Jump to content

A Competent Analysis of the Top 100 Alliances


Unknown Smurf

Recommended Posts

Analysis:

 

1wGPgoI.png

 

In the first four, we have the current state of the world (as I see it). Clearly DBDC/Aztec have the advantage, their average NS is heavily weighed down here by "tech sellers" like DT probes and Doom Squad, yet they have the highest average NS by far. There is little competition for them until you factor in the neturals who have almost double the average NS as well as 40 more nations than DBDC/Aztec. 

 

People may question why I have DR and BFF (NEW/FEAR/WP/Kaskus) together but there are ties there between NEW/Valhalla (after the TORN merge) as well as between FEAR and IRON/Val currently. 

 

DBDC and IRON have recently NAP'd despite their bad blood, this looks to me as though they are trying to tie to BFF while assuring them there will be no conflict of interest should that happen. If that happens, then the rest of the world (save the neutrals) are statistically fucked. 

 

Honestly the only play I see is a return of the OoO with an aggressive movement against those that sell tech to DBDC/Aztec/BFF; otherwise they will quickly find themselves unable to keep an upper tier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some awful weak links in an AZTEC/DBDC/DR/xBFF grouping though, and they'd be significantly weaker in lower and midtiers. I don't see that as being clean as you seem to think it might be. Equilibrium wasn't the losing side, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some awful weak links in an AZTEC/DBDC/DR/xBFF grouping though, and they'd be significantly weaker in lower and midtiers. I don't see that as being clean as you seem to think it might be. Equilibrium wasn't the losing side, after all.

 

The only alliances that were not on equilibriums side that are also in the Aztec/DBDC/DR/xBFF grouping are DBDC and NG. I think they've both proven themselves this war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only alliances that were not on equilibriums side that are also in the Aztec/DBDC/DR/xBFF grouping are DBDC and NG. I think they've both proven themselves this war. 

 

That wasn't my point. My point was that history does show that a larger upper tier isn't undefeatable, even if poorly applied and badly managed pressure is applied to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Give me a breakdown of what tech tiers you would like and then sure, I will. 

 

I'm thinking something similar to ones used in EQ war stats.

30k+ tech, 25k tech, 20k tech, 15k tech, 10k tech, 5k tech. 

 

And then maybe another table just for the NS numbers like

250k+ NS, 200k, 150k, 100k, 80k, 60k, 40k.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly DBDC/Aztec have the advantage, their average NS is heavily weighed down here by "tech sellers" like DT probes and Doom Squad, yet they have the highest average NS by far.



Can you elaborate on why a higher average NS is such a huge advantage? I dont think you are accounting for the psychology of a militarily inexperienced upper tier. Those numbers mean nothing if they run from the battlefield in an actual war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on why a higher average NS is such a huge advantage? I dont think you are accounting for the psychology of a militarily inexperienced upper tier. Those numbers mean nothing if they run from the battlefield in an actual war.

 

They may run from the battlefield but they can't hide forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That wasn't my point. My point was that history does show that a larger upper tier isn't undefeatable, even if poorly applied and badly managed pressure is applied to it.

 

A small upper tier advantage is defeatable.. but the stats show a clear advantage throughout the mid tier as well.

 

 

I'm thinking something similar to ones used in EQ war stats.

30k+ tech, 25k tech, 20k tech, 15k tech, 10k tech, 5k tech. 

 

And then maybe another table just for the NS numbers like

250k+ NS, 200k, 150k, 100k, 80k, 60k, 40k.

 

I'll take a look at those tiers closer later, but at first glace doesn't look like it fits well. 

 

Can you elaborate on why a higher average NS is such a huge advantage? I dont think you are accounting for the psychology of a militarily inexperienced upper tier. Those numbers mean nothing if they run from the battlefield in an actual war.

 

Hypothetically if you control the top 250 nations, you can keep attacking the people lower than you, thereby dropping the 250th nation floor and eventually you can have 600k NS Cuba's going loco on 80k NS nations.

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is coming from someone with experience as an actual intelligence analyst, a competent analysis is about more than just number crunching. But, you'd fit right in with the squints.

Bro we all know low ranking Intel Analysts in the Army are coffee boys 

 

Anyway, all this proved to me is that neutrals win 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...