The Polaris "War Machine" Myth

[The MVP]

I'm not going to get into cold hard stats, it has been stated numerous times already. From someone who has seen Polaris "war machine" operate for awhile, I just want to dis-spell this misconception that Polaris is good at war and why people felt that way. This idea of Polaris being a tremendous military alliance, where did it come from? Let me go ahead and explain why I believe most people are misled.

Polaris right before the noCB war lost a tremendous amount of nations due to the impending attacks on them. They saw it coming from a mile away and knew they couldn't do anything about it. Now I could explain the events leading up to the war since I was there but I won't.

When AlmightyGrub declared war Polaris fully knew they were going to get destroyed. There were talks within BLEU to go in defense of GR while keeping Polaris out just to deny the satisfaction of the Coalition to destroy it. Yet Polaris did fight because they knew they could not delay the inevitable. Now people often think that CnG and BLEU were close leading up to the war, this is absolutely false; we were only drawn into the same conflict due to coincidence. CnG was not a fan of BLEU and even BLEU's attempts to thank MK were just met with, "meh, we were going to do this regardless of what happened to you."

I don't know of many alliances on our side that did well in that war with the exception of MK. Their plan was great and their execution even better. Targeting nations without SDI's to maximize damage with their nukes, the way they cycled in and out of war was impeccable fighting NPO and VE they caused as much damage as they took.

Now Polaris' performance? Abysmal, to say the least. Folded quicker than a lawn chair. Losing their NS precipitously with no real plan to cause damange just awaiting their beating. The damages they caused to the coalition that attacked them was terrible, their "update blitz" on Valhalla that night AlmightyGrub declared war was atrocious. I think all the alliances that fought Polaris gained NS as a result of all the war. People had the feeling Polaris folded due to them hoping that if they don't fight back too hard they'd have an easier time with peace terms. Unlike MK, Polaris was expected to escape the war albeit to get roughed up quite a bit. At one point Polaris higher end nations sat in peace mode as the other side urged them to move out of peace mode as they sat in ivory towers as their middle and lower tiers were getting pummeled. You may say this is a valid war strategy, but hell is it a valid war strategy for a true military powerhouse?

MK proved itself, Polaris did not.

At the end of that war Polaris rebuilt quickly at a furious pace. Building so many nuclear missiles it surpassed that of TOP's reaching 4,000 I believe for the first time ever. With this rapid growth people felt that Polaris, stats wise at least, was a military power although not even being tested. The Karma War passed by with Polaris seeing minimal action so there was really nothing to indicate Polaris was stronger militarily than they had been when they fought in the noCB war. Which leads me to...

What we all know as the Bi-Polar War. Attacking \m/ they should have [i]statistically [/i]wise ran them over quickly. And when FOK and PC attacked? Polaris was being destroyed. From what I saw there wasn't much resistance other than lobbing nukes. The damage they took was catastrophic next to FOK and PC. And when they switched sides and attacked TOP? Talk about a laughing stalk. The damage they caused that war was far less than the damage they took by as much 4-fold. Ridiculous ratio considering they started a war and attacked on two fronts.

So let me ask you why do you think Polaris is a military powerhouse? It's a joke.

[Joseph Black]

Do you have any proof of anything you say other than simply stating "I was there?" and what does that mean? You were in Polar or one of the alliances directly fighting it or were you simply a member of the community that was invovled in the conflict, but had only indirect contact with Polar's ability to fight?

If you’re going to attack an alliance for the inability to fight you should probably be able to give examples of individual fights, screen shots of the damage reports, topics at the time that would have shown Polaris in an unfavorable light, because time has a way of changing people’s perceptions of how events really happen. Until you can provide proof that this "myth" is false you’re not really dispelling it simply spouting your opinion on events that you may or may not have been directly involved with.


edit- spelling

Edited December 9, 2010 by Muddog

[SirWilliam]

When I saw the title I was expecting this to be a babyjesus thread.

[tamerlane]

I used to want this thing forever, you can have it back.

[The MVP]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1291912116' post='2534905']
Do you have any proof of anything you say other than simply stating "I was there?" and what does that mean? You were in Polar or one of the alliances directly fighting it or were you simply a member of the community that was invovled in the conflict, but had only indirect contact with Polar's ability to fight?

If you’re going to attack an alliance for the inability to fight you should probably be able to give examples of individual fights, screen shots of the damage reports, topics at the time that would have shown Polaris in an unfavorable light, because time has a way of changing people’s perceptions of how events really happen. Until you can provide proof that this "myth" is false you’re not really dispelling it simply spouting your opinion on events that you may or may not have been directly involved with.


edit- spelling
[/quote]

You can easily get these things from those who were directly involved and from simply looking at stats. I was asking why people thought Polaris was a war machine, do you believe so? Instead of attacking the source why can't you attack the facts? That's like saying you can't comment on an event because you weren't there although you have a bunch of information on the events itself. Yes first-hand accounts are better than second-hand accounts but it's not like the first-hand accounts of those who fought Polaris is very different from my, and many people who have seen them fight, opinions' as well.

[quote]I used to want this thing forever, you can have it back. [/quote]

Are you planning to call?

Edited December 9, 2010 by The MVP

[Altheus]

Just propaganda. The only conclusion anyone can draw out from your comments MVP is that you don't like Polaris.

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291912609' post='2534911']
You can easily get these things from those who were directly involved and from simply looking at stats. I was asking why people thought Polaris was a war machine, do you believe so? Instead of attacking the source why can't you attack the facts? That's like saying you can't comment on an event because you weren't there although you have a bunch of information on the events itself. Yes first-hand accounts are better than second-hand accounts but it's not like the first-hand accounts of those who fought Polaris is very different from my, and many people who have seen them fight, opinions' as well.
[/quote]

Honestly, I don't have an opinion on Polaris in any fashion as I've never directly had any contact with them other than possible IRC banter and the occasional tech deal through Organization XIII. I didn't attack the source of the article, I asked for facts. It’s impossible to present a counter argument to this editorial. I didn't say that a logically sound argument couldn't be made against Polaris' ability to conduct war, however none of this was provided in initial article. In terms of the information being readily available, if an argument is going to be made it’s important to remember to include facts as these support opinions. It’s true that some now may hold the opinion that Polaris is unable to fight, but as I said perceptions change with political atmosphere, so the opinions of today are not the facts that surround the truth.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Muddog

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Altheus' timestamp='1291912704' post='2534914']
Just propaganda. The only conclusion anyone can draw out from your comments MVP is that you don't like Polaris.
[/quote]
...and decided to make an OWF thread about it to let everyone know. As usual.

[The MVP]

It's amazing how some will attack the source instead of the content just to suit their own agenda and viewpoints. So.. expected.

Maybe if some of you actually read the OP and instead of being like, "MVP you're biased as usual you suck lololol" you'd see this thread is not out of bias it's more out of frustration.

Just saying I'm crazy instead of looking at the points I have to make is one of the worst trends I've seen on here lately. It's dismissive. "I don't like you, so you're automatically biased and wrong." I can't force you to read the OP and give only positive comments if I did I'd be Peggy Sue, but seriously can't you guys just address the point for [i]once[/i]?

Edited December 9, 2010 by The MVP

[Hyperion321]

Good at fighting or not...they have 4k nukes. I don't care if it was GPA with 4k nukes, I would think twice before charging in assuming they suck at war.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

They aren't as great as people like to think, but they aren't as bad either. At least they know how to start a war though, which is more than can be said for most alliances

Edited December 9, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[General Vengeance]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
I'm not going to get into cold hard stats.[/quote]
Yeah don't let that stop you, heaven forbid.

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
So let me ask you why do you think Polaris is a military powerhouse? It's a joke.
[/quote]
Okay, but only because you said so.

The point of this thread "Polaris" is evil...











...This is getting old, I know CN is painfully dull, but please do try harder.

[Wu Tang Clan]

Even if they were absolutely abysmal at war, the 4k nukes would rip apart nearly any alliance that attacked them. The damages would be high no matter what, even if they simply lobbed nukes. So it really doesn't matter.

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291913457' post='2534929']
It's amazing how some will attack the source instead of the content just to suit their own agenda and viewpoints. So.. expected.

Maybe if some of you actually read the OP and instead of being like, "MVP you're biased as usual you suck lololol" you'd see this thread is not out of bias it's more out of frustration.

Just saying I'm crazy instead of looking at the points I have to make is one of the worst trends I've seen on here lately. It's dismissive. "I don't like you, so you're automatically biased and wrong." I can't force you to read the OP and give only positive comments if I did I'd be Peggy Sue, but seriously can't you guys just address the point for [i]once[/i]?
[/quote]

Alright, I'm game.



I submit Article 1- [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30938"]Daily Anarchy [/url]

At first glance it would seem as that Polar making up the majority of the anarchy nations and they do being the largest alliance. Now direct your attention to the % Anarchy and you will find Polaris at a mere 44.01% in anarchy while you will find others like MK, Solid, and GR were all much more quickly over whelmed and taken into anarchy. Polaris who has the most alliance declare on them was able to fend off the initial attack better than the others. Not the sign of a poor fighter.

I would like to now submit Article 2- [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30938"]Daily Anarchy NS change over a month [/url]

If you will scroll down to the chart titled Global shift of power you will find that very few alliances had gains during that month, however Polar was one of such alliances. To be able to post gains during the midst of possibly the biggest global war in terms of damage done, no weak alliance would be able to be as involved as Polar was and still post gains of 270,000 NS over the month. Being strong enough to fight a war and still be able to post NS gains shows they were at least not losing the war, not a sign of a poor fighter.

Now for Article 3- [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Bipolar_War"]Sanction Race January 20 — February 20 Month at War Editio[/url]

You’re going to have to do a little work yourself with this one. Please note that through this date Polaris didn't suffer loss of section, or extreme damage even though they were fighting on two fronts. Also not the sign of a poor fighter


As I said before, I asked question of your article not attacking the source. The difference is that attacking the source would have been an attack at you. I attacked your argument based on its content.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Muddog

[Tautology]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
I'm not going to get into cold hard stats, it has been stated numerous times already. From someone who has seen Polaris "war machine" operate for awhile, I just want to [b]dis-spell[/b] this misconception ...[/quote]
I read this topic to the word "dis-spell" but decided I didn't want to read about what must surely be magic and wizardry.

[kriekfreak]

Polar was never a military powerhouse. I remember taking them down with Q, lord we cut right through them like a hot knife through butter.

[TheyCallMeJeezy]

You're so convincing I almost resigned.

I never knew coming 2nd in 10.10.10 would cause so much butthurt.

[The MVP]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1291916402' post='2534960']
Polar was never a military powerhouse. I remember taking them down with Q, lord we cut right through them like a hot knife through butter.
[/quote]

First hand account guys don't let that get in the way of your feelings!

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291913457' post='2534929']
It's amazing how some will attack the source instead of the content just to suit their own agenda and viewpoints. So.. expected.
[/quote]

The first post criticizing you asks you for numbers to back up your assertions.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1291916402' post='2534960']
Polar was never a military powerhouse. I remember taking them down with Q, lord we cut right through them like a hot knife through butter.
[/quote]

No kidding. This has happened during every beatdown ever. Threads like these might as well be titled "a bunch of stupid ways to determine an alliance's fighting ability": nuke count, performance at the wrong end of a beat-down, total NS of alliance, etc.

It's amazing to me how so many of the nerds who INHABIT BOB haven't taken even the most basic of lessons from intro stats to heart.

edit: IC FORUM

Edited December 9, 2010 by Zombie Glaucon

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1291921914' post='2535007']
It's amazing to me how so many of the nerds who INHABIT BOB haven't taken even the most basic of lessons from intro stats to heart.

edit: IC FORUM
[/quote]
Oh but they do, Just not when they're arguing against a person/alliance they don't like.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1291915894' post='2534952']
Alright, I'm game.



I submit Article 1- [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=30938"]Daily Anarchy [/url]

At first glance it would seem as that Polar making up the majority of the anarchy nations and they do being the largest alliance. Now direct your attention to the % Anarchy and you will find Polaris at a mere 44.01% in anarchy while you will find others like MK, Solid, and GR were all much more quickly over whelmed and taken into anarchy. Polaris who has the most alliance declare on them was able to fend off the initial attack better than the others. Not the sign of a poor fighter.

[/quote]

At least on the point of daily anarchies, I am not entirely sure that says anything about an alliance being a better fighter or not. A "mere 44.01%" in anarchy means that one thing happened: Alliances fighting them were not nuking majority of Polaris (maybe because the attacker was too small to have nukes, from not having enough nukes to make up for SDI's or from Polar nations being in peace mode). I expect many of the so-called "best fighting alliances" would actually have super high anarchy percentages assuming majority of their nations were in nuclear range. I think that statistic makes a lot more sense in judging fighting ability in wars of 2007 and before but less so in "modern" wars.

This post isn't meant to be a judge of NpO but just a comment on using daily anarchy percentage to judge an alliance's ability to fight in modern wars.

Edited December 9, 2010 by mrcalkin

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1291912412' post='2534909']
When I saw the title I was expecting this to be a babyjesus thread.
[/quote]

I did too.

AUT, you presented your case poorly but you are right. I was triumvir of \m/ during BiPolar and when the war started, we hadn't even finished combining the command structures of Bel Air and Rage Co and we were still recovering from the TPF war. While Poison Clan and FOK definitely did the vast majority of damage, \m/ performed far better than it should have given the circumstances. Even without FOK, I don't think the New Polar Order could have taken down PC and \m/ without calling in other allies, despite the fact that it had about twice the NS.

[Bob Janova]

Polar [i]was[/i] terrible in the BLEU war (their part of WotC), at least in the upper tier. That's to be expected as a lot of people had gone there assuming their pixels would never be put at risk, and suddenly they were in a losing position. But they seemed to be fairly competent militarily in Bipolar – not exceptional, sure, but not terrible. They were putting sections of our NS profile under significant pressure until they declared on TOP as well.

[Andre27]

Any alliance with over 200 nuclear capable nations is not to be taken lightly.
As with any alliance I'm sure there are competent and less competent military nations amongst the ranks of Polaris.

One thing i do know is that Polaris has a good level of organization and enough brains amongst them to learn from previous battles.
Hence the smart move is not to underestimate Polaris.