Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Hyperion321]

oops, dp.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283265383' post='2437039']
If you've read or followed this wall of text, I will give you a slice of pie.
[/quote]

Pay up, buddy, I'm hungry.


Also, since we're saying something nice about people. It is true that WAPA performed miserably, but to their credit, they've never lacked spirit. I'll take courage over stats any day, because stats you can build but the other is much harder to come by.

Also, where is TPF is this poll? I thought they did really well considering they weren't even recovered from the Athens war.

[Andre27]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283270213' post='2437104']
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]

If you are so surprised perhaps Sparta needs to take a close look at their friends and how they view them. The impression i get is that they merely view Sparta as a meat shield.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283270074' post='2437101']
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.
[/quote]

Ouch. Sometimes i wonder if people take notice of all the various discussions which have taken place since the end of GW3 about the size of war chests and the need for certain Wonders

Edited August 31, 2010 by Andre27

[Andre27]

double post, sorry.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Andre27

[Daimos]

Alliances I rather not have to engage militarily:

TOP
Polar
STA

Alliances I will gladly go to war against:

RoK
Sparta
Athens

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283270863' post='2437115']
If you are so surprised perhaps Sparta needs to take a close look at their friends and how they view them. The impression i get is that they merely view Sparta as a meat shield.
[/quote]
All of our allies have a long track record of going to bat for their friends no matter the odds. If I could have any allies in the world during a bind, it would be the ones we have now.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Andre27]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283271275' post='2437125']
All of our allies have a long track record of going to bat for their friends no matter the odds. If I could have any allies in the world during a bind, it would be the ones we have now.
[/quote]

If that is how you feel about them, that's fine. I don't get the impression though the feeling is mutual.

[thaone]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283270074' post='2437101']
Actually, Andre, it was 15K infra. And 400M.

And no CIA.
[/quote]

Must feel pretty bad when an alliance puts their third rate fighters on you and you still can't win?

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

He was ordered too attack 3 guys, it is a sound military tactic to fill your three offensive slots when attacking Nuclear nations. Especially as it was far from 3vs1 on those fronts, as most non attacking nations were otherwise engaged or in Nuclear anarchy.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1283270662' post='2437113']
Pay up, buddy, I'm hungry.
[/quote]



[img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/106/9/5/95bbe8b3c90460c4c0799ecd62bca06d.gif[/img]

Order up!

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283272946' post='2437152']
[img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/106/9/5/95bbe8b3c90460c4c0799ecd62bca06d.gif[/img]

Order up!
[/quote]

heh heh heh, awesome. XD

[KingEd]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1283266701' post='2437063']
[b]500M WC for a nation with 14K infra is pretty awful.[/b] 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 [b]500M war chest for a 14K [/b]infra nation is not asking, but begging for bill lock.
[/quote]

No kidding. Last War I burned through 200mill in about 8-10 days, not to mention what it cost me to rebuild. And that was with 3 offensive and 2 defensive wars.

[Hyperion321]

If you have 14k infra you should be counting in the billions. Anything less is insufficient for long term combat.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Cable77' timestamp='1283263647' post='2437019']
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.
[/quote]

Please do. And while I'm offering my advice, I would also advice you to remind your members that Spy's should be kept at all times, not only during times of War. CIA's are also very important.

Why? I actually selected 3 random MHA nations around my NS range. I'm 71,000 NS. So I selected a few above my NS and checked my Spy Odds & their respective Wonders.

Nation 1: No WRC but meets WRC requirements. 90% Spy Odds.
Nation 2: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA = Not good at his range.
Nation 3: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA & over 80 K NS.

Not to bash but please do yourselves a favor and demand more from your members. You are actually doing them a favor by doing so.

[Manis B]

heres a poll

[quote]This is the worst poll ever made

1)yes
2)probably[/quote]

boy oh boy, i hope you pick the right answer!

[Drai]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283270213' post='2437104']
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.



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]
What you guys did for us should not be undermined in any way. I would like to point out that IRON's blitz was far from what we needed help with though. They were already well-covered. Had you hit Sparta that first night I think you would have gotten a lot more thanks from the people on that front. 120 wars when you have over 500 members is still weak though. Significant no doubt but when you're talking about military performance for a 500+ nation alliance it's below average. You did have the largest top tier on our side, and only 30-40% at best were willing (or able at least) to take on TOP. Do not make it sound like you had 80%+ efficiency in war declarations in the top tier.

I realize I sound ungreatful which is far from the truth. However I don't like to see people like Olaf playing the hero role and pretending that Sparta's performance was even above average.

As for that last part, you were definitely helpful and I know one person can't do it all. Perhaps Sparta should look into getting more people in upper milcom to take care of things for next war.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283265383' post='2437039']
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.
[/quote]
I admit I didn't coordinate with all the alliances on our side but in terms of those fighting against TOP sparta was very hard to get nations out of peace mode to declare, or even get a fireteam partner on IRC, or stop them from nuking without coordinating.

They may have ejected nations now but that doesn't change their performance in the past war(s).

I think alliances like TOP and NPO (some of the very few competent members on the losing side in the past couple wars) disprove your point about the losing side being poor fighters. It just so happened that the majority of those alliances displayed poor war efforts.

[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]
I was MK gov and I was part of the war effort (a battalion commander for the top tier in MK, but being a baron of FA I took the lead on a few military-related issues). It was below average, and even bad depending on how you may define the term.

[Andre27]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283273687' post='2437167']

Why? I actually selected 3 random MHA nations around my NS range. I'm 71,000 NS. So I selected a few above my NS and checked my Spy Odds & their respective Wonders.

Nation 1: No WRC but meets WRC requirements. 90% Spy Odds.
Nation 2: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA = Not good at his range.
Nation 3: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA & over 80 K NS.

[/quote]

I guess I'm not the only one who does these practice runs

[nutkase]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283273687' post='2437167']
Please do. And while I'm offering my advice, I would also advice you to remind your members that Spy's should be kept at all times, not only during times of War. CIA's are also very important.

Why? I actually selected 3 random MHA nations around my NS range. I'm 71,000 NS. So I selected a few above my NS and checked my Spy Odds & their respective Wonders.

Nation 1: No WRC but meets WRC requirements. 90% Spy Odds.
Nation 2: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA = Not good at his range.
Nation 3: 70% Odds = Lacking CIA & over 80 K NS.

Not to bash but please do yourselves a favor and demand more from your members. You are actually doing them a favor by doing so.
[/quote]

Maybe instead of demanding things of others, look in your own backyard. I did the exact same thing to 3 random nations in my close range of TPE and came back all 70%, with some not even having SDI.

The point I am making is that in all alliances you will always get people not up to scratch as to where you think they should be.

Edited August 31, 2010 by nutkase

[KingEd]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1283274589' post='2437184']
Maybe instead of demanding things of others, look in your own backyard. I did the exact same thing to 3 random nations in my close range of TPE and came back all 70%, with some not even having SDI.

The point I am making is that in all alliances you will always get people not up to scratch as to where you think they should be.
[/quote]

With all due respect Mr. Ninja, how can you compare a 80k NS nation not having a CIA/WRC to a 30k NS nation not having either. First of all, you are over 900 days old, you want to go ahead and re-check those nations and their respective ages ? I assure you, none of them are over 2 years old, if that. However, if you could please give me the links of those nations, I would happily indulge an argument and check if they have a CIA in the same beat.

I don't think you can have an SDI at 4999.99---the Economic upset isn't worth it, to us at least. You know the whole 6 improvement slots needed to keep the SDI. Nonetheless, I'm merely pointing out that MHA, as the established alliance it is, should hold itself to a higher standard. As for my alliance, feel free to brown-nose us, the fact remains---we're ready for war where it matters. Check our top 10. ^^

Edited August 31, 2010 by KingEd

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283270074' post='2437101']
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.
[/quote]
Dude he was staggering 2 important Molon Labe targets who came out their first round wars. He also picked you because we prefer to give every attacker 3 targets. You just came out of peacemode that day after sitting in peace mode for the biggest part of the war so you were also targeted.

Also for FOK it wasn't a curbstomp war, we were fighting a lot of NS. We were the main force fighting Echelon, Molon labe, MCXA, Wolfpack USN Menotah, House of Lords and als picked some Invicta and BAPS nations who desperately needed a stagger. We were the only ones attacking MCXA and Echelon, both were attacking MHA but MHA couldn't really counter because they had their hands full on other opponents. We had the most fighters on the Molon Labe front especially in the top tier. NoR and TDT did some good work too. I also believe we were the only ones attacking Menotah Wolfpack and USN for a long time. Also going 3vs1 attacking down against opponents with merely 75% of your NS worked great and it caused MCXA to lose like 3 million NS in 2 weeks while they only had FOK in their defensive slots in the first the week. Echelon and Molon Labe, known for military toughness surrendered in a reasonable timeframe because we had them staggered quite well.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1283274117' post='2437176']
What you guys did for us should not be undermined in any way. I would like to point out that IRON's blitz was far from what we needed help with though. They were already well-covered. Had you hit Sparta that first night I think you would have gotten a lot more thanks from the people on that front. 120 wars when you have over 500 members is still weak though. Significant no doubt but when you're talking about military performance for a 500+ nation alliance it's below average. You did have the largest top tier on our side, and only 30-40% at best were willing (or able at least) to take on TOP. Do not make it sound like you had 80%+ efficiency in war declarations in the top tier.

I realize I sound ungreatful which is far from the truth. However I don't like to see people like Olaf playing the hero role and pretending that Sparta's performance was even above average.

As for that last part, you were definitely helpful and I know one person can't do it all. Perhaps Sparta should look into getting more people in upper milcom to take care of things for next war.[/quote]
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.

[nutkase]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283275453' post='2437197']
With all due respect Mr. Ninja, how can you compare a 80k NS nation not having a CIA/WRC to a 30k NS nation not having either. First of all, you are over 900 days old, you want to go ahead and re-check those nations and their respective ages ? I assure you, none of them are over 2 years old, if that. However, if you could please give me the links of those nations, I would happily indulge an argument and check if they have a CIA in the same beat.

I don't think you can have an SDI at 4999.99---the Economic upset isn't worth it, to us at least. You know the whole 6 improvement slots needed to keep the SDI. Nonetheless, I'm merely pointing out that MHA, as the established alliance it is, should hold itself to a higher standard. As for my alliance, feel free to brown-nose us, the fact remains---we're ready for war where it matters. Check our top 10. ^^
[/quote]

I bought my CIA at 20K ns as I found out the benefits of spies early on. CIA is cheap in reference to other wonders aswell so cannot claim my longer time on bob is why I have one. Considering all the nations I checked also had Manhatten projects.

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169568 - Actually older then I am and has 10K over me yet I get better spy odds.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=236185 - Not sure why he is not buying more wonders.

Third nation was around 1 year old, so will not bother with posting his nation. Also I am not trying to brown-nose your alliance just trying to prove a point that all alliances have nation building issues no matter the size.

I liked being called Mr. Ninja

Edited August 31, 2010 by nutkase

[KingEd]

[quote name='nutkase' timestamp='1283276836' post='2437216']
I bought my CIA at 20K ns as I found out the benefits of spies early on. CIA is cheap in reference to other wonders aswell so cannot claim my longer time on bob is why I have one. Considering all the nations I checked also had Manhatten projects.

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=169568 - Actually older then I am and has 10K over me yet I get better spy odds.
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=236185 - Not sure why he is not buying more wonders.

Third nation was around 1 year old, so will not bother with posting his nation. Also I am not trying to brown-nose your alliance just [b]trying to prove a point that all alliances have nation building issues no matter the size.
[/b]
I liked being called Mr. Ninja
[/quote]

1st Nation...
2nd Nation... Has never got passed 5k Infra. Too many wars in between.

Point proven.
Give me 2 months to disprove it. lol

Edited August 31, 2010 by KingEd

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1283232124' post='2436707']
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.
[/quote]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.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1283275472' post='2437199']
Dude he was staggering 2 important Molon Labe targets who came out their first round wars. He also picked you because we prefer to give every attacker 3 targets. You just came out of peacemode that day after sitting in peace mode for the biggest part of the war so you were also targeted.
[/quote]
The correct approach to staggering in a war like that, where all your targets are in nuclear anarchy, is to attack them every six days.

All you're doing by giving us three defensive wars is giving us more opportunity to nuke and spy. Every extra war on me was an extra spy slot; I used most of my extra spy slots to hit warchests, where I did roughly a quarter-billion in damage with spy attacks alone. (Most of the warchests I hit were NV; opgefokt was getting below-maximum destroy money damage very early in the war.)

Also, I was already in nuclear anarchy when he attacked. So no, it wasn't an attack when I came out of peacemode.

All he could do to the three of us was fire CMs. We were all hitting him with CM/air/naval and one nuke every day, all of us with WRCs. It was, quite simply, a slaughter.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1283275472' post='2437199']
Also for FOK it wasn't a curbstomp war, we were fighting a lot of NS. We were the main force fighting Echelon, Molon labe, MCXA, Wolfpack USN Menotah, House of Lords and als picked some Invicta and BAPS nations who desperately needed a stagger. We were the only ones attacking MCXA and Echelon, both were attacking MHA but MHA couldn't really counter because they had their hands full on other opponents. We had the most fighters on the Molon Labe front especially in the top tier. NoR and TDT did some good work too. I also believe we were the only ones attacking Menotah Wolfpack and USN for a long time. Also going 3vs1 attacking down against opponents with merely 75% of your NS worked great and it caused MCXA to lose like 3 million NS in 2 weeks while they only had FOK in their defensive slots in the first the week. Echelon and Molon Labe, known for military toughness surrendered in a reasonable timeframe because we had them staggered quite well.
[/quote]
Are you really trying to defend yourself with a "We're better than MCXA" argument?

You guys were a sanctioned alliance then. They were a tiny remnant.

And I'm not sure where you get the belief that Echelon is known for toughness from. Molon Labe I'll give you, however they didn't surrender early. They left with Valhalla and the rest of us, and they would have kept on fighting except Valhalla was packing it in because IRON wanted them out.

[Il Impero Romano]

[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]

Ah yes, I would as well. Was late when I wrote that, they must have slipped my mind.