The Polaris "War Machine" Myth

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1291924421' post='2535032']
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.
[/quote]

In terms of the impact this piece of evidence presents your right. Anarchy % can be impacted by any number of factors. It could be the lack of nuclear weapons being used against NpO, it could be the PM factor; Looking the first addressed exception nuclear weapons. It takes more skill as a fighter to anarchy your target without nuclear weapons than it does with, a successful nuclear strike equals anarchy every time no exception. So even if it is due to a limited number of nuclear weapons, it still shows Polaris as having enough military cohesion to avoid anarchy on a mass level. In terms of the PM factor, I can't say one way or another if the majority of Polar was in PM at the time of this piece of evidence, because I wasn't there and I have found nothing of the articles at the time that would support this.

[OCC] Thanks for the great reply, I'm glade to have someone of good caliber for this debate.

[The Pansy]

[quote]their "update blitz" on Valhalla that night AlmightyGrub declared war was atrocious.[/quote]
In fairness, they avoided our big names because they knew it would annoy us, casualty whore that we are, sadly it was a stupid move, because you had all of us counter declaring on anything they tried to throw at us.
Over the entire of that war, anything thrown at Valhalla was very quickly countered by some very very prepared allies

[flak attack]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
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.
[/quote]
MK did [i]more[/i] damage than the opposing alliances. NPO alone took as much infra damage as MK. Tech and land would presumably show similar results.

That said, stats are important. Saying PC and FOK tore them a new one is a bit of a no brainer. PC and FOK are two of the most militarily competent alliances out there. They could tear 90% of alliances out there up without a second thought. NpO is above average, especially for a mass member alliance, but not amazing.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291912609' post='2534911']


Are you planning to call?
[/quote]
I aint even plannin to call.

[Ardus]

Polaris is neither incredible nor terrible in global conflict. It is competent in skill and statistical build.

[DougZ37]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1291921914' post='2535007']
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
[/quote]

As far as the War of the Coalition is concerned, I think this thread is absolutely right. Take my case (which by all accounts was the common experience in TOP, which was fighting the cream of the polar crop). We were both in the top 5% my NS. Our nations were similar sized, similar tech, etc. His warchest allowed him to fight for less than one week, whereas everyone attacking him had at least 40 days (this was back before the mega-warchest). It wasn't at all unusual to see their fighters with less 10% or less of the warchest of their attackers. I think preparation for war is a major part of 'war skills' - and in this they failed miserably.

This was more than two years ago though. Polar isn't stupid, they have talented members, talented leadership, etc. They learned from this mistake. They grew their nations in tandem so they have large numbers of nations all in close range of one another, they invested in MPs so they had the largest nuke counts, and they grew their warchests.

So, were they a military powerhouse? No, in the War of the Coalition they were a joke. Are they a military powerhouse now? Absolutely.

[Duke Nukem]

Polaris has a very organized military. Polaris has a lot of nukes. I'm scared.

[Banksy]

I agree that Polaris are overrated, but they are still relatively competent, and they have a decent amount of members who are actually willing to fight. As BiPolar dragged along, Polaris were one of the few alliances who actually kept up their attacks. Keeping up staggers is basic, but necessary, and Polaris actually fulfilled this basic function (which most alliances, apparently, are incapable of doing due to an apparently short attention span) They have the ability to do some well planned aid-drops and to regrow quickly post-war, which is more important than the actual fighting tbqh. Anyone can turtle for weeks on end, but getting the infra back and regaining tech for the next war is more important in many ways.

The reason why Polaris is generally thought to be a superpower is probably because of their nuke count. But stats like these are incredibly misleading. Polaris has a high nuke count because its nations get them so early, which means they don't have the warchests or the NS of nations who purchased nukes later (although I am hardly a saint in this regard myself...). It is also misleading because of the fact that due to their large nuke count (and large member count) they will simply have more alliances targeting them. It would be more appropriate to look at a nuke/NS or a nuke/enemy statistic.

So for a mass recruiting alliance, Polaris would be near the top for military competency. The difficulties in organising an effective war for a large alliance are extraordinary, and a lot of people in micros and 'elite' alliances tend to forget this.

[raasaa]

[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]
given the number of alliances that attacked them, it was bound to be easy. I would like to see how your alliance would fare when the odds are 10:1

@ MVP

You are comparing apples to oranges....MK and NpO are two very different alliances in terms of member count. The difference in membership was much larger during noCB. You should be comparing NpO with Sparta, TOOL, ODN, Legion, GATO, IRON, Fark etc.....not with MK, Umbrella, PC etc...

[Drai]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291913457' post='2534929']
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]And your problem is that you continue to make these types of threads with no hard facts in the opening post and when people disagree you automatically jump to the post I quoted. The problem isn't those accusing you. Get over yourself and make something that actually proves your point rather than something that states your opinion and expecting people to agree.

With respect to the subject of this thread, I don't think Polar is very impressive on a per capita basis but any alliance with that many nukes is going to be a threat regardless of the situation.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Drai

[KainIIIC]

Well, Polaris is a large-modeled alliance, who basically lets in everyone who passes their Academy. MK on the other hand usually attracts middle-to-upper tiered nations without mass recruiting, with a big focus on activity. The only alliances that you can really compare Polaris to are: Pacifica, MHA, Sparta, Legion, GATO and (although they're less than the 350 member threshold I used to like to use, total population has declined so I'll include:) ODN, Fark, VE, and of course IRON (and disputably including GOONS, with MCXA and RoK among those who were so pre-Karma). These are alliances that have been around a [i]long[/i] time, mass recruit (both large and small nations), and both carry the same issues concerning mass-military preparation.

I was told post-Karma that the only 'large alliances' to have any decent military machine were NPO, IRON and NpO. NPO has been criticized during Karma as being somewhat roll-overs until you got into the lower-mid tiers, but of course in the cases of NPO, IRON (and perhaps MCXA), when you're outnumbered 3x1, it doesn't matter how good of a military machine you have, you'll still be destroyed (and as NPO proved during Karma, you can still be completely beaten down and cause tremendous pain (see: the damage NPO caused to RoK's mid-lower tiers during June/July of '09)). Similarly, IRON was completely stacked against during BiPolar, so it's hard to judge how well they did there (many reports of people attacking inactive people, which IMO is expected to happen in such a large and old alliance).

Now you have NpO, who appears to have performed decently in the first part of BiPolar - they took about as much damage as they received, and they went up against pretty semi-elite alliances (FOK, PC, \m/ sorta). On the other hand, many people from Kronos told me that NpO was quite disappointing at war, which again makes sense if you have an elite alliance targeting inactives and semi-active turtlers. But ultimately, it's actually quite hard to judge which large alliance's war machine is better than another's.

If I had to guess and rank them, I'd probably have to rank them NPO > Fark > NpO followed by VE/ODN/GATO, and then Legion/Sparta, IRON being a huge question mark (probably after NpO, maybe before ODN? Idk what their capacity is now these days). It's all conjecture, but it's clear that alliances like NpO or GATO are going to have crappy fighters, vis-à-vis a TOP or even an MK. But overall, I still think NpO has a pretty decent military considering its size.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1291921914' post='2535007']
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
[/quote]

No, not this severe. You were REALLY, REALLY bad.

[Xiphosis]

If this was coming from an ex-Polar Defense guy or something similar, I'd take it at least somewhat seriously.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1291936274' post='2535206']
If this was coming from an ex-Polar Defense guy or something similar, I'd take it at least somewhat seriously.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well, MVP used to be in a Polar ally that came to its defense. Isn't that close enough?[/color]

[TheyCallMeJeezy]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1291936699' post='2535211']
[color="#0000FF"]Well, MVP used to be in a Polar ally that came to its defense. Isn't that close enough?[/color]
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]*Jeezy looks to judges...[/color]

Judges say no.

[The MVP]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1291927870' post='2535068']
I aint even plannin to call.
[/quote]

I thought you were the one for me.

[Confusion]

Thank you, the MVP. As a former member of Polar, I can now say I feel like rejoining once more.




Confusion.

[Sephiroth]

I think it would take war fighting on the same side as NPO to see what NpO are really capable of. In most of these wars they've fought in they haven't seemed to put much effort in and mostly trying to minimize damage.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Methrage

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1291929745' post='2535096']
*<snip*
[/quote]

I agree with all points here. Cat and dogs living together, mass hysteria.

[quote name='TheyCallMeJeezy' timestamp='1291937175' post='2535217']
[color="#FF0000"]*Jeezy looks to judges...[/color]

Judges say no.
[/quote]

Haha, very nice.

[Prodigal Moon]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1291921914' post='2535007']
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.
[/quote]
This is just one of the reasons why I roll my eyes when people talk about differences in fighting "ability" - usually based on anecdotal evidence at best.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Prodigal Moon

[Dajobo]

This topic has provided me with great amusement. There's some merit in some comments and some nonsense in others but reasons for everything.

Some small points to keep in mind for those interested.

In the NoCB war we attacked Valhalla with a minimal number knowing full well our war screens would be filled when everyone came in so no point in having more than on aggressive war when you know you will have three defensive as well. Four on one is never good for the one!
The vast superiority of numbers meant the coalition had a luxury of choices to match up battles and this was under the old formula of +/- 50% NS. I personally wasn't that big at the time and had never even looked like being nuke capable, but had my Valhalla target plus three Umbrella nations all much larger and well stocked with nukes on me. Regardless I had a lot of fun in that war and make some friends in Umbrella so wasn't a bad outcome in the end. The decision to keep our bankers (remember that days when allainces had bankers) out of the war may or may not have been a good one, but when you know you're in for a pummelling it makes some sense to try and plan for the rebuild.

Bi-Polar was a tough one for us. It's hard to be motivated to attack hard knowing the more successful you are, the more it hurts your alliance mate fighting for the other side. I guess what it really shows is while you can honour all treaties and fight both fronts it doesn't work too well. Regardless of that I don't think we were the first to do it and I doubt we'll be that last.

I probably missed something but meh, carry on...

[D34th]

I know you love us MVP.

[AlmightyGrub]

The OP makes assertions based on his two minute attention span for any subject assuming incorrectly that the rest of the world is similarly disbaled.

Polaris has never been a wham bam thankyou maam kind of alliance, I would suggest strongly that we consider all our options in every situation and the longer term view to the game which seems to be beyond most of Bob.

We were not prepared for the war we call SPW, it is a simple to establish fact that many of the alliance did not hold great warchests. Whether they were living in the sunshine thinking the rain would never come through ignorance or a state of bliss is little to no fault of the Minister of Peace during the build up .

To be completely honest, we had approximately one month to get ready for that blitz, we knew it was coming, we knew who was coming and we knew why. We did our best to stall it to get better prepared, but essentially there was no alliance that could have withstood the combined firepower/warchest/motivation of that coalition versus us.... so why burn stuff to show you have a hairy chest? I minimised the damages, accepted early peace terms and got on with the business of returning to strength. That we exited peace terms and immediately popped back to sanction should be a clear indication that we were not as disorgansied as we allowed ourselves to appear.

We declared 10 wars IIRC on Valhalla, we had no interest in opening that front when we knew exactly what was coming the next night. It is a wonderful concept to charge like a lemming over the cliff trying to prove you can really fly, if you subscribe to that newsletter, feel free to jump whendver you like. I will always however take a longer view. I do not perform tricks like a trained seal for anyone, I am not here for your amusement, I am here for mine and for the amusement of Polaris. If I happened to amuse you along the way, consider it incidental. On a personal note, I always fight hard with my nation, feel free to sample my war acumen anytime you get in range Mr.OP.

As for Bi-Polar Mr.OP, seriously are you still that clueless? I suspect so and I do not ever see that changing soon. When the penny finally does drop it will be quite a monumental day in your life. You may also discover that everyone is not like you, does not measure their success and failures by the same terms and some of us even have an attention span that extends to years rather than minutes.

I feel validated that someone as continually clueless, eternally brainless and clearly attention seeking would fail to understand my motivations, values and process as badly as you do.

Continue forever, if you are a monkey, you do need to perform for the masses or they will lose interest... afterall you are as irrelevant now as ever.

Also Hello

[wickedj]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1291913811' post='2534931']
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.
[/quote]
How many nukes did IRON have in Karma war? The people i fought were
A. worst fighters ive encountered(You've been surpassed btw. 10.10.10 opened my eyes to a whole new level of suck). Coordination was zero
B. the most ill prepared nations, the whole "Member of the IRON Billion Dollar Club" had a going rate of being about 50% truth. Hell, at the time of Fark's DoW on them they probably had 2x-2.5x the nations Fark did but they had SEVEN more MP's then Fark.

You can have all the nukes in the game, but if thats all you can do then you better petition admin to let you land more than 1 per day.

Oh, and on topic, You arent breaking any news my dear AUT lol

[The MVP]

[quote]You may also discover that everyone is not like you, does not measure their success and failures by the same terms and some of us even have an attention span that extends to years rather than minutes.[/quote]

3 years is a short attention span yet making future predictions isn't. Okay then!

[quote]feel free to sample my war acumen anytime you get in range Mr.OP.[/quote]

What, will you declare on yourself halfway through the war?

Edited December 10, 2010 by The MVP