Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Biazt]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1283364316' post='2438345']
UPN might crack into the top 3, but probably not.
[/quote]

Wait, what? Do you mean the top of the bottom 3?

Edited September 1, 2010 by Biazt

[Andre27]

[quote name='Reptyler' timestamp='1283363483' post='2438329']
The only proper way to decide this is to have everybody fight everybody.
[/quote]

We should start with a SG civil war

I have no doubt there will be few, if any, complaints about the rise of the GRL

Edited September 1, 2010 by Andre27

[President Obama]

[quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1283362666' post='2438322']TOP, NoR, PC, Kronos also has the quality but not stats/numbers right now. (Prolly forgetting some)[/quote]
FOK could probably be added to this category as well.

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1283364438' post='2438348']
Wait, what? Do you mean the top of the bottom 3?
[/quote]
The top of the bottom 3. Silly directions.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1283362666' post='2438322']
I think would pretty much beat anyone 1 on 1 right now besides MK, I think that would end in a stalemate of some sorts.

TOP, NoR, PC, Kronos also has the quality but not stats/numbers right now. (Prolly forgetting some)
[/quote]

Would it by any chance be [i]TPE?[/i] [We do have the activity, but sadly, not the stats. I've calculated it will take us over 2 years to catch Umbrella in tech if they stop buying tech completely and send some of their own tech to us].

[quote name='Reptyler' timestamp='1283363483' post='2438329']
The only proper way to decide this is to have everybody fight everybody.
[/quote]

This would be pretty awesome. Fighting for bragging rights about who's the best fighter.

Edited September 1, 2010 by KingEd

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283370154' post='2438422']
This would be pretty awesome. Fighting for bragging rights about who's the best fighter.
[/quote]
Like a tournament? Every alliance sends a 3 man team in specific ranges and we go bracket-style until one team stands victorious?

Please MK...do this next.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1283362666' post='2438322']
I think would pretty much beat anyone 1 on 1 right now besides MK, I think that would end in a stalemate of some sorts.

TOP, NoR, PC, Kronos also has the quality but not stats/numbers right now. (Prolly forgetting some)
[/quote]

With our low member count I think we would run into issues trying to go up 1 on 1 versus practically any alliance, though not like 1 on 1 has any bearing on CN at all.

[Homeboy]

This thread just got interesting !

[Alterego]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1283372804' post='2438461']
With our low member count I think we would run into issues trying to go up 1 on 1 versus practically any alliance, though not like 1 on 1 has any bearing on CN at all.
[/quote]
Probably better to do 1v1 2v1 1v2 2v2 1v3 3v1 3v3 each one a 7 day cycle. Nations would have to have similar infra, land, wonders and tech. If not similar then similat to the opposition in the comparible fight. eg 1 v 3 & 3 v 1 would have to be the same both ways. The 7 day battle would mean warchests dont play a big role and an alliance with 13 comparbable active nations could take part.

Doesnt even have to be alliance v alliance. There could be mixed teams.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Alterego

[Banksy]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1283323868' post='2438013']
FAN are awesome, but if they fought Umbrella, they'd be rolled. Ergo, they are not the best military alliance.
[/quote]
Pretty small war, Umbrella would struggle to find anyone in FAN's range.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Reptyler' timestamp='1283363483' post='2438329']
The only proper way to decide this is to have everybody fight everybody.
[/quote]
I agree completley.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283371941' post='2438450']
Like a tournament? Every alliance sends a 3 man team in specific ranges and we go bracket-style until one team stands victorious?

Please MK...do this next.
[/quote]

This would definitely be interesting, specially if there was something to gain by participating (representing ones alliance).

[quote name='BlkAK47_002' timestamp='1283375702' post='2438512']
I agree completley.
[/quote]

If it were only that simple. A global war in which there aren't any sides in an unprecedented event which would without a doubt be interesting. But, alliances like Umbrella [A Heavy Top Tier], and Pacifica - MHA - Sparta - VE [Heavy Member Count] would also have the advantage of more war-slots and room to maneuver. However, Umbrella who would "fight down" but eventually drop into the mid-tiers and face a member count disadvantage.


If you ask me, the Neutrals would be the only winner in this. I hate neutrals...

Edited September 1, 2010 by KingEd

[Lennox]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283114056' post='2434917']
Are we seriously so under the radar that we don't even get mentioned on this list?

Hell, you even forgot Argent. Please don't make military polls ever again.

E: The lack of NADC on the worst list is also beyond my comprehension.
[/quote]

Yea asgaard is pretty irrelevant, kind of like all the neutrals which is why it wasn't included.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283371941' post='2438450']
Like a tournament? Every alliance sends a 3 man team in specific ranges and we go bracket-style until one team stands victorious?

Please MK...do this next.
[/quote]

Let go of daddy's hand.

[Schattenmann]

Crummy poll is crummy. You've never taken Sociology or Statistics, have you?

[Teddyyo]

People could just war on the neuts

In all seriousness, neuts shouldn't play CN. It's a game about WAR, not pixels.

[James IV]

This is less a poll about whos the best or worst as it is about who has the best stats.

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283361644' post='2438312']
ViP was causing TTK issues because you guys kept declaring on their non-nuclear folk to maximize your damages, while TTK should have had better nuclear coverage at your ranges, it's also unfair to make the claim that you guys were some two-man wrecking team because you primarily picked on targets that couldn't handle you in their wildest dreams and after TTK dropped you for 2 rounds, their best guys were too strong. You should know that Longbowe, as for sanctions, I'd be surprised if [i]anyone[/i] asked for that, without proof it's merely your word versus someone else's.[/quote]

lonewolfe, I really thought we had gotten through the "You need to read more carefully" phase of our relationship. Let's go through this line by line:

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1283345139' post='2438144']
Don't forget you called in your allies at The Templar Knights to deal with a two man alliance that was destroying the nations it fought.[/quote]
I was replying to a post made by Hyperion, I believe this to be quite clear due to my use of the "quote" function on these forums. Hyperion is, as of this posting, a member of Sparta in game and his profile reflects such a membership. Hyperion uses the pronoun "we" in his posting, and we can safely assume this to refer to "Sparta" by convention. Therefore, I am obviously referring to Sparta in the above statement as the alliance that was having trouble handling the two of us. Also note that I reference TTK attacking us, and not the other way around.

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1283345139' post='2438144']Also, don't forget the complaints that The Templar Knights gave when they were nuked more than once (seriously, what do you expect when you attack a nuclear power?) and send messages to that effect to their opposition.[/quote]
While it is true that the target who sent me a message was an opponent of our choosing, we chose them for three simple reasons: They were in our range, they were in war mode, and they had war slots available. Even you must be able to understand these three. You're correct, however, I should have raised a more valid point: The Templar Knights' and Sparta's lack of fighting ability allowed me to easily handle three new targets while still being at war with the initial reinforcements. Had there been any form of coordination, I should have been in Anarchy the first or second night.

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1283345139' post='2438144']Never mind the fact that someone (either in Sparta or TTK) allegedly begged ODN to sanction the members of the two man alliance, though their pleadings were denied.[/quote]
Note the use of "allegedly". I do not now remember who, nor would I tell you if I did, queried me and informed me that ODN had been asked to sanction us several times. I do recall them being a member of ODN, though I can not be absolutely sure at this point, nor did they provide any evidence to support their statement. I do know for a fact, however, that I was not sanctioned, and therefore any such pleadings were obviously denied. However, I do believe in innocence without proof and therefore only reported the alleged actions here. Whether or not it happened, we may never know.

I hope these insights make my post clearer for you.

[Xavii]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1283372804' post='2438461']
With our low member count I think we would run into issues trying to go up 1 on 1 versus practically any alliance, though not like 1 on 1 has any bearing on CN at all.
[/quote]
I'm thinking our lower tiers, something around 80k and below would eventually fall in NS and possibly get overrun, but if their warchests is up to par they can try to maintain a relative high NS to counter that. Our top nation will most likely crush whoever they are fighting and be out of range for any retaliation. We would loose a bunch to ZI but still maintain a top heavy tier that would continue to grow and maintain supremacy.

But as you said, 1on1 is just theorizing and will never be a reality.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1283376505' post='2438524']
Let go of daddy's hand.
[/quote]
Um...what?

[quote name='Xavii' timestamp='1283385195' post='2438618']
I'm thinking our lower tiers, something around 80k and below would eventually fall in NS and possibly get overrun, but if their warchests is up to par they can try to maintain a relative high NS to counter that. Our top nation will most likely crush whoever they are fighting and be out of range for any retaliation. We would loose a bunch to ZI but still maintain a top heavy tier that would continue to grow and maintain supremacy.

But as you said, 1on1 is just theorizing and will never be a reality.
[/quote]
Sometimes I wonder if Genmay was still alive if it would be as powerful as Umbrella is today...or perhaps even [i]more[/i] powerful.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283385331' post='2438621']
Um...what?


Sometimes I wonder if Genmay was still alive if it would be as powerful as Umbrella is today...or perhaps even [i]more[/i] powerful.
[/quote]
Nah. Genmay was a complete mess.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1283361644' post='2438312']
Haf, I'm not an idiot when it comes to economics, but if you have to remain military free for longer than 3 months to get your warchest back, then you're putting yourself at risk or you had a really crappy warchest to begin with, while for TOP I think of them as taking the risk expecting to be fine, which they probably are, Invicta I see as someone who had crappy warchests and has to take that 3 months to actually reach pre-war heights and actually can't afford their militaries atm.
[/quote]
Look, this is an OOC forum.

I was talking about "elite military alliances." If you think that I think Invicta's in that category, you're grossly mistaken.

It's not getting your warchest back that's the issue (although 3 months is a good starting point for a decent warchest, IIRC I had ~6 months profit in my warchest when the last war began); it's making it as huge as possible. An alliance like TOP where members pride themselves on multi-billion-dollar warchests; well, that kind of development takes time.

It takes less when you're nuke-free, and if you have a WRC and silo it only takes 13 days to gear up anyway, which is normally plenty of notice.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283388614' post='2438688']
Nah. Genmay was a complete mess.
[/quote]
You never know what an alliance can do in 3 years. Who knows, they could have been ruling the world by now

On another note...holy crap it's almost been 3 years since Genmay disbanded.

[Blue Lightning]

[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]
As others pointed out, I'm talking about TOP in it's prime against any other alliance in it's prime. I don't think this poll is meant to be about the year 2010, it's meant to be about all of CN history up to (but not including) 2010. As a result, the current standings are not relevant. My argument is that TOP just prior to the bipolar war (which was only a few months into 2010) had the best military any alliance has ever had. If you take a few months off that to get back to very late 2009, we were still at a similar strength (but not quite as strong due to the tech we imported in the 2010 months leading up to the war). So in the period between early 2006 and the end of 2009, TOP had the best military of any alliance.

If we're talking about right now, I wouldn't put TOP as the best military. As you pointed out, we're not in fighting shape right now. We lost about half our tech in the last war and have lost quite a few members to deletion. I'd bet there are probably alliances around who could give us a good run for our money or even beat us. Not that I've looked at the stats recently. However, this thread isn't about right now.

[KingEd]

If this is about the "Stats"...Pacifica, during its prime, had over 22Mill NS, and 3-4 Million Units of Tech [Correct me if I'm wrong]. Sure, it was spread out over 900+ nations, but still a lot of Stats. I don't have the specifics on Military wonders for Pacifica during their prime but with 900 nations, they must have been on Par with TOP at the very least. (Like I said, I don't know, just my not common sense).

This discussion is gonna drag...