Leaderboard

Don't mind me, just fishing for likes. Everyone pls like this post.

Shouldn't this stuff be in the national affairs board or w/e?

Good luck too you The brittish empire is aware of this war and a proffesional elite commando has been sent too aid the woodbury nation http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2015/01/Navy-Seal-Blues_013226672193.jpg

I didn't base my understanding of the OP's argument off the title. I based my understanding of his argument off his argument, which was "Rose has more ships per nation, nukes/missiles/treasures/in-game ads, therefore maybe they might be the more powerful alliance." Your story about a class you took has nothing to do with this blog post because the topic of this post was completely in line with the content of the post itself. He just presented a lousy argument, and you are trying to brush that aside with your stuff about headlines. Militarily speaking, we still can't say for sure which is more valuable. Again, there is more to the equation than what is provided here. Based on the information provided here, we can't even determine who would win a war. There is no mention of plane counts, and those are the most important unit. They appear to have a clear advantage in nukes and missiles, but there is no mention of Iron Domes or spies. In fact, treasures are deemed more important than both planes and spies based on the fact that they were mentioned but the other two units were not. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, then it deserves to be mentioned that the author attempted to throw in-game ads into the mix to help explain why Rose is better. So ads are a factor but planes are not? This is just lazy analysis, and doesn't really even fit into the narrative that you're trying to push. To me it seems more like he had an argument he wanted to make (that Rose is more valuable,) and then cherry-picked information to try to make that point. He may or may not be right about Rose, but the argument he's put forward isn't good enough to prove it whether you approach it by using my argument (comparing activity and internal affairs) or if you use yours (pure military stats). That's basically all I'm saying.

Numbers aren't everything, you know. I don't think this sort of discussion has any real value unless you are intimately familiar with how both alliances work internally. It's really only a baby step up from opinion polls on which is the "best alliance." The same idea applies to individual players. Everyone likes to think that their friends are the best in the game, but is it really the case that they are good at what they do just because you like them personally? This idea is pretty much why democracy sucks in these games. Here's the million dollar question. How do you measure the success of an alliance? Are they just blobs of nations with lots of military, or is there something more to it? At the end of the day I would say that this kind of analysis misses the point.

Cheating back hard*

Who says you need uniforms when you can run around all naked