. Because right now you're definitely not the best, whether you were at any given point in the year matters very little in my opinion if what you're doing now is sitting and mooching off protection from terms. So yes, [i]I[/i] lonewolfe2015, Tyr of Asgaard, am telling TOP to purchase nukes.
[/quote]
I'm sure we'll take this into consideration. However, TOP speed and all that might slow it up.

Edited September 1, 2010 by President Obama

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='President Obama' timestamp='1283305161' post='2437696']
See, that's where we disagree. Agree to disagree at this point?
[/quote]

yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree and rehash this out at the annual votes in December/January I suppose or make a more clearly defined thread. I'm not saying you guys suck at war, but I'm not of the mind to consider you guys the best this year.

[quote]
I'm sure we'll take this into consideration. However, TOP speed and all that might slow it up.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/8207-jayrun2.gif[/img]

You've made me think of this gif, and I will forever symbolize TOP with this man running at the speed of nowhere.