The Polaris "War Machine" Myth

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1291924548' post='2535034']
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.
[/quote]

I'm going to have to agree with this man. When the bombs started falling I was convinced we were going to take a bigger beating than we did, instead we performed to par or even better than many NpO assailants. When PC and FOK came in the board was evened up a lot more, but had \m/ continued fighting on it's own I imagine we could have dealt one and a half to twice the damage we took on. I know as stubborn as all the \m/ Triumvirs were then, we wouldn't have ended the war until we felt we bleed our enemy dry enough. However as most everyone knows these days, PC and FOK did become involved and we had other reasons for wanting to bring that front of the conflict to a close before the second began. It'll always be a "what if" scenario, but NpO didn't perform to expectations. They did, however, fight hard and it was fun. I only wish I had been able to personally participate in that front of the conflict. I got my licks in on Valhalla and BAPS who were both good opponents in the war though, so I'm satisfied.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Emperor Marx

[nutkase]

We still harping on about the efforts of past wars? Seriously what was the actual point behind this whole thread?

Same back and forth dribble about the past.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291911444' post='2534902']
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.
[/quote]
The NpO war on \m/ was little more than the opening credits of a feature movie. Why would Polaris go all out against \m/ when they knew much bigger things were coming.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Poyplemonkeys]

I have experienced first hand anything resembling the fighting capabilities of Polaris once. I hit the same target as him in WotC and he may be the worst person I've ever tried to organise anything with. Obviously this isn't indicative of anything worthwhile though.

They also recommended that we declare war in WotC but not actually declare any wars, which is really lame. Where's the fun in that? Grub already explained it though, long term, yadda yadda.

[Innerspeaker]

For the record, those of us at the top of Polar that were in peace mode during NoCB didn't stay in peace simply to avoid damage. There were more than enough threads in Miniplenty's banker board debating whether or not to leave peace mode and do at least some damage, or stay and prepare for rebuilding.
We stayed, and, for the most part, we payed for it. The top 30 nations in Polar at the end of the war (those bankers sent to peace) funded not only the rebuilding effort, but also paying back reparations. I payed 3600 of my own tech (more than I actually had) to reps, and then continued to send tech to nations in NV once I left the NpO. Don't give me that "ivory tower" !@#$%^&*. A good majority of the top 30 bankers voiced their guilt and concern as the rest of the alliance was lit on fire.

[Mompson]

What's pretty funny is that hardly any people have just came on here and "attacked the source", and yet MVP talks about that in like half his posts. Guess what? We're 18-2? That can't be said of most alliances, and Polaris will always prevail.

[The MVP]

[quote]Don't give me that "ivory tower" !@#$%^&*. A good majority of the top 30 bankers voiced their guilt and concern as the rest of the alliance was lit on fire. [/quote]

I hate points such as these. "Yes we let them die, but we felt very bad!" It doesn't do much in retrospect.

[AlmightyGrub]

Nobody died comrade and the bankers did as they were ordered to do by their Emperor. Discipline I believe it is called, something you would do well to learn and try to exercise some of on a more regular basis.

[cookavich]

I think in cases such as this one must bear in mind that the person who is making this critique is the same dude who decided to declare for "all-out damage" with cobwebs and dust for a warchest.

[Joseph Black]

I have a solution to this dilemma, those who believe that Polar isn't worth their weight as a military should work to gain authority within their respective alliances, then secretly plot Polaris' down fall, then attack them publicly for everything they do, establish a physical way to calculating the effectiveness of Polar's military, then when you have a string of a CB attack them and find out just how well you do, for good record keeping be sure that you record all alliances involved your allies and theirs to allow for a full analysis of the gathered information. Then repeat the process a few more times with other alliances so that you can calculate for the variation.

This does 2 things, establishes who is and who is not a good military alliance and it provides entertainment for all.

[The Pansy]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1291945478' post='2535323']
Nobody died comrade and the bankers did as they were ordered to do by their Emperor. Discipline I believe it is called
[/quote]
I remember talking to a few Polar bankers during and after the conflict, their job was to rebuild Polaris, and shock horror, they did that.
Polar were heavily outnumbered, they were not on the same ideal as MK was then, Polar intended to survive the war and rebuild, better and stronger, MK were going balls in, as they thought there was no tomorrow for them.
To compare there performances in this war is impossible, as they had very very different plans

[The MVP]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1291947019' post='2535339']
I remember talking to a few Polar bankers during and after the conflict, their job was to rebuild Polaris, and shock horror, they did that.
Polar were heavily outnumbered, they were not on the same ideal as MK was then, Polar intended to survive the war and rebuild, better and stronger, MK were going balls in, as they thought there was no tomorrow for them.
To compare there performances in this war is impossible, as they had very very different plans
[/quote]

Not just the plans I am questioning, it's also the execution of these plans. If your intent is to survive whilst causing minimal damages to the opponent your alliance will never truly be baptized by fire.

Also, cook, I laughed.

Edited December 10, 2010 by The MVP

[Banksy]

[quote name='mompson' timestamp='1291945059' post='2535316']
What's pretty funny is that hardly any people have just came on here and "attacked the source", and yet MVP talks about that in like half his posts. Guess what? We're 18-2? That can't be said of most alliances, and Polaris will always prevail.
[/quote]
Honestly, bringing up your victories against the mighty military powerhouses of the NADC, GUN and FIST hardly helps you here.

[Moridin]

[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 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?[/quote]

Grub and Dajobo have covered this pretty well, but I'll just reiterate what they said. As someone who was in MiniPax in the months leading up to the war, and as someone who sat in on the preparations the night of Polaris' entry (though I wasn't in Polar at that time), I can say a couple things with complete certainty. First, Polar had become complacent in the half a year leading up to the troubles in the summer of 2008. We were fighting a number of small engagements against very outmatched alliances. Our military system had become geared towards executing wars in which Polar was at least on an equal footing.

During the summer, as (real) war began to loom, we realized our mistake and tried to somewhat hastily correct our previous mistakes. There was a major push for SDIs around the time of the planning of the potential war with Grämlins, which continued into July. It's probable that the money would've been better spent on MPs or warchests, and it wasn't because again, we were oriented towards wars where we outnumbered the enemy (which, in terms of nations, could've been true of the potential Grämlins war). Either way, it wouldn't have made a great amount of difference. With the tables turned, at that time few alliances would've performed better. MK certainly did, and I'd expect TOP and the rest of Citadel to have as well. But the majority of large alliances did not push warchests very hard. I had $200 million for ~50k NS, and most of those I encountered in Vox that had defected from alliances in the Coalition had much less. Sheer force of numbers won the war for the Coalition, and while BLEU in general and NpO in particular did not perform terribly well at all, it's not any worse than I would expect of another alliance under the circumstances.

Finally, the misconception which Grub and Dajobo addressed that somehow Polaris was performing an "update blitz" is patently absurd. I sat in on the planning, and it was made expressly clear that maybe a dozen targets were being picked simply to show that Polaris was engaging. The war was expected and planned as a purely defensive one, as MiniPax was well aware of how the numbers added up. The notion that the bankers should've come out of peace mode and fought is equally ridiculous. Polaris did better in the long-run by keeping them in peace mode. Sacrificing the ability to rebuild for some short term glory is a decision some would make, and it is admirable in its own right, but leaving bankers in peace mode was a perfectly sensible decision and ultimately paid off.

So when it comes to the War of the Coalition, you have a couple of facts right, from which you're drawing bizarre conclusions. Polaris did not perform exceptionally in that war, but that a) is not due to the few wars declared on opening night and b) not even remotely relevant to the state of Polar's military today.

[quote]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..[/quote]

Polaris had (and has) a very small upper tier. There was no way that there were going to be good results going up against a very top-heavy alliance with quite a lot of military experience. It could've been better, yeah. We were trying out an entirely new military system in the alliance that one the one hand, I believe did a better job matching people up to targets, but on the other hand didn't do a very job of handling defensive wars. This especially became a problem when PC began growing significantly as nations joined in fairly large numbers who were eager for a shot at Polar. It is also perhaps the disadvantage of prohibiting tech raiding, that our members can only experience war when it's the real thing. We had tried a couple methods of familiarizing people with war, but they hadn't amounted to much.

What Polaris lacked in experience, it made up, as others have noted, in persistence and strong discipline. While I was not in Polaris for the duration of the war with TOP, several others in this thread have noted that Polar was one of the few to continue fighting throughout the war. Whatever your feelings on the side(s) Polar picked in the war (I really don't want to turn this into another discussion about how Polar is evil), you can't really deny that Polaris shouldered a lot of the war burden as other alliances lost interest.

All in all, I'd say Polaris today has a strong military. Not as good as some, but better than most. A lot of it comes down to hard statistics. We can't compete with the upper tiers of MK or Umbrella, but against similarly weighted alliances you can expect to see Polar do very well. The 10.10.10 war games showed that Polar is more than a match for most alliances when on an equal footing. Naturally, never is a true war fought such, but it nevertheless provides at least some insight into Polar's military ability.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Moridin

[NLights]

TheAUT quality posting [i]myth[/i].

[Moridin]

[quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1291950941' post='2535364']
TheAUT quality posting [i]myth[/i].
[/quote]

I don't think anyone has any such illusions.

[DictatatorDan]

[color="#FF0000"][u]Elements of A Crap Post[/u]
Author with a grudge...CHECK
Broad conclusions based on conjecture...CHECK
Anecdotes...CHECK
Inflated Sense of Self Importance...CHECK
Meow meow meow...CHECK.

Yup, we have a winner here folks. This is definatly a load of crap.[/color]

[NLights]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1291951018' post='2535366']
I don't think anyone has any such illusions.
[/quote]

Outside of himself this is probably true.

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1291947019' post='2535339']Polar were heavily outnumbered, they were not on the same ideal as MK was then, Polar intended to survive the war and rebuild, better and stronger, MK were going balls in, as they thought there was no tomorrow for them. To compare there performances in this war is impossible, as they had very very different plans[/quote]
Ring-a-ding-ding baby.

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291947116' post='2535342']Not just the plans I am questioning, it's also the execution of these plans. If your intent is to survive whilst causing minimal damages to the opponent your alliance will never truly be baptized by fire.Also, cook, I laughed. [/quote]War is a means to an end, not an end of itself. Any alliance leader who wastes resources in the mindless pursuit of empty glory or offers up their foot soldiers as cannon fodder is either suicidal or criminally negligible.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1291947137' post='2535343']Honestly, bringing up your victories against the mighty military powerhouses of the NADC, GUN and FIST hardly helps you here.[/quote]NADC, GUN and FIST's relative military weakness doesn't undermine the fact that our military organization in those conflicts was quite well handled, which in itself is an epic feat given our forums failing during GUN and most of our military command being inactive during the initial rush on FIST.

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1291947430' post='2535344']
First, Polar had become complacent in the half a year leading up to the troubles in the summer of 2008. We were fighting a number of small engagements against very outmatched alliances. Our military system had become geared towards executing wars in which Polar was at least on an equal footing.[/quote]You're right, though I'm not sure complacency is the correct label.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Fallen Fool

[Jaguar1]

Feeling froggy? Jump and find out first hand what Polaris' war machine can do.

[Dexomega]

As usual, I see nothing but hypocrisy here.

[Azaghul]

I can't comment on Bipolar, as I wasn't around for it.

As for noCB/WoTC, they weren't much different than most alliances do/did in that situation, which was quite poorly, giving up and taking it. The alliance that actively fights back is the exception rather than the rule, especially in those days where people didn't have warchests to last them a long time. That doesn't make them bad, it just makes them average.

Even if MK hadn't been in the situation where we thought we weren't going to get peace, I still would have advocated for that approach to the war. Why? When you're doing significant damage to your opponents, it gives them an incentive to give you peace. It creates a cost for them to continue beating you down. You may lose more more quickly with more wars, but in the long run if it leads to a shorter war it will help you out. Plus who wants to fight a war just to survive and get peace? Wars should be fun. Sitting there and taking it is boring, and I'd rather earn the self respect to say that I fought hard and did damage to my opponents than to save a few stats.

The extra damage that MK might have taken was more than made up for in the damage that we did to our enemies and the respect we gained. It also hurt the reputation of NPO's military which helped when it came to alliances drifting against NPO pre-Karma.

But again, the fact that we took that approach was an exception rather than the rule. The fact that NpO didn't just made them normal.

Overall NpO per capita is probably an average alliance. That would be slightly above average for a mass member alliance.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Azaghul

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1291945189' post='2535318']
I hate points such as these. "Yes we let them die, but we felt very bad!" It doesn't do much in retrospect.
[/quote]

you do realize that most everyone in Polaris understood what was going on and held absolutely no ill-will towards those who were ordered into PM. so it really does not matter what you think or feel as you are no one. the only people whose thoughts and feelings matter are the ones who fought in Polaris during the SPW.

[bigwoody]

"Alliances I like are good at war, and alliances I do not like are bad at war."

-Everybody

Edited December 10, 2010 by bigwoody

[Earogema]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1291924548' post='2535034']
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.
[/quote]
That pretty much. I was entirely content for just us and PC to have our fun.