Starfox101 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I mean... Things will tend to even out when the vast majority of your alliance sits below 25k NS. Not much our newer nations can do against those wonder-heavy, nuke-toting, ex-upper tier nations. :| I mean...we're fighting 12 alliances. Probably should have dug a deeper hole sooner when our top and mid tier was ran through, like ODN/NATO/Sengoku/DS did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I wouldn't have expected Int to have a negative ratio either. I'm torn by it, it's good that attacking SNX has cost them, it's a shame as you say that they've lost so many of their active members. They're the leading left light in CN or were :( Go with 'were'. But the good news is that there's a Leading Light position available if you'd like it. EDIT: With alliances on the SNX/NpO side dropping out, this (theoretically) frees up their former opponents to join in on other fronts. Or not. Either way, there's probably going to be some significant changes in the rankings before too long. Edited January 9, 2015 by kingzog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 You can always negotiate an individual RnR peace with the Emperor. I think we'll give that a hard pass. well, that's the fin W-S.... the losing side takes the beating in he first half... and then have fun in the second hehe This isn't lost on me. I mean...we're fighting 12 alliances. Probably should have dug a deeper hole sooner when our top and mid tier was ran through, like ODN/NATO/Sengoku/DS did. Well certainly, but the point still stands. Nuclear nations will tend to outdamage our nuke-less lower tier. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 We'll catch you now ODN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Day 62 (Nov 7 11pm - Jan 08 6pm) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think this last update cements it. Fark will pass MI6 before MI6 passes ODN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I probably should have expanded a little. I'm only surprised because I consider IRON to be an exceptionally well built and above average fighting alliance. My comment wasn't supposed to be an insult to you, but a comment on the quality of the alliances fighting you (my allies) and a congratulations for them. Not taken as insult, we just don't have a wide mid tier. Our top tiers didn't fall out much because our opponents took their top tiers out in turns rather than together, so they were quickly pushed down to mid tiers in a round or two without much of our top tier falling in mid. Had they all come out together, wed have more of top tier in mid and they'd still have more in mid and grind us there. Tho, it has allowed some of our guys to do massive down declares and send money, tech and troops downwards, so were generating alot of soft ns in mid tier that is being destroyed and slowly pushing the opposing mid tier downwards. So were loosing cheap and soft NS, the advantage we could have built was only with Sparta's initial soft ns, that's exhausted, mi6 didn't have much, TOP didn't expose much so all of this is what it is. Wed off course prefer a better ratio, but if you put it in context of our scenario, its ~~ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I honestly don't know why so many people place importance on damage ratios, that is a very lazy way of analyzing the war. Obviously when the aggressor side has hordes of nations it will have more offensive wars and thus typically inflict more nation strength damage (lots of it against inactives and otherwise irrelevant soft nations). I think more important is strategic position. Having a top tier is simply a political liability with the new parasite class and compromises the interests of the sovereign alliance. True victory will be determined by whether DBDC and their hosts can break Polaris and several other free alliances, by destroying their sovereignty and independence, and by crushing the strong social backbone and solidarity of free alliances like Polaris, and I just don't see that happening. Edited January 9, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Damage ratios are actually very accurate representation of military acumen provided the correct context is applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Tyrant Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 If you look at the stats in context ( the tiers a majority of members are in, opponents etc), then the war stats can point a pretty good and accurate picture of an alliance's capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Well certainly, but the point still stands. Nuclear nations will tend to outdamage our nuke-less lower tier. :P Hell, at this point it's tough to even keep nukes stocked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I think NS valuation in general is overrated as a means of measurement, because it assumes that NS damage is the primary military objective or war decider, but it only works that way if both alliances believe that. But strategic value would be measure by assets, and your ability to inflict damage on those assets, and assets like tech producers, alliance government, propagandists, morale and so forth have nothing to do with nation strength. And in fact many upper tier nations have qualities that may prove more to be a strategic liability than an asset. So I don't think a NS analysis alone will determine the wars winner and instead we need a more comprehensive analysis factoring non NS assets. Edited January 10, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Day 63 (Nov 7 11pm - Jan 09 6pm)Approaching 100 million damage!Also RIA is aiming for spot #20! We'll be sneaking up and passing NSO, Sengoku, AB, FTW, and DS soon enough! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think NS valuation in general is overrated as a means of measurement, because it assumes that NS damage is the primary military objective or war decider, but it only works that way if both alliances believe that. But strategic value would be measure by assets, and your ability to inflict damage on those assets, and assets like tech producers, alliance government, propagandists, morale and so forth have nothing to do with nation strength. And in fact many upper tier nations have qualities that may prove more to be a strategic liability than an asset. So I don't think a NS analysis alone will determine the wars winner and instead we need a more comprehensive analysis factoring non NS assets. Your posts will win the war yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtibing Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Why the war stats of the ongoing global war include wars between Badlands and Federation of Armed Nations? That was a separate military conflict, which has already ended (Badlands paid reparations). There are also more cases of separate conflicts being included here, like for example wars involving GPA and TDO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 So the SuperCereal Coalition has taken about 25% more damage than the Lulism coalition so far. The only true winners are the dead. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Your posts will win the war yet! I mean after everyone scratches their eyes out, won't be much competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I mean after everyone scratches their eyes out, won't be much competition. I can still talk my way through it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 ...aaand Fark passes MI6. ODN shall be next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killjoy123 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 NOT BEFORE US! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 NOT BEFORE US!We'll see about that. We already passed you guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 All part of the plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 So close, Fark. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 So close, Fark. :/288.33 NS :( one more CM and it would've been all over! We caught them much faster than I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 So I don't think a NS analysis alone will determine the wars winner and instead we need a more comprehensive analysis factoring non NS assets. I half agree with you. NS damage is definitely a useful metric, but right now it lacks context. Are we talking about military or 'real' damage? That is to say, how much of the NS being lost are destroyed soldiers/tanks/nukes/aircraft/navy (military) or infrastructure/technology/land ('real')? I think that is an important distinction because given the current state of warchests, the only way to do real damage is to take away infra/tech/land since military is pocket change. While this will be very different in the low-tier where warchests are lower and military therefore makes a proportionally larger contribution to the costs of war, it would be lovely if we could somehow tease these two out. Is there any way to extract infra/tech/land loss? If so, I think that would be a great way to depict 'real' damage since those three economic items (especially tech) can set you back months, if not years, depending on the severity of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.