Krispy

10 Nukes thwarted in a row! Mwahaha, the guys running my SDI finally woke up. [url="http://www.cybernations.net/stats_news.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Attack_Date&Search=The Sweet Oblivion&SearchBy=Nation_Alliance&View=A#nukes"]http://www.cybernations.net/stats_news.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Attack_Date&Search=The Sweet Oblivion&SearchBy=Nation_Alliance&View=A#nukes[/url]

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1323528749' post='2872556'] ...save particularly the people whom im attacking that are butthurt that Im nuking them. [/quote] Hah, don't flatter yourself. I plan to keep eating nukes long after you're ZIed. Surrender or face annihilation! All your pixels are belong to us!

Can I make a special request to have the ARES bubble made smaller?

I thought these were a hoot to read, esp after the nuke, cms and airstrikes Message: You have been attacked by Jtkode. During the battle the enemy was reported to have taunted you with the words 'U Mad?'. You lost 8,400 soldiers and 0 tanks. You killed 7,758 soldiers and 1,654 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $1,115,016.00 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a [b]Victory[/b]. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled. Message: You have been attacked by Jtkode. During the battle the enemy was reported to have taunted you with the words 'U Mad?'. You lost 1,892 soldiers and 0 tanks. You killed 4,268 soldiers and 0 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $1,012,320.00 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a [b]Victory[/b]. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

That tickles you know!

[quote name='Jonathan Webb II' timestamp='1323388802' post='2869772'] now if only you would have been classy and given back the tech to stole/destroyed after admitting your mistake. . . but don't worry guys, burglary is only illegal everywhere but on CN. . . [/quote] Hmm, I smell a CB to be used at a later date

Are we having fun yet Jtkode?

I'm giddy about this one. Always had respect for Umbrella, and a little jealousy with stat averages like that.

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1323343403' post='2868991'] Nice to see ou back someone. Over/under on MCXA's departure from this war?? I would say about a 8 days... [/quote] I'll take the over(but I don't think by much). Care to make a wager, 50 tech says they stay in more than 8 days?

[quote name='mmansfield68' timestamp='1323143712' post='2864903'] I've got it: BOTTOM [/quote] I LOL'd o/ TOP o/ Nordreich Give 'em Hell!

A little late to the forums but... [size="7"] o/ TSO [/size]

Very lenient terms, yet they get the point across. o/ TOP o/ IRON o/ TSO

I'm replying to this thread because my question is an extension of this. If I login to CN from multiple locations how are those locations logged? If I login from work, where we are all on one domain, and someone I don't know finds out about CN and creates a nation, is my nation at risk of being deleted? I've logged in from my parents house in Austin (I live in Dallas), if a family member wants to join CN as well, will I be unable to trade/aid them even though I'm hundreds of miles away and only login at to my nation there on the holidays? I know the reasoning behind the one per domain, but how are situations like this handled?

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1316194144' post='2801626'] Just a reminder that the fee for a broken trade circle with MK is 15 million and 250 tech. [/quote] Interesting... what are the other details surrounding MK trade circles? Is there a "2-week notice" so to speak if one wanted to leave a trade circle? I'll leave my out a detailed personal opinion on this "fee" but suffice to say I find it utterly hillarious.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1314288120' post='2788167'] Nice to see an attempt at an objective way to measure war readiness though, thanks. Of course like everyone else, MHA is terrible at war. NPO, NpO, and Fark have all been pretty abysmal. Fark only recently being put in that category after needing time to rebuild it's warchests....[i]after a curbstomp[/i]. What would be interesting is to see a 50% weight with your stats and 50% on a OWF poll ranking alliances 1-20. That way you weed out the GOP/NPO/NpO/MHA/Fark's and gain the NoR, etc. [/quote] If you add in an OWF poll then the ranking becomes subjective, and polling will be biased towards alliances with more members.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1314284373' post='2788150'] I can agree that other approaches could have given "better" results (although, what is the metrics for results now?) but the results I obtained where exactly what I was aiming for, hence they're not "skewed". The approach has its limits and I didn't try to hide them or to claim it's the best one. The subtitle reads "a point of view". [/quote] I wasn't blaming you, just saying a lot of the bickering could be resolved by more accurate and efficient metrics. Well who am I kidding, bickering will still be there regardless... It's a great list man, and it sounds like you put a lot of work into it so cheers to that! Maybe I'll get off my ass and compile a new one based on more in-depth metrics (don't hold your breath though lol). Again, I'm a really analytical person, so if results are based on improper metrics it bugs me lol. A great analogy I've always liked is, just because ice cream sales and drownings increase at the beach on the same day doesn't mean ice cream causes people to drown.

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1314281267' post='2788130'] again, average numbers dont work as it is implied. Pick gremlins as an example (picking them because I like them and think they are good). Add 60 random members to their current 40. The average will decrease, but the original 40 are still there. It would be stupid to think that adding 60 members will actually DECREASE their war capacity. [/quote] I disagree, because their ALLIANCE as a whole wouldn't be as ready. If the 60 weren't as battle hardened and ready as the 40 then the attacker could just roll those lower 60 members for tech/land/money while fighting the other 40. Of course that doesn't quite work in reality because of NS Attacking ranges, but the idea is still there. Combined metrics of totals (as a percentage of capacity where applicable), and averages (per person or per applicable persons) are great ways to check overall-readiness. Tech is a tricky metric because it also should be looked at not just in total numbers or average per person but as a ratio to infra so that is yet another one to track. Putting it to the test in an actual war is something else entirely. The metrics used in the original list are flawed and skew the results, I think we can all agree on that.

Again, I think the original point of the thread is lost when everyone is comparing "Who would do better in a war" and accounting for allies as well. "War Readiness" is not the same as "Ability to Win in a War" and everyone seems to be focusing on the latter. I think it would be nice if in the OP the stats for each alliance at the time the list was compiled were included.. but I'm an analytical person so I like to have all the details. How the metrics should have been: Total nukes is one metric (Max would be 25 * # of members in alliance) - What capacity are they at? Nukes per person should be one. Ranges from 1-25, What's the end result. Total Tech - Not sure how to boil that down to a scaled number Tech per member - Basic Average Total WRCs - Max would be how many nations are capable of having a WRC, so at what capacity is the alliance at? WRCs per member - I think a total WRC / Total members is skewed since not all members are able to buy a WRC. I think the numbers should be re-compiled for a more accurate snapshot/ranking. Anyone else have any other metrics to track?

3mil Sent! I'll buy as long as you're sellin.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314156619' post='2787455'] I don't think cruise missiles per nation matters when nations aren't at war, since you can buy as many as you want to use them without letting them get destroyed when attacked. [/quote] I get the feeling the CM list was a joke... Why would anyone keep CM's on hand in peacetime, unless they're trying to boost their NS? Also, I think some people are perceiving the original list as "Who would do better in a war," not "War-Ready" as the title states. For War-Ready I think Avg Nukes per person is a better indicator of readiness instead of total nukes, though there could be some sort of middle ground using both metrics. And I have to agree with TheMadStork Quiet maybe, inactive we are not. Cheers for TSO making the top 20, and a tip of my hat to the other alliances on the list!

Much obliged TFD. o/ DDM o/ TFD

[quote name='dev0win' timestamp='1296796032' post='2618909'] Your not doing a very good job of helping TFD out if the other idiot in your alliance declares war on TFD instead of MHA... try again though. [/quote] Exactly the reason why I need a breathalyzer on my computer.. Don't Drink and CN! Back on track now, honestly have no earthly idea how I managed to do that lol. S Man, props on the juandingo reference. Here's to a good fight folks!

HoooRAH! o/ DDM

Gotta give it up to ya'll for your persistence... o/ Multi Colored Cross X Alliance o/ TFK o/ WAPA o/ The Warriors Give 'em hell!

I have spices/sugar, you can put me down, would prefer blue as long as everyone else is on board with that color.