Jump to content
  • entries
    36
  • comments
    511
  • views
    2,121

Newsweek Stats Special: The Cost of War

Sign in to follow this  
Bob Janova

123 views

We've now been in a global war for over two months. Just how much stuff has been destroyed?

Overall

Size of the top 80 on 16th January: 13.9k members, 375m NS, 66.0m infra, 19.3m tech, 86.4k nukes

Size of the top 80 on 23rd March: 12.8k members, 269m NS, 46.2m infra, 15.3m tech, 62.0k nukes

Bearing in mind that some alliances dropped out of the top 80 and were replaced by those with lower losses, and that some alliances outside the top 80 will have lost significant amounts of strength too, this is a conservative calculation, but one for which the figures are easily available (through my wiki page's history) to me. Obviously it also excludes unaligned nations and micro-alliances disconnected from politics, but that's what best shows how the war is affecting the alliances which are playing the political game, which are those that drive discussion and future events.

Thus, the simplistic answer is that this war has wiped out over 100 million NS – roughly equivalent to the top 13 alliances put together, and over a quarter of the politically active NS – along with a quarter of the world's infra (around 1000 infra for every nation) and fired a third of its nukes. It's also caused around 1000 nations to cease to exist.

However, for a true measure of the scale of the damage, we should also compensate for the growth that would have happened during those two months. To do that, let's look at the growth in the previous two months, as November to January were relatively peaceful (the two main incidents, Athens-Ni and Supergrievances-TPF, did not escalate to a full scale war).

The member count between November and January did not change much, so the 1000 nations lost during the conflict are almost certainly due to the war.

In November the total NS was 357m, so we'd expect roughly another 18m strength during a two month period, bringing the total actual loss up to around 120 million. This pushes the total loss nearer to 100m than 90m but doesn't greatly affect matters. Two million infra was built in those two months, so the extra two million built and lost in the war makes little difference to the scale of the damage there. And 1.3m tech was generated in those two months for top 80 alliances, and including the 1.3m expected growth in the last two months means that the loss is over 5 million tech.

So, as a rough measure, the materials lost so far by politically active alliances in this war, in total, are 120 million NS, 20 million infra and 5.3 million tech, between 25 and 30 per cent of the initial amounts.

TOP/IRON

As the two alliances ending up on the losing side of the war, with their coalition abandoning them or receiving peace, these two former giants have ended up fighting a rearguard action against a far superior force for a long time, and their losses are accordingly large. (DAWN and TORN weren't in the top 80 so I don't have stats for them. Ask UE ;).)

During the period 16th Jan-23rd March, their losses were:

TOP: 15.7m NS, 2.12m infra, 1.17m tech -> 3.9m NS, 0.32m infra, 0.48m tech

Loss: 11.6m NS (74%), 1.80m infra (85%), 0.69m tech (59%)

IRON: 13.6m NS, 2.29m infra, 0.70m tech -> 3.73m NS, 0.47m infra, 0.32m tech

Loss: 9.9m NS (73%), 1.82m infra (79%), 0.38m tech (46%)

As expected, both alliances have lost massive amounts of everything, and around three quarters of their strength.

C&G

Of the C&G alliances, only ODN, MK, Athens, GR and Vanguard have stayed on the web throughout. FoB and =LOST= were on in January and fell out; I've used in game stats from today (25th March) for them. This bloc is winning the war, so the losses are lower than on the other side, but they've still been fighting against some strong alliances, so we'd expect some serious losses here too.

Aggregated stats for the whole bloc:

Before: 35.8m NS, 6.00m infra, 1.96m tech

After: 19.1m NS, 2.84m infra, 1.26m tech

Loss: 16.7m NS (47%), 3.16m infra (53%), 0.70m tech (36%)

So despite winning the war, this bloc has lost around half its strength and infra, though it does maintain a tech advantage (only losing one third of its tech), perhaps rendering the conflict a strategic advantage in the minds of some. The biggest losses come from FoB and MK, who both lost significantly more than half of their NS; the least from =LOST=.

Polaris

As the alliance that started the whole thing, got involved on both sides and fought through the entire war, we might expect this alliance to have suffered some major losses as well. However, they've retained a large proportion of their strength and their position on the world stage (stats-wise, at least).

January: 14.4m NS, 2.47m infra, 0.76m tech

March: 8.7m NS, 1.40m infra, 0.52m tech

Loss: 5.7m NS (40%), 1.07m infra (43%), 0.24m tech (32%)

We can see that despite their actions, Polar have actually received less damage than C&G, although they have still taken a serious beating. Most of the damage to Polar will be done in the political sphere, as their actions during this war have alienated almost every other major alliance.

Other fronts

These three main points of analysis account for 43.6m of the 120m total NS loss, and 2.25m of the 5.3m total tech loss, so between half and two thirds of the damage (within the top 80) is spread out over the other fronts of the war. The Superfriends and Remnant power clusters, and C&G hangers-on, will have shared that out between themselves.

Conclusion

As has been clear since the moment FOK and the Stickmen decided to turn Polar's initial ill-judged attack into a global war, an awful lot of damage is being done for no great reason. Both TOP/IRON and C&G have lost far more, both materially and strategically, by their choices – to open that front on the one hand, and to continue it for so long on the other – if this front had been closed at the same time as the others, everyone involved would be better off. All participants are losing significant ground to the non-participants (the headliner being NPO) and to alliances that have participated in a minor or short way, like SF or parts of the ex-Hegemony. The war should never have started, and it should have ended every day for the past 60.

TOP's apparently enormous stack of technology has been largely demolished, giving the lie to the idea that tech inflation is inevitable and that a militarily elite alliance can't be brought down. Tech is not as easily destroyable as infra but nor is it impossibly slow to destroy.

The big winners are NPO, obviously, the neutral alliances, and also UPN, GATO and Legion, who all move to the area around the sanction line. And perhaps most of all, SF, who now easily hold the balance of power over a weakened C&G in the 'Supergrievances' megacluster, and have seen two other competing power clusters (Citadel and Frostbite) disappear entirely.

Note: if you want copypasta of the data feel free to PM me, though I just grabbed it from the MDP web history.

Sign in to follow this  


31 Comments


Recommended Comments



I'm kinda disspointed to see NpO not lose much tbh. Their decisions did a lot to hurt my MCXA I'd like to see them pay for it. TOP also made some decisions that hurt MCXA, but they're paying through the tooth, so I can't complain there.

Janova, would you have any idea which alliances and blocs have lost a lot of members. I know a lot of what you've been talking about is how this war has caused members to delete.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's not really a large part of what I've been talking about, I used that point about one particular case in the WA thread (of a nation that's ZI'd and apparently 'game over'). But for alliances in the top 80, yes, I have the stats. These are also available in Gopher's Sanction Race for the most part.

TOP: 205 -> 193 (-12)

IRON: 503 -> 388 (-115)

NpO: 436 -> 458 (+22) ... though this is probably misleading as they were already at war on the 16th and probably gained some people back once they stopped fighting on a hard front

C&G total: 1083 -> 939 (-144) ... of which

[FoB: 113 -> 55 (-58) ] ... is by far the largest contributor. Of course FoB had some significant leavers to PC when the war started, but that shouldn't still be having an effect two months later when FoB is fighting.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm kinda disspointed to see NpO not lose much tbh. Their decisions did a lot to hurt my MCXA I'd like to see them pay for it. TOP also made some decisions that hurt MCXA, but they're paying through the tooth, so I can't complain there.

Janova, would you have any idea which alliances and blocs have lost a lot of members. I know a lot of what you've been talking about is how this war has caused members to delete.

I'm sure worrying about MCXA was high on Polar's list of things to do, especially with that knife you guys put in their back leading up to the NoCB war.

It was also TOP, IRON and co's decision that did that, seeing as peace was being finalized when TOP, IRON and co hit, meaning they were the alliances that turned it from a short skirmish to a full on global war.

Share this comment


Link to comment

(As a side note, C&G are now asking TOP for more tech than they possess, one of the touchstones of their complaints about noCB terms.)

Even if we don't include what tech they have off AA, this is false. The "highest" in terms of total technology that was ever asked for is still less than their current on AA tech(And was entirely indirect, meaning it was just money). Even adding in tech from non CnG people, you'd still end up less than their current on AA tech. Other offers had TOP paying even less tech in total. Even the original offer was less tech than they currently have.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm sure worrying about MCXA was high on Polar's list of things to do, especially with that knife you guys put in their back leading up to the NoCB war.

It was also TOP, IRON and co's decision that did that, seeing as peace was being finalized when TOP, IRON and co hit, meaning they were the alliances that turned it from a short skirmish to a full on global war.

All of the leadership that did that to Polar now resides in TSO. MCXA has more than made up for their sins in that time period.

Other than that, a good analysis of the statistics. I don't like the bias in the conclusion but that is because of my own bias. :)

And as a side note, if those 1000 nations have been driven away from the game because they don't want to fight a war were they really wanted here anyways?

Share this comment


Link to comment
(As a side note, C&G are now asking TOP for more tech than they possess, one of the touchstones of their complaints about noCB terms.)

Orly? TOP, not counting any nations they might still have off AA, has 463k tech. Please provide me with the information that we have asked for more than 463k tech. Thanks babe.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I also call shens on your claim that people are asking for more tech than TOP has. Having looked over the coalition leadership forums there is no mention of any amount close to what TOP has.

Share this comment


Link to comment

C&G total: 1083 -> 939 (-144) ... of which

[FoB: 113 -> 55 (-58) ] ... is by far the largest contributor. Of course FoB had some significant leavers to PC when the war started, but that shouldn't still be having an effect two months later when FoB is fighting.

FWIW ~35 of those 58 left to fight and are still residing in other alliances, most notably PC. Some of the remaining 23 surrendered, one or two were expelled, leaving less then a dozen who may have deleted.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Oopsie, looks like I grabbed the wrong row for TOP data in the March update. Small edit incoming. You're still evil though :P

(I got the wrong line starting 'The Order Of ...' if anyone's wondering how that happened!)

Share this comment


Link to comment

And as a side note, if those 1000 nations have been driven away from the game because they don't want to fight a war were they really wanted here anyways?

Seriously?

GPA, TDO and WTF should just leave the game then since they don't wanna fight. There not wanted, i guess.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Seriously?

GPA, TDO and WTF should just leave the game then since they don't wanna fight. There not wanted, i guess.

Well I guess I should clarify. There are options for nations that don't want to fight. They are more than willing to join those neutral alliances. But instead of doing that, they leave the game.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think there's a difference between 'not wanting to fight a war' and 'not wanting to get beaten down for 8 weeks'. But this is largely a factual piece, I didn't actually put forward an opinion about those thousand leavers.

Share this comment


Link to comment

TOP had around 225 nations. After the beginning they gained another 20, which can be seen if you move about a week after the war actually started. So they have dropped about 30 nations.

Share this comment


Link to comment

"FOK and the Stickmen decided to turn Polar's initial ill-judged attack into a global war"

How exactly was it FOK and stickmen's decision to make it a global war? They only attacked NpO...

It was a large war that included SF, Citadel, BLEU remnants and Hegemony but the moment when it could be classed as a 'global' war would of been when C&G and TOP/IRON got involved, meaning TOP and IRON decided to make it a global war.

That is ofcourse, unless 'global' now means 4 alliances.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Jack, at that point it was inevitable that the Polar sphere would counter, that SF would be chained in onto NSO and other Polar allies through R&R, and that IRON/ex-Heg/TOP would be chained in onto SF. (And, realistically, that C&G would then counter IRON/TOP.) Up until that point there were few enough participants that the war could easily be controlled; after that point there were a whole variety of people jumping into the fight and trying to win it for 'their' side.

Now where you draw the line of a 'global' war is a semantic argument that I don't want to get into. It's much less global war and much more a one sided stomping since TOP/IRON entered than it was before, apart from the first few days when other fronts were being peaced out, so while I appreciate you need to make it all out to be TOP/IRON's fault, that doesn't really work in this case.

Share this comment


Link to comment

If you go by damage, everyone would be "better off" if no war was ever fought. Quite obviously, NS is not the main measure by which the people making decisions to go to war determine what "better off" is.

Also, (and this is not directed towards you Bob, but a general sentiment) I'm getting tired of seeing people trying to claim milestones on the harshness of these reps. Every possible milestone reps measure (more tech than the alliance owns, size, length, restrictions) has already been levied on the NPO in the last war. I know that TOP's group doesn't care (and thus doesn't remember) but seriously, get off our lawn.

Share this comment


Link to comment
If you go by damage, everyone would be "better off" if no war was ever fought

This is not necessarily true. In a pure bipolar world, crushing your enemy and taking a little damage yourself is a strategic win. In this case, the strategic overview is more complex for C&G, with one potential enemy (TOP/IRON) losing relative strength, with others (SF, though they currently claim that is not one, NPO and most of ex-Hegemony) gaining.

Every possible milestone reps measure ... has already been levied on the NPO in the last war.

This is true. The NPO is widely seen as a special case, being the lynchpin of the Hegemony, but that does not affect the facts of the matter. I'm not sure why you posted that here though since (for once :P) this isn't a blog entry about reps or surrender terms.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Jack, at that point it was inevitable that the Polar sphere would counter, that SF would be chained in onto NSO and other Polar allies through R&R, and that IRON/ex-Heg/TOP would be chained in onto SF. (And, realistically, that C&G would then counter IRON/TOP.) Up until that point there were few enough participants that the war could easily be controlled; after that point there were a whole variety of people jumping into the fight and trying to win it for 'their' side.

Now where you draw the line of a 'global' war is a semantic argument that I don't want to get into. It's much less global war and much more a one sided stomping since TOP/IRON entered than it was before, apart from the first few days when other fronts were being peaced out, so while I appreciate you need to make it all out to be TOP/IRON's fault, that doesn't really work in this case.

Except of course for the fact that if TOP/IRON hadn't jumped CnG then the NpO \m/ peace would have ended the war as nobody would have a reason to continue it anymore.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Just to clarify, again... I have said numerous times in the past, FOK was more than happy with just evening the playing field. The \m/ war was started by Polar, without any CB. FOK would never let its ally burn for no reason. I believe we've been through this argument before Bob.

So no, we were not at all (interested in) making this 'a global war', as you are stating.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Anenu, if that were true then you still didn't have a reason to continue it on the TOP/IRON front either ;). It's clear in Archon's thread starter in the huge long thread that peace was pushed on other fronts because of TOP/IRON's impending entrance, so I disagree that had they not been about to jump C&G that the whole war would just have dissipated.

Tromp, it was not reasonable to expect Polar to let you roll them when you attacked them on an oA clause, and brought in Stickmen as well. You choosing to enter was guaranteeing further escalation, and since FOK does not consist entirely of political incompetents, you would have known this.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Jack, at that point it was inevitable that the Polar sphere would counter, that SF would be chained in onto NSO and other Polar allies through R&R, and that IRON/ex-Heg/TOP would be chained in onto SF. (And, realistically, that C&G would then counter IRON/TOP.) Up until that point there were few enough participants that the war could easily be controlled; after that point there were a whole variety of people jumping into the fight and trying to win it for 'their' side.

Not entirely true. FOK, PC and \m/ vs NpO would have been a fair fight, it could have stopped there with the friends of both staying out.

Fact is, everyone wanted a big war, especially after the WWE. I'd say we got it. :P

A very nice overall analysis backed by solid facts and reasoning. Now that's the Bob Janova I like.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...