Best and Worst Military Alliances (2010 Edition)

[Vol Navy]

[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."


Like cutting non-nuclear deals with your enemies, so they can nuke your allies?
[/quote]


TOP/IRON had 3 choices, leave their allies to get stomped, let CnG get in the first strike after they attack someone involved, or just blast right into CnG and get the first shot in the battle on their terms. SC from MK has long since confirmed they were ready to strike the instant TOP/IRON came in to defend their allies.

It was a valid tactic and would have been a bit more successful had Grub not pulled his legendary double cross.

[Poobah]

[quote name='Thunder Strike' timestamp='1283159163' post='2435635']
As the main alliance that fought Argent I think it is pretty ludicrous to say they fought poorly. So no Batallion, you don't know what you're talking about in this case.

In saying that Argent's initial counter was good but after that things faded for you as the tides turned and the number advantage against you began to show. So I'll disagree with using the words 'razed' and 'owned' to describe your engagement with Silence, RIA and CRAP.
[/quote]

CRAP wanted to surrender to us after about 4 days, but they wouldn't because either you or silence (whoever they came in to defend, I don't remember) wouldn't let them. That was my understanding from him at least.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283196701' post='2435998']
TOP/IRON had 3 choices, leave their allies to get stomped, let CnG get in the first strike after they attack someone involved, or just blast right into CnG and get the first shot in the battle on their terms. SC from MK has long since confirmed they were ready to strike the instant TOP/IRON came in to defend their allies.

It was a valid tactic and would have been a bit more successful had Grub not pulled his legendary double cross.
[/quote]

Sometime maintaining the moral highground is a better tactical advantage than getting in the first punch. Also, why would you trust someone who would so easily betray their allies and simultaneous expend almost every ounce of their political capital doing so?

[raasaa]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283146016' post='2435525']
And in the last war WAPA was pretty bad.
[/quote]
Not sure about their performance in the past....but they were very resilient in the TOP - C&G war.

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283195621' post='2435978']
I wouldn't put that into it, personally. This is about military strength and ability not necessarily how it is applied.
[/quote]
How it is used is very important. There is no point having loads of NS / tech if its not used properly. NoR is up there as one of the best military alliances cos they use whatever they have to the fullest.

Going by your view, GPA and WTF have a higher ANS and tech stockpile as compared to TOP and MK....does that make them a good military alliance ???

Edited August 30, 2010 by raasaa

[Mirreille]

[quote name='De Caelo Missus' timestamp='1283120991' post='2435055']
They still had an impressive setup and fought in a war.
[/quote]

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but a couple of things:

If you want to include Aircastle, then where is the GGA in the worst military alliance list? Judging from what I have seen people say about them in the years I've been here, they would win that category in a landslide. It looks like the OP deliberately chose to only include AAs still in the game.

Second, did the OP edit the poll questions or something? They seem pretty clear that the question was who has the best military considering all of the time in CN, not just this year. It looks like a ton of people saw that,"2010 Edition" and assumed he meant just over this past year. If the latter is the case then I cast my votes wrong.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Poobah' timestamp='1283197045' post='2436001']
CRAP wanted to surrender to us after about 4 days, but they wouldn't because either you or silence (whoever they came in to defend, I don't remember) wouldn't let them. That was my understanding from him at least.
[/quote]

Same thing with FoB and WAPA I believe. Not sure about FoB, but WAPA I am almost sure so.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1283197238' post='2436005']
Not sure about their performance in the past....but they were very resilient in the TOP - C&G war.

[/quote]


That was the war we fought them in, they were pretty terrible. Many many 20 bomber runs out of their nations and things like that. It was similar to fighting GPA several years ago.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283195621' post='2435978']
I wouldn't put that into it, personally. This is about military strength and ability not necessarily how it is applied.
[/quote]
I would actually argue against that statement. In my opinion (which is based on four years of watching, participating in, and planning wars in CN) the application of available military is a far greater determining factor in "how good a military is" than just sheer stats.

Example #1 - MK during the NoCB war. They did not have near the statistical capabilities of NPO yet they dealt out far more damage than they took in that war. A case could be made that MK was the alliance that sent the message that NPO [i]could[/i] be hurt after all...and hurt they were.

Example #2 - IRON during Karma war. Simply put, they had the best stats out of anyone. Pretty much everyone in Karma was scared of the prospect of not having enough on the IRON front...I know I was. Fark had nowhere near IRON's stats to work with, but they were a hell of a lot better at putting their stats to work and came out with one of the most legendary displays of force in history (in my opinion).

In summary, application of force matters a lot more than availability of force. TOP sure had all the availability of force in the world before the cluster$%&@ war, and while their damage ratios were a sight to behold, in my opinion their application of force was not on par with alliances like FAN, MK, NoR, Fark, or Umbrella.

They were pretty damn close though...

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283197765' post='2436015']
I would actually argue against that statement. In my opinion (which is based on four years of watching, participating in, and planning wars in CN) the application of available military is a far greater determining factor in "how good a military is" than just sheer stats.

Example #1 - MK during the NoCB war. They did not have near the statistical capabilities of NPO yet they dealt out far more damage than they took in that war. A case could be made that MK was the alliance that sent the message that NPO [i]could[/i] be hurt after all...and hurt they were.

Example #2 - IRON during Karma war. Simply put, they had the best stats out of anyone. Pretty much everyone in Karma was scared of the prospect of not having enough on the IRON front...I know I was. Fark had nowhere near IRON's stats to work with, but they were a hell of a lot better at putting their stats to work and came out with one of the most legendary displays of force in history (in my opinion).

In summary, application of force matters a lot more than availability of force. TOP sure had all the availability of force in the world before the cluster$%&@ war, and while their damage ratios were a sight to behold, in my opinion their application of force was not on par with alliances like FAN, MK, NoR, Fark, or Umbrella.

They were pretty damn close though...
[/quote]

Totally this. Excellent points.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1283197192' post='2436003']
Sometime maintaining the moral highground is a better tactical advantage than getting in the first punch. Also, why would you trust someone who would so easily betray their allies and simultaneous expend almost every ounce of their political capital doing so?
[/quote]


The moral high ground?? From who's point of view? By racking the upper tier that was going to rack them, on their own terms, they gave themselves a punchers chance at a quick knockout. Had Grub not been in betrayal mode it might have worked. Going in with traditional defense was going to result in CnG and company filling their slots on their terms.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283198067' post='2436025']
The moral high ground?? From who's point of view? By racking the upper tier that was going to rack them, on their own terms, they gave themselves a punchers chance at a quick knockout. Had Grub not been in betrayal mode it might have worked. Going in with traditional defense was going to result in CnG and company filling their slots on their terms.
[/quote]
There were a couple of alliances still in the wings who had previously told us they were joining your side that immediately came back to us and committed to ours when the preempt happened. This was during the very brief time between the strike and Polar peacing out, as well. It was a terrible strategic move even if Polar hadn't flipped out.

[Believland]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1283196144' post='2435991']
Like cutting non-nuclear deals with your enemies, so they can nuke your allies?
[/quote]

To be fair, there hasn't been many nuclear wars. Remember when you were helping enforce PZI on alliances who used nukes?

IIRC, TOP did use nukes on people who were nuking their MDP+ allies.


I voted for NoR.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Believland

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283198067' post='2436025']
The moral high ground?? From who's point of view? By racking the upper tier that was going to rack them, on their own terms, they gave themselves a punchers chance at a quick knockout. Had Grub not been in betrayal mode it might have worked. Going in with traditional defense was going to result in CnG and company filling their slots on their terms.
[/quote]
If it wasn't for those meddling kids and that stupid dog too...

I think what kzopp was talking about was that moral high ground gains political points. Political points can be cashed in to sway fence alliances. Fence alliances win wars. TOP weighed the long term strength of fence alliances vs the immediate tactical advantages of a first strike. At the time I could see why they did it. Part of what would be C&G's response force was focused on NpO and considering that several alliances with mutual allies were fighting...well...militarily it isn't the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Politically however, it is pretty far up there. And political decisions should always come before military decisions, because military decisions don't get you an extra 20 millions NS to back you up. When Grub then switched sides (the first time) that turned TOP's full house into a two pair, and the rest is history.

They rolled the dice, and it didn't work out. Such is CN I guess.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283198067' post='2436025']
The moral high ground?? From who's point of view?[/quote]

From anyone's point of view that violence without a solid reason is despicable. Now, TOP may have had solid intel that CnG would engage them at a later date (it seemed reasonable), but what was the CB again... oh that's right, they simply wanted to "bloody" CnG. Where is the justice in that? Even rivals need SOME sort of reason to launch war for it to hold weight with the denizens of Planet Bob. In fact, by attacking unprovoked, TOP placed MK on their best fighting ground: martyrdom.

Now, had it worked and TOP/IRON managed to ground down CnG and make them surrender, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I am practical enough to admit that survival is amoral, sometimes a first strike is needed to ensure that. But it wasn't the case here. By itself if was a poor move, but coupled with another...

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1283198067' post='2436025']
Had Grub not been in betrayal mode it might have worked. Going in with traditional defense was going to result in CnG and company filling their slots on their terms.
[/quote]

...it was disastrous. Here is the meat of what I've been saying ever since the war, the TOP leadership was so focused on their own objectives that they completely failed to put themselves in another's shoes in order to asses the other's strategy.

Think about it, what would NpO have gained by ignoring a direct attack on their own treaty partners? Sure, there was quite a bit of disrespect put out by some of NpO's allies after they attacked \m/. But to completely betray their own "side"? That would be political suicide! In no way would NpO, who bases itself on having [i]some[/i] integrity, would ever do that. Besides, Grub hated TOP.

Even if it were true, and NpO did betray CnG, why would TOP want anything to do with them? I certainly wouldn't want that kind of opportunist poised at my back. And if the intentions were to use NpO until CnG and allies were defeated and then drop them or even turn on them, a elegant defeat of every enemy on the field perhaps, but no less treacherous or deceitful.

The first strike was... questionable, but forgivable had they won the war. But to combine two strategies that had slim chances of success together, that was quite the gamble. And quite a loss.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1283197547' post='2436012']
Same thing with FoB and WAPA I believe. Not sure about FoB, but WAPA I am almost sure so.
[/quote]
WAPA yes. FoB no. I'd know. 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.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Sandwich Controversy

[KingEd]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283184254' post='2435853']
If I had to pick one though...probably NPO. They invented blitzing and pretty much laid the ground work for how to run an army for everyone since the second Polar War. I can only imagine what Bob would be like if they kept that prowess for the following four years.
[/quote]

The legendary Blitz indeed. In its origins it was all the rave, now we have wars launching 6 hours before update because people can't keep their mouth shut.


[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1283194845' post='2435966']
LM had a !@#$ strategy but you're all almost as !@#$%* for going along with it.

That said voted TOP/WAPA.
[/quote]

Almost forgot WAPA. And like someone said below, they were ready to drop after like 4 days of fighting TFD, GUN, and NATO. Their members needed to grow a spine. I can only hope they did after their last performance. I mean to be honest, I was pissed. TPE chained like 4 treaties to help them only to find out that they weren't even Nuking. Individual nations had their only little deals to save their Infra/Tech and that got me pretty upset---it showed that WAPA had no control over their membership and the same goes for some members of TGE.

Point blank, there are a lot more "bad" militaries than there are good.

Edited August 30, 2010 by KingEd

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1283198411' post='2436036']
There were a couple of alliances still in the wings who had previously told us they were joining your side that immediately came back to us and committed to ours when the preempt happened. This was during the [b]very brief time[/b] between the strike and Polar peacing out, as well. It was a terrible strategic move even if Polar hadn't flipped out.
[/quote]

A couple of alliances would not have made much of a difference in the outcome of that war if NpO does not flip. Top & Co. were still going to lose regardless. After NpO flipped sides it was just another stomping.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283195556' post='2435977']
You say that like there was a choice.

The only reason Purple came in was because FAN bandwagoned on to IRON in exactly the same way as TOP/IRON bandwagoned on to C&G.
[/quote]

Heh, I wasn't talking about Bi-Polar but that was another example of their brilliance. :|

I don't know what we're grading on here. Fighting ability or planning. The two go hand in hand I suppose.

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283194318' post='2435956']
Voted BAPS/Sparta.

IRON did a good job taking down Grämlins, but really it was a show of discipline rather than great military ability.

TOP gets disqualified due to putting LiquidMercury in charge of war strategy. Their war effort was good, but horrendous strategy is horrendous.

Wanted to vote FOK as worst military alliance, as TheThirdMark is the only FOK/iFOK nation I've ever fought that knew what he was doing, and I've fought several, but strangely they're on the best military alliance list and getting votes. Maybe I've just been lucky. I remember the guy with 15K infra, 0 navy, and about a 400M warchest that I fought in the last war still as a source of great comedy. He triple-teamed himself on me and two ML guys, and got annihilated.

Sparta however has the legendary screwed staggers from Karma to live down, so I guess they'll have to do.

Nueva Vida was pretty good, but generally warchest light. At least they knew how to launch attacks.

Molon Labe should be on the best alliance list as well.
[/quote]
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.
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.

I was pretty happy about our attack on NpO we managed to get 140 offensive DOW's out in 2 hours while we also managed to get 100 nations in peacemode within 2 days. We also had good irc activity. We had like 60 in our private channel last war but I remember us peaking at 90 people during other wars.

Some screens
[img]http://i49.tinypic.com/2nk41o2.jpg[/img]
Around 140 DOW's on NpO within 2 hours.

[IMG]http://i33.tinypic.com/23vi1yg.jpg[/IMG]
Right after the attack we already had 70 nations in peace.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1283199624' post='2436055']
A couple of alliances would not have made much of a difference in the outcome of that war if NpO does not flip. Top & Co. were still going to lose regardless. After NpO flipped sides it was just another stomping.
[/quote]
If a couple of alliances managed to flip in under an hour, it's not unreasonable to assume at least a few more would have followed within the next day or so. Even if it hadn't cut the bottom out of the entire side the way Polar's switch did, it was an unnecessary loss of manpower. It was also severely ineffective at accomplish its apparent purpose militarily.

We had spent a good amount of time setting up deployments so that further entries, especially from IRON, would have trigger treaty chaincs that were favorable for our own deployment. The thought was that the risk of bringing down Grämlins, C&G, and a couple others plus those already engaged in that area like Fark would deter IRON from entering and causing the sort of rapid escalation that would pit people who didn't want to be fighting each other against one another. Failing that, at least we'd be in a solid position to pull in strong back up on a problem area.

Apparently, they saw the way we had set ourselves up and, in a bid to circumvent it, attacked C&G directly. Here's why that doesn't make much military sense, even if we factor out the political insanity. In a bid to prevent us from deploying C&G on them, they engaged C&G. Not only that, but they activated so many treaties that the door was opened for us to drop basically anyone we wanted on them. It's a bit like avoiding a trap by jumping off a cliff. Technically, things didn't go as we had planned, but that doesn't mean that they made our situation worse.

[Timmmehhh]

Regarding the topic, in 2010 I think TOP had the best military, they released a lot of firepower during the TOP CNG war, and their attack on an entire bloc was pretty epic. Looking at the alliances now and their current stats I would say there are a lot of big competent alliances like MK, NPO, VE, FARK and Umbrella. Alliances like PC NoR and ourselves are also very strong pound for pound.
Also I think Sparta is underestimated, they might lack war coordination but they have one of the strongest top tiers in the game. And I believe they cleaned out their ranks after the Second Unjust war and ZI'd members who weren't willing to fight like this nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=34978

Worst alliance is probably Invicta, although they were fighting strong opposition they totally fell apart, were very emotional in peace discussions and wanted peace really bad. They lost like 70% of their NS (about 3 million) in 2 weeks. [IMG]http://i34.tinypic.com/2jfy44n.jpg[/IMG]
Other CDT members like Menotah, USN and Wolfpack were pretty bad too.

[Blue Lightning]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1283195967' post='2435986']
Here's my issue with that argument. Sure NpO switching sides, and MHA coming in hurt your effort in the war, but both of those, especially NpO, were likely the result of your preemptive attack.
[/quote]
[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283196275' post='2435994']
They absolutely were.
[/quote]
Do me a favour. NpO would have almost certainly pulled their switch regardless of whether we hit CnG first or not. MHA might have done but I think the biggest factor in their decision making was that Gremlins were going to bandwagon in against IRON (even if they deny it), which again would have happened regardless.

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283197765' post='2436015']
I would actually argue against that statement. In my opinion (which is based on four years of watching, participating in, and planning wars in CN) the application of available military is a far greater determining factor in "how good a military is" than just sheer stats.

Example #1 - MK during the NoCB war. They did not have near the statistical capabilities of NPO yet they dealt out far more damage than they took in that war. A case could be made that MK was the alliance that sent the message that NPO [i]could[/i] be hurt after all...and hurt they were.

Example #2 - IRON during Karma war. Simply put, they had the best stats out of anyone. Pretty much everyone in Karma was scared of the prospect of not having enough on the IRON front...I know I was. Fark had nowhere near IRON's stats to work with, but they were a hell of a lot better at putting their stats to work and came out with one of the most legendary displays of force in history (in my opinion).

In summary, application of force matters a lot more than availability of force. TOP sure had all the availability of force in the world before the cluster$%&@ war, and while their damage ratios were a sight to behold, in my opinion their application of force was not on par with alliances like FAN, MK, NoR, Fark, or Umbrella.

They were pretty damn close though...
[/quote]
I agree in general that fighting ability is more important than stats. However, I would put TOP right up there with anybody as far as our membership' ability to fight is concerned. We may have made a political blunder here or there that hurt us in wars, but we had as many (or more) active and capable fighters in our ranks as any of those you mentioned with the possible exception of FAN. If you then combine this with the fact we had the best fighting stats of all alliances by quite a large margin, I think that puts us out ahead in terms of overall fighting prowess.

Do you honestly believe any of the alliances you mentioned in their prime could have defeated us in a one on one during our prime?

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1283198411' post='2436036']
There were a couple of alliances still in the wings who had previously told us they were joining your side that immediately came back to us and committed to ours when the preempt happened. This was during the very brief time between the strike and Polar peacing out, as well. It was a terrible strategic move even if Polar hadn't flipped out.
[/quote]
The only alliances I've heard claim the pre-empt caused them to switch sides were STA (whom we had been assured were ok with it) and Ronin (who planned on staying neutral unless their allies were hit "aggressively"). Without wanting to belittle either alliance, I don't think they would have altered the outcome of the war in a significant way had they joined our side or stayed neutral. Umbrella also came in later but by that point the outcome was already beyond doubt. Admittedly, I don't spend much time on these forums so I might well have missed it if some more alliances have said they switched due to the pre-empt.

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283200749' post='2436077']
I agree in general that fighting ability is more important than stats. However, I would put TOP right up there with anybody as far as our membership' ability to fight is concerned. We may have made a political blunder here or there that hurt us in wars, but we had as many (or more) active and capable fighters in our ranks as any of those you mentioned with the possible exception of FAN. If you then combine this with the fact we had the best fighting stats of all alliances by quite a large margin, I think that puts us out ahead in terms of overall fighting prowess.

Do you honestly believe any of the alliances you mentioned in their prime could have defeated us in a one on one during our prime?
[/quote]

Ability is one thing, will is another. You may have 200 active, capable, and able fighters, however they are only useful if they have the will to fight and the morale to last. TOP accepting reparations in the previous war automatically disqualifies the alliance in my eyes given the pre-war attitude of the GA. Don't get me wrong, I think TOP performed admirably in spite of the situation, however there is such a disparity between the pre- and post- war attitudes that only give me the conclusion that TOP is lacking the will to be a military powerhouse.

As for your second question: Do you honestly believe that any war in this planet we call Bob would truly be a one-on-one and stay that way? Especially during your prime...

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Poobah' timestamp='1283197045' post='2436001']CRAP wanted to surrender to us after about 4 days, but they wouldn't because either you or silence (whoever they came in to defend, I don't remember) wouldn't let them. That was my understanding from him at least.[/quote]
Although, to be fair, after the first round, we were fairly held up and weren't nearly as effective the second round against RIA as in the first.

And yes, pre-emptive attacking against C&G was stupid.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283200749' post='2436077']
I agree in general that fighting ability is more important than stats. However, I would put TOP right up there with anybody as far as our membership' ability to fight is concerned. We may have made a political blunder here or there that hurt us in wars, but we had as many (or more) active and capable fighters in our ranks as any of those you mentioned with the possible exception of FAN. If you then combine this with the fact we had the best fighting stats of all alliances by quite a large margin, I think that puts us out ahead in terms of overall fighting prowess.[/quote]
And that is where the grey area comes in for me, because TOP adopted similar attrition tactics to MK as MK did to NPO. When a war is all about nukes, and nukes are all about stats, then true fighting ability is very hard to determine. Anyone would be very hard pressed to determine where TOP's stats stopped working for them and where their skills started. I'm not saying that TOP doesn't have skills (the damage ratios from that war would disprove such a thing), but I simply can't say how big of a factor your tech was for your damage compared to your timing and ability.

Again, I'm not doubting TOP's skills, I've just never seen them in an offensive position that required any large scale effort (You guys practically walked through Karma and NoCB, and never participated in UJW) or a defensive position that wasn't centered around damage output rather than total victory. So, really all I'm saying is I just don't know how good you guys [i]really[/i] are when you go all out, and I've never seen you go all out in combat because...well...you never had to. Maybe one war we'll see TOP goes balls deep into somebody and we'll get to see how good you really are.


[quote]Do you honestly believe any of the alliances you mentioned in their prime could have defeated us in a one on one during our prime?[/quote]
If Umbrella had more members, I believe they would have the best shot out of anyone. They have the activity, the skills, and the slot usage to take pretty much anyone down. But alas, exclusivity comes at the cost of coverage area.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Hyperion321