The Polaris "War Machine" Myth

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1292025032' post='2535928']
That's exactly what I was thinking at the time of Bi-Polar. Then EM and CSM told us we were peacing out and TOP and IRON attacked. That was rather hilarious.
[/quote]

Yeah, I remember that. We laughed at that joke of a decision all night, ah good times. I got a particularly good chuckle out of the ~45 minute delay in informing all of us about that agreement.

Also, who cares whether Polar is competent at war or not. Nukes are pretty much the easy button for war and if you have them you'll be competent. They don't appear to have put a lot into the tactical level of warfare, nor have they built their nations into statistical war fighting giants, but with the bomb you're always at least decent.

[ROMMELHSQ]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1292016697' post='2535850']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co95MekUaUU[/media]

NpO has never been a great fighting machine. Why would they stop sucking now?
[/quote]
The sweet memories

[youwish959]

The funny thing is that this isn't a "war world", but rather a "political world" and debates about military prowess are wholly irrelevant and frankly stupid. There is no good way to score military prowess as it varies on a multitude of variables.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1292027783' post='2535949']
Also, who cares whether Polar is competent at war or not. Nukes are pretty much the easy button for war and if you have them you'll be competent. [/quote]

This is a very revealing statement.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1292015110' post='2535824']
Mine would be similar. FARK, NpO, NPO, IRON, Sparta, ODN, VE, and then GATO. I'd go off actual war competence more than the nation stats though. ODN has moved up considerably for their recent efforts. The only nations I ever fought in VE were absolutely terrible and their war stats aren't overwhelming... but I do think I underrate them, and would certainly never want to fight them. I'd say they're tied with ODN. FARK is far and away the best of this group imo though.
[/quote]
Honestly, ranking the mass recruiters is so speculative that it's really just pointless. It all depends on who they're up against, if they get the first 'hit' and how active their upper tiers are. If I declare war on a smaller nation, and so does my entire alliance, then we will perform better. If I am set against a micro alliance with no warguide or communication, then I will perform better than them. But that doesn't indicate how militarily competent I am, it simply says that my opponent is !@#$. The length peace is also an issue. The NPO hasn't fought in one-and-a-half years, they might be God's gift to warfare, or they could be complete and utter !@#$, but no one aside from them has a true idea of their capabilities, and no one knows how they will perform in the future.

As others have said, most statistics are useless. Every alliance has some horror story about a member buying only bombers, or spying away the '5th' nuke of a HNMS nation, so anecdotes mean very little too. I would say that the only important factor in an alliance's military capabilities is their overall activity. Active alliances do more tech deals, they read the guides, they coordinate, they get on IRC. That is the only real clue anyone has on a target's military competency, and it's still a bit of a 'pot-luck' situation.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1292029976' post='2535978']
This is a very revealing statement.
[/quote]

You disagree? I don't mean imply that there aren't better and worse fighters, but simply that having a lot of nukes pretty much guarantees you'll do a lot of damage. You can be more efficient in dealing damage or mitigating it through better nation building, high coordination, good tactics, ect., but these are really increases on the margins. If war is about destruction then having nukes pretty much guarantees a [u]baseline[/u] competence in its art.

That said, you can distinguish the truly exceptional rather easily. These are the alliances that can leverage every bit of destructive capability from their nations and have set themselves up to go on dishing out the most pain for the greatest amount of time. Everyone knows who these alliances are and suffice it to say Polar is not one of them.

[FAdmApoc]

[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1292016893' post='2535852']Because outside of military organization and individual nation preparation, "military skill" is a !@#$@#$ joke. Seriously, war in this universe boils down to chance and the universally accepted means individuals use to sway chance in their favor. At the end of the day what that means is a noob with a decent war guide can be just as competent at air and ground battles as a battle-scarred veteran who has served in every major war.
[/quote]

Agreed. For the most part war is chance, you can have 80% odds in your favour and still lose, 50% more aircraft and still lose, gogo chance!

The level of organisation in Polaris during the WotC was incredible to say the least, the amount of crap during the lead up, the war and the aftermath took some serious skill to execute properly. As for fighting capability, hard to put up a fight when you are being hit by nations bigger than you with nukes. Although towards the end the bandwagoners sucked hard, like TGE for example, I hit one of their guys so hard he wanted to surrender.

Polaris has and always will be a excellent fighting machine. Even if most people have had little to no experience fighting a war there are plenty of seasoned veterans in the alliance that help the newbies understand the system and fight more effectively.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292032735' post='2536016']


As others have said, most statistics are useless. [/quote]

I respectfully disagree with this concept. I understand (and agree) that overall activity, readiness and experience [s]pay[/s] [u]play[/u] a major role. But statistics do count (as another variable among others).

I love to death both umbrella and MHA. I think umbrella is the toughest of all alliances. But I dont think they could win a 1x1 against MHA for example. For people that know mixed martial arts, it will be comparing George Saint Pierre against B. lesnar. GSP is one of the best pound per pound fighter but B Lesnar is just freaking big.

Take home msg: In a war EVERYTHING COUNTS. Activity, Skill, Experience, Pollitics and also statistics.

Edited December 11, 2010 by King Louis the II

[Believland]

[quote name='Panic King' timestamp='1292022640' post='2535896']
Beazy I you but this post is just fail of the highest order.
[/quote]

Don't blame me for these crappy youtube-media tag coding failures. I'll be honest here, some people who joined NpO during the BiPolar war had nothing good to say about their military's leadership, ability to function, or even the competence of a basic member.

[Banksy]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1292037493' post='2536072']
I love to death both umbrella and MHA. I think umbrella is the toughest of all alliances. But I dont think they could win a 1x1 against MHA for example.
[/quote]
I was talking about competency, not whether you would win in a 1v1 scenario.

[Locke]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1292022431' post='2535891']
The early stage of the BiPolar war showed a sharp decline in "Alliance score" because of the number of nations engaging targets. In a 3v1 scenario, the 1 nation will deal a greater amount of damage according to the statistics, that's just the way turtling works.
[/quote]
Well, it doesn't even require turtling to show up. One nation can only get nuked once a day, and three nations can get nuked three times a day. Nukes do the lion's share of the damage these days, so if the one nation can keep its nuke count up, they'll be dealing three times that damage every day. Turtling, of course, adds to that even further by removing some of the other damage types done.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292045954' post='2536144']
Well, it doesn't even require turtling to show up. One nation can only get nuked once a day, and three nations can get nuked three times a day. Nukes do the lion's share of the damage these days, so if the one nation can keep its nuke count up, they'll be dealing three times that damage every day. Turtling, of course, adds to that even further by removing some of the other damage types done.
[/quote]
If those 3 people have SDIs nuking them daily will eat up that one person's nuclear stockpile in a matter of days.

[Locke]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1292047819' post='2536162']
If those 3 people have SDIs nuking them daily will eat up that one person's nuclear stockpile in a matter of days.
[/quote]
True enough, but I'm sure we've all heard the horror stories of "broken SDI's."

[Dilber]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1292047819' post='2536162']
If those 3 people have SDIs nuking them daily will eat up that one person's nuclear stockpile in a matter of days.
[/quote]


Not if you have my SDI.

[Haflinger]

Dilber's SDI operators are pining for the fjords.

[Archon]

[quote name='Dilber' timestamp='1292050337' post='2536179']
Not if you have my SDI.
[/quote]

Damn, you beat me to it

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1292047819' post='2536162']
If those 3 people have SDIs nuking them daily will eat up that one person's nuclear stockpile in a matter of days.
[/quote]
Yes, but the stats quoted earlier in the thread are from 'a matter of days' ... it was only a couple of days before Polar got jumped on by other alliances.

The increase in nuke damage from outnumbering your target means that 3v1 is not necessarily a good way to blitz in a nuclear front. Nukes make up roughly half the damage of a successful war against a nation (you'll never win all your GAs and airstrikes), even without turtling, and most nations that end up 1v3 [i]will[/i] turtle, which means that even if you win all your airstrikes and lob CMs you only do a nuke plus about another nuke (6 CMs and 6 airstrikes) to the 1, while receiving at least 3 nukes, 6 CMs and possibly air attacks (depends on the defender's warchest). That is, even if you are totally boning the enemy, you will take more damage in absolute terms.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1292016643' post='2535849']
It's also funny to see that NpO side had the advantage NS wise untill TOP and IRON made their pre-emptive strike.

They Polar side had
• Nation Count: 3,018
• Nation Strength: 69,867,422
• Nuke Count: 15,949

We had
• Nation Count: 1,778
• Nation Strength: 52,974,080
• Nuke Count: 12,973

Source
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=11169&view=findpost&p=2138279
[/quote]
Whats really funny is 9 days into the war C&G still hadnt done anything. They ignored standing treaties to wait for TOP & IRON yet still pretend they were innocently attacked minding their own business. If thats true they are the real coalition of cowards for leaving allies to burn for a week with no intention of entering the war or TOP & IRON were correct and C&G was planning to hit them once the war started. So dont pretend all the people ignoring treaties waiting until TOP/IRON came in had no plan to enter on the larger side or only came in because C&G were pre-emptively attacked forcing alliances not involved to take their side. They waited 9 days for a reason.

Update -4h, Jan 28
+ Genesis, BAPS, CD, SNAFU
3,018 nations
69,867,422 NS
15,949 nukes

Update -4h, Jan 28
+ The Corporation
1,778 nations
52,974,080 NS
12,973 nukes

Then suddenly after 9 days of ignoring treaties the morally outraged suddenly picked a side and more than doubled in strength going right up to 220m ns from 52m ns

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1292071090' post='2536293']
Whats really funny is 9 days into the war C&G still hadnt done anything. They ignored standing treaties to wait for TOP & IRON yet still pretend they were innocently attacked minding their own business. If thats true they are the real coalition of cowards for leaving allies to burn for a week with no intention of entering the war or TOP & IRON were correct and C&G was planning to hit them once the war started. So dont pretend all the people ignoring treaties waiting until TOP/IRON came in had no plan to enter on the larger side or only came in because C&G were pre-emptively attacked forcing alliances not involved to take their side. They waited 9 days for a reason.

Update -4h, Jan 28
+ Genesis, BAPS, CD, SNAFU
3,018 nations
69,867,422 NS
15,949 nukes

Update -4h, Jan 28
+ The Corporation
1,778 nations
52,974,080 NS
12,973 nukes

Then suddenly after 9 days of ignoring treaties the morally outraged suddenly picked a side and more than doubled in strength going right up to 220m ns from 52m ns
[/quote]
The crucial fact that you leave out, of course, is that we were trying to negotiate peace. Would we have gone in if that had failed? Yes.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1292089294' post='2536497']
The crucial fact that you leave out, of course, is that we were trying to negotiate peace. Would we have gone in if that had failed? Yes.
[/quote]
Oh lord not this again.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1292098699' post='2536677']
Oh lord not this again.
[/quote]

Agreeing with the sentiment but Azaghul is correct.

[ROMMELHSQ]

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1292100424' post='2536708']
Agreeing with the sentiment but Azaghul is correct.
[/quote]
I agree with the sentiment as well...but everyone know that peace was not going to happen, which means you will be involved, etc etc

[pd73bassman]

MVP, a good way to back up your claims would be to go find out for yourself, just sayin

Edited December 11, 2010 by pd73bassman

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1292066094' post='2536265']
Yes, but the stats quoted earlier in the thread are from 'a matter of days' ... it was only a couple of days before Polar got jumped on by other alliances.

The increase in nuke damage from outnumbering your target means that 3v1 is not necessarily a good way to blitz in a nuclear front. Nukes make up roughly half the damage of a successful war against a nation (you'll never win all your GAs and airstrikes), even without turtling, and most nations that end up 1v3 [i]will[/i] turtle, which means that even if you win all your airstrikes and lob CMs you only do a nuke plus about another nuke (6 CMs and 6 airstrikes) to the 1, while receiving at least 3 nukes, 6 CMs and possibly air attacks (depends on the defender's warchest). That is, even if you are totally boning the enemy, you will take more damage in absolute terms.[/quote]
That is assuming that the one nation nukes all their opponents. Could they for a few days? Yes. Is it likely that they all did, with no thought towards having some for later on? Probably not. And it also assumes that every Polar nation only took on one target.

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1292098699' post='2536677']
Oh lord not this again.
[/quote]
I agree, blame Alterego for bringing it up, it wasn't something that I wanted to leave unaddressed, though perhaps I should have.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

NpO's downfall in bipolar was overestimating the fighting ability of PC.

PC and \m/ would have surely died had FOK not come in, but there's no denying that NpO would have completely lost any nations above 70k NS.

I also don't think they expected PC's membership numbers to swell. That's what you get when you think you can restrict people's right to raiding.