A Brief Introduction
Recently, I had a brief question about the top alliances of cybernations: which are the most militarised powers statistically? I thus gathered data on the top 20 alliances and compiled them into factors to determine three main scores. 1) The militarisation sum, which represents the total estimated military strength of an alliance; 2) the latter score per nation in a given alliance; 3) the latter score per unit of infrastructure in an alliance.

Edit: The new formula is focused on elimating short-term military indicators, which are far too variable (thank you for Penguin for this recommendation). It insteads focuses on long-term, hard to change factors: technology levels, naval units, nuclear missiles, and military wonders. The formula is now included in this post for critique.

The first score uses a basic formula which leaves us with a relatively large number. Any direct comparison of the first scores determines how strong an alliance to another. What interested me the most was not the total strength itself, but how militarised each alliance was. To find this, I used the 2nd and 3rd scores. The 2nd score is a good starting point to give us an idea of how much military the average nation has in any given alliance. Moreover, due to the heavily-varying tech distributions of alliances, I chose the 3rd measure to use infrastructure. Alliances, thus, are militarised based on how many military forces they have available for each unit of infrastructure.

n= 20 Formula: Militarisation Sum = 3*(naval units)+15*(nuclear missiles)+0.02*(technology)+100*(military wonders)
As of October 29th, 2009
Position/Alliance---------------Militarisation Sum----' ' Per Nation-----' ' Per 10,000 Infra.
1) The Order Of The Paradox-------232156.26-------1009.375043-------1016.29157
2) Sparta------------------------------141975.18-------247.7751832-------577.5022728
3) Mostly Harmless Alliance---------126847.32-------198.8202508-------509.4902138
4) New Polar Order-------------------179053.02-------424.2962559-------740.95279
5) IRON--------------------------------139646.58-------263.4841132-------650.4404845
6) Orange Defense Network---------95438.14---------264.3715789-------519.9325338
7) Fark---------------------------------106824.32-------346.8322078-------686.5417676
8) Green Protection Agency----------61332.76--------227.1583704-------374.0051016
9) New Pacific Order------------------90301.02--------141.9827358-------482.591213
10) FOK---------------------------------110844.26--------461.8510833-------828.9423165
11) World Task Force-------------------66828.3---------280.7911765-------501.2195177
12) Mushroom Kingdom----------------127064.56-------738.7474419-------1062.888165
13) The Order Of Light-----------------87278.68---------359.1715226-------636.0460193
14) The Democratic Order-------------41917.1----------91.72231947-------315.7135605
15) Viridian Entente---------------------83557.48-------277.5996013--------670.0873482
16) The Legion--------------------------47029.8---------115.8369458--------415.2254084
17) Ragnarok---------------------------24419.06--------81.12644518---------214.4522869
18) GATO--------------------------------49362.9---------143.9151603---------447.4592588
19) CSN---------------------------------57975.6---------294.2923858----------586.5695924
20) Athens------------------------------59242.96--------332.825618-----------632.2135332
21) The Grämlins-----------------------78337.7---------1044.502667---------994.4676827
22) United Purple Nations--------------36771.04--------158.4958621---------369.2060537
23) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance-----34334.74--------147.994569----------327.4753259
24) Random Insanity Alliance---------55944.64---------236.0533333---------667.3693704
25) Siberian Tiger Alliance-------------56249.92--------304.0536216---------696.0969018
26) Invicta------------------------------43109.22---------224.5271875---------530.9605744
27) North Atlantic Defense Coalition--33018.6----------207.6641509----------401.7672669
28) RnR---------------------------------41391.24---------188.142--------------573.5814021
29) M*A*S*H---------------------------40966.72--------330.3767742---------517.7756488
30) We Are Perth Army----------------27533.06--------195.2699291---------370.3173777
31) Nueva Vida-------------------------51308.42--------420.5608197---------731.6374868
32) Monos Archein---------------------32452.34---------179.2946961---------463.668446
33) LOSS--------------------------------38297.4----------281.5985294---------539.8311046
34) Umbrella----------------------------62751.18---------936.5847761---------1169.807782
35) Nusantara Elite Warriors-----------39479.2----------254.7045161---------614.0694435
36) New Sith Order---------------------39387.84---------204.0820725---------658.4459222
37) Federation Of Armed Nations-----41764.62----------278.4308------------635.097094
38) The Sweet Oblivion----------------52969.54----------945.8846429--------1024.649049
39) NATO-------------------------------26945.38----------147.2425137---------481.9696352
40) The Templar Knights--------------26594.18----------237.4480357---------468.3681898
41) Nordreich---------------------------37285.4-----------305.6180328---------699.1672339
42) The International------------------28547.16----------254.8853571---------500.2157012
43) Greenland Republic---------------39115.62----------323.2695868---------647.4316661
44) FEAR-------------------------------33857.58-----------338.5758------------659.1258269
45) The Foreign Division--------------23205.16----------179.8849612---------442.5686926
46) Vanguard--------------------------46550.36-----------694.7814925--------1017.974825
47) Grand Lodge of Freemasons-----21100.32----------157.4650746---------402.505799
48) Global Order Of Darkness--------46750.54-----------584.38175----------967.9681806
49) Poison Clan------------------------51988.84-----------866.4806667--------1266.488346
50) Argent------------------------------40017.7-----------579.9666667---------876.6890708

End-notes:
Factors not included - spies and warchests.

Rankings:
I - By Total Score
1) The Order Of The Paradox
2) New Polar Order
3) Sparta
4) Independent Republic Of Orange Nations
5) Mushroom Kingdom
6) Mostly Harmless Alliance
7) FOK
8) Fark
9) Orange Defense Network
10) New Pacific Order
11) The Order Of Light
12) Viridian Entente
13) The Grämlins
14) World Task Force
15) Umbrella
16) Green Protection Agency
17) Athens
18) Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations
19) Siberian Tiger Alliance
20) Random Insanity Alliance
21) The Sweet Oblivion
22) Poison Clan
23) Nueva Vida
24) Global Alliance And Treaty Organization
25) The Legion
26) Global Order Of Darkness
27) Vanguard
28) Invicta
29) The Democratic Order
30) Federation Of Armed Nations
31) RnR
32) M*A*S*H
33) Argent
34) Nusantara Elite Warriors
35) New Sith Order
36) Greenland Republic
37) LOSS
38) Nordreich
39) United Purple Nations
40) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance
41) Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics
42) North Atlantic Defense Coalition
43) Monos Archein
44) The International
45) We Are Perth Army
46) NATO
47) The Templar Knights
48) Ragnarok
49) The Foreign Division
50) The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons

II - By Score Per Nation
1) The Grämlins
2) The Order Of The Paradox
3) The Sweet Oblivion
4) Umbrella
5) Poison Clan
6) Mushroom Kingdom
7) Vanguard
8) Global Order Of Darkness
9) Argent
10) FOK
11) New Polar Order
12) Nueva Vida
13) The Order Of Light
14) Fark
15) Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics
16) Athens
17) M*A*S*H
18) Greenland Republic
19) Nordreich
20) Siberian Tiger Alliance
21) Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations
22) LOSS
23) World Task Force
24) Federation Of Armed Nations
25) Viridian Entente
26) Orange Defense Network
27) Independent Republic Of Orange Nations
28) The International
29) Nusantara Elite Warriors
30) Sparta
31) The Templar Knights
32) Random Insanity Alliance
33) Green Protection Agency
34) Invicta
35) North Atlantic Defense Coalition
36) New Sith Order
37) Mostly Harmless Alliance
38) We Are Perth Army
39) RnR
40) The Foreign Division
41) Monos Archein
42) United Purple Nations
43) The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons
44) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance
45) NATO
46) Global Alliance And Treaty Organization
47) New Pacific Order
48) The Legion
49) The Democratic Order
50) Ragnarok

III - Per 10,000 infrastructure
1) Poison Clan
2) Umbrella
3) Mushroom Kingdom
4) The Sweet Oblivion
5) Vanguard
6) The Order Of The Paradox
7) The Grämlins
8) Global Order Of Darkness
9) Argent
10) FOK
11) New Polar Order
12) Nueva Vida
13) Nordreich
14) Siberian Tiger Alliance
15) Fark
16) Viridian Entente
17) Random Insanity Alliance
18) Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics
19) New Sith Order
20) Independent Republic Of Orange Nations
21) Greenland Republic
22) The Order Of Light
23) Federation Of Armed Nations
24) Athens
25) Nusantara Elite Warriors
26) Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations
27) Sparta
28) RnR
29) LOSS
30) Invicta
31) Orange Defense Network
32) M*A*S*H
33) Mostly Harmless Alliance
34) World Task Force
35) The International
36) New Pacific Order
37) NATO
38) The Templar Knights
39) Monos Archein
40) Global Alliance And Treaty Organization
41) The Foreign Division
42) The Legion
43) The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons
44) North Atlantic Defense Coalition
45) Green Protection Agency
46) We Are Perth Army
47) United Purple Nations
48) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance
49) The Democratic Order
50) Ragnarok

You rank WTF as first. This therefore is totally inaccurate.

On the contrary, it is purely based on statistics and it turns out WTF is quite high in them. Have you seen them lately? I imagine you would be suprised.

Also, to reiterate, military strength (literally) does not equate to military ability. I am not ranking who I think is the most capable alliance but merely who ranks the highest in terms of military size in terms of alliance size. That is how 'militarised' an alliance is.

Militarization is a measure of who's inflating their stats more to achieve sanctioned status, which is probably why you ranked WTF #1 instead of somewhere below the Supremacy League.

Militarization is generally a bad thing but when you include nukes it skews the stats and doesn't provide any real meaning at all.

Your premise and conclusion are correct, but you are assuming I am ranking them based on capability. I am not. I am ranking them purely based on how much military they have based on their size.

That's true, nukes were much more heavily weighed than other components purely based on cost/damage factors.

No alliance should be rewarded for keeping spare cruise missiles. The correct number of those for any nation to have is 0.

I wish it was without further adieu.

I would at least hope that none of these alliances would be fully mobilized. Since, you know, the war's over and such. As such, what seems to be getting ranked is how much extra crap is left over that people forgot to decom, plus nukes. Which tbqh isn't really that good a measure; I'm sure TOP and Sparta, when fully mobilized, would have completely ridiculous amounts of military NS just from sheer size, either in population and thus soldiers/tanks or number of nations.

This man speaks the truth.

Pointless stats only delude people who want to have their ego stroked.

HAH! This is hilarious...

I think we'll have to start decomming and re-building military randomly just to screw with it...

Agreed. This is something I've been beating into TOOL member's brains for the last couple weeks (only after the MilCom decided to listen to me about them )

Of course some people are so damned stubborn

Again, the ranking of them as first is completely correct based on the question of the analysis: which alliance has the most military per unit of infrastructure? WTF is it.

To further think about it, having a lot of military is not necessarily a good thing; first, you have high maintenance costs (and, according to my figures, it is likely that WTF has relatively the highest expenses based on their size); second, you store a lot of useless crap.

As for the joke about CMs, I concur entirely, but I included CMs in my calculations because I am not figuring out how useful their military is, only how much they have.

I think you did a good job actually and thank you for doing this. Compared to some other stat threads made recently, this is actually legit stats and it would be interesting to track this over time and especially when a war starts. I would like to see a 'per technology' count too though.

And everyone complaining about WTF, please stop. They do indeed have some scary numbers and this is about stats not who you 'think' is the best fighter in the game. Although they do not have any war experience all signs point to them being a major factor if they are ever in a war.

But it feels so good Grub

Or they have too many cruise missiles in peace time.

Good job, but fairly pointless.

Militarization of most items is a snap decision. Why inflate your nation so that it faces stronger foes in a war when you can stay slim and militarize after you are hit? I'm proud that my alliance has one of the highest Nuke:CM ratios.

The CM debate is highly overrated methinks. Such a small change in NS isn't going to change who you fight.

It's indicative of tanks, soldiers, aircrafts and all other sources of NS inflation that you can purchase on the fly. Redo the statistics with only time dependent militarization (nukes and maybe navy) if you want it to be meaningful. Or redo it factoring in maximum soldier, tank, aircraft and CM levels rather than current levels.

I was planning to update this thread weely so we could get an idea of how the numbers change over time (that is, who is building more military and who is decommissioning it).

@Penguin: As for 'being pointless', it's important to keep in mind that my goal is not to make a larger inference of military prowess or ability but just to figure out who has a lot of military for their size. I think that helps us determine some possible things: who possesses an abnormally large military; who could be inflating/underscoring their alliance strength; what factors will place imbalances in these totals; the long-term applications of who is changing their military sizes and for what reasons. If you disagree, though, that's cool. I think it's useful.

I agree with your point there. infra, tech, military wonders, nukes, navy per nations is probably the best way to look at military potential.

I didn't go so far as to say it was pointless, it does do some of what you said, but isn't the most useful question to apply these statistics to that of an alliance's military preparedness or capacity? I am simply shouting out ideas on how to make your statistics more meaningful. A good statistic is not one that is just technically correct, but one that provides a useful quantitative measure often to support or refute an otherwise qualitative observation. I understand what you are trying to do, but your statistic is not quite to that point yet so I am trying to be constructive and help it get there.

Sorry, quotation wasm misattributed to Urk who is pretending to be you for halloween. My mistake. Yes, I read your criticism and I see your point.

Moreover, I know CMs don't really do much inter-war but they still are part of a military, are they not? Or are you suggesting I change the method so that I make the rankings based on useful military and not just the total amount of military?

No, I wasn't suggesting it needs to be based only on useful military, presumably the NS weighting already takes care of that. I was suggesting that it should be based only on military that cannot be purchased with one click. Ideally that would include some function of wonders and tech in addition to nukes and possibly navy.

Do you even know how the war system works? Nevermind. You've answered that already.

Yes, the current equation includes navies, nukes, tech but not wonders. I think I will edit it sometime soon to fix it.

@mpol777: My post has nothing to do with the war system itself and you are wrong. I suggest you reread and understand what my numbers actually mean. They indicate how much military weaponry an alliance has per nation or per infrastructure (which, in turn, shows how 'militarised they are, statistically).

Which is about as !@#$ on a bull. But don't mind me. Count mindless numbers that have no effect on reality. Everyone needs a hobby.

Why oh why didn't I dress up at mpol for halloween.

O/ FAN


EDIT: No offense to the OP, you're taking an interesting angle...FAN is just awesome

I admit guns tend to be a bit more useful of a hobby than numbers, but I must waste my time on something.

As for the thread, to all, it has been completely changed based on Penguin's recommendation (which I think was a good idea) of using long-term figures which aren't easy to change as the factors for militarisation. Additionally, after redoing all of the categories, I also ranked all alliances in every category and provided an estimated total ranking. I think this ranking makes much more sense than the past.

The equation is getting better. I think navy is probably over emphasized. Wonders, nukes, WC and tech are the keys IMO, but you obviously can't check WC. No matter how you weigh things, it isn't going to be very predictive of performance. Stats are fun though.


There's a debate? Buying them when you aren't using them is completely useless. The fact that the downside (bills and NS inflation) isn't that large doesn't change the fact that there's absolutely no upside. Buying and selling one infra everyday doesn't hurt that much either, but it's still a stupid thing to do.

The current formula is better, though the balance is a little off. Navies can be built up with a few days notice, and not everyone keeps them that could for the high bills. And military wonders while most important, are somewhat overbalanced in your formula.

I'd use something more like this: Militarisation Sum = 3*(naval units)+15*(nuclear missiles)+0.02*(technology)+100*(military wonders)

Yes, fear WTF and their 29 MPs. 22 of those belong to nations outside the top 5%. After a week of war, WTF would be sunk. their count of nuclear capable nations would be halved and they only have 48 SDI's, yet they have 49 nations at 10k infra or higher and 66 at 8k infra or higher. For the large part, too much of WTF's strength comes from infra for them to do well at war. I would rank 67th in WTF in infra, yet 23nd in tech. I'm at 8k infra, they shouldn't have a single non-nuclear nation in my range, yet they have six.

Quite frankly, WTF's military preparedness is a joke. They have more movie industries and space wonders than they have MPs.

I feel you weighed war wonders too heavily, and not all war wonders are equal when it comes to war benefits. The MP, WRC, SDI, and CIA should be weighted more than the others, IMO.

By your calculations, 40 nukes equal one wonder, one wonder equals 80 navies, and 60,000 tech also equals one wonder. correct?

Well, when you blow up our countries we'll be watching awesome movies in space. 0-Grav Cinema baby!

I was also thinking that wonders are overcompensated. The naval ideam makes sense. I have input your formula into my calculations and I will post the numbers tomorrow. Without looking at them, I would estimate that alliances which are tech- or nuke-heavy will benefit the most from this change (which, to a degree, makes sense in the game). Thank you.

Yes, the problem with weighing them separate was that they'd take too long, so I took an average weight of all of them and input a total amount of military wonders.

Using Azaghul's recommended changes, it would be about 9.333 nukes = 1 wonder = 33.333 navies = 5000 tech.

i was under the impression that you HAD to buy and sell one infra everday

my world has come shattering down around me


also the reworked data seems to be a lot better, but you clearly rank MK 3 and they are nothing but dirty, dirty stat collectors (of nukes and casualties )

Athens is ranked 20, yet we aren't here. sadness.

I too feel navy is a bit over-weighed in the formula. I feel instead of counting navy, it would be best to count navy improvements and lower the multiplier a bit.

I guess if you don't want to weigh them separately a decent weighing would be 20 nukes = 1 wonder = 50 naval improvements = 15,000 tech

I agree with this post, hence I quote it.

Good idea, just needs polished a bit. It'd serve you well to take some suggestions.

Reason is that Athens only just pulled into the top 20 in the last 12 hours. Will be updated next week (assuming they remain in the top 20).

Formula has been amended and all figures updated. Le voici.

Needs more graphs.

-Bama

Because I did.

Sorry, but I'm not really interested in these statistics... They're not that helpful to me.

This doesn't account for the lack of REAL experience of the majority of alliances on that list in terms of activity, competency, and actually not sucking with war itself.

The only way to really verify any of these would be to actually go to war.

But you can't do that. Not unless you have confirmation of numbers.

Because you're !@#$%*^. Just !@#$%*^. You're cowards even when this is only a game, you simply lack the cajonés to enter a war and attempt to win on actual competence. But then that's how most, if not all, of the leaders on that !@#$@#$ list got into power in the first place.

By being cowards.

An interesting way to actually measure the speed and breadth of "militarization" (dirty Brits) as such, would to be measure the change of the "meaningless" stats (tanks, soldiers, CMs) from a pre-war to war timeframe.