Farnsworth

I know you want to vote in more polls... Besides, the Alterego's thread is titled "Greatest ever war" and I wanted to switch the latter two words. Also, I was inactive or between nations for a few of these wars and I'm interested in knowing the truth. And, of course, all polls lead to truth. It's why democracy is for everyone, especially uneducated misogynist dimwits. They will, by divine intervention or haphazard selection, select learned and altruistic leaders that will shepherd them down a righteous path leading to an age of equally distributed and poverty-reducing development that brings about an everlasting peaceful and prosperous society. And that's why I created this poll.

I agree with the comments that the politics of this war are not the most interesting (MK/DH built up a good bit of resentment, but nothing compared to pre-Karma NPO). However, the in-game fighting, forums stat war, and the uncertain outcome make it interesting nonetheless. It seems like the judging from the posts thus far, it seems the following are considered to be the best wars: GW3 Karma BiPolar Equilibrium I included Equilibrium because I think most agree that this is at least the best war since BiPolar. BRB - Starting a new poll. Lulz...

Why do people delete their wars? I take screenshots of mine in case my opponents delete them. I plan to total my numbers when the war is over and see how supremely I have pwned. lol.

You all need to setup the Zulu PoW AA. Keep taking the nukes like champs, Zulu!

I love this. If it ever stops, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Shouldn't AI be included? I think they're in the top 10 NS lost, if not also in the top 10 NS destroyed.

Wow. So many graphs. You all have fun with this, but I'll just stick to looking at numbers -- though only when they're provided by someone else who bothers to fetch and organize them. It seems some of these graphs (like the ones in the Do Not Fear Jazz post above) need more explanation, and in some instances the scale could be tweaked a bit to be more informative. Like I said though, you all have fun with your graphing war. :)

What are the intensive purposes? lol. Interesting data and analysis. Continues to be a good read. (Thought I should say something aside from my rhetorical question)

Congrats to all involved. Looks like it ended well.

Eh, I don't relish making consecutive posts, but my prior post was made after just reading the OP. Since the thread's topic is quality vs. quantity, I thought I'd quote what I consider 3 of the higher quality posts made here thus far. QFT:

Yeah, Mr. High Quality, you are definitely keeping it classy. :rolleyes:

Me too. Well, some of them have had WRCs, but meh.

Yeah, seems fairly fair and balanced, and not in the manner of Fox News. Interesting data. I'm enjoying seeing all the varying sets of data that people provide; it all adds up to a more complete and accurate understanding of what's going on. Kudos and thanks for putting this together!

I'm not convinced that this is intentional propaganda on the part of most people replying in these threads. Sure, perhaps it functions in a manner like propaganda in that it may unfairly boost the image of one side, but I think most people are just not choosing their words carefully. So, instead of some people saying "war-time NS loss," which may, in fact, be the most accurate terminology, they may more simply, quickly and without overanalyzing it say, "war damage" or "war losses". We could argue back and forth about the accuracies/inaccuracies of these various statements, but it would be a pointless discussion in semantics. NS is one of several legitimate ways to analyze and track the losses, gains, trends, and outcomes of wars. All of the various stats taken alone will fail provide the complete picture, and that's one reason we see so many various threads, blogs, charts, etc. Now, without splitting hairs over the definition of "damage" and what constitutes damage in war (some things like damage to reputation are not quantifiable, anyway), one thing I have seen (I think you and others) suggest, is that NS loss in wartime does not accurately reflect the AA hoppers and deletions to inactivity (etc), but I think one could argue that the raw NS numbers underrepresent, not overrepresent the damage dealt, as we have seen so many buying infra* throughout the war. And the infra once destroyed, though re-bought still represents damage -- that's damage dealt in infra transferred to damage dealt in war chest. I have seen you suggest (a few times in the various stat threads) that we won't get fully accurate stats unless someone checks out all of the war charts -- recording and reporting all they see. Not only is that (hopefully) more time than anyone would care to dedicate, but the wars are delete-able. Thus, (correct me if I'm wrong) once a war is deleted in-game by either warring party then the war record along with the chart is deleted (aka inaccessible, unless people, like me, take screenshots, but of course we cannot count on everyone to do that, and so this doesn't need to be said, not even parenthetically). Again, I'm not 100% sure on this, but will assume it's true until someone states otherwise. So, while I'm not arguing for the accuracy of the OP's stats, as some of DH's losses do seem doubly counted (what with all the AA hopping), I am suggesting that the stats contained therein and elsewhere combined together will form a more holistic and accurate portrait of what's going on. And none of the stats we will see, with their varying data (NS/Infa/Tech/Tier/Fronts/etc.) and their varying degrees of accuracy, will account for all of the "damage" or all of the "NS lost" or provide a complete picture. *And on the other hand, we'll probably start, if we haven't already, seeing some of dEq/Competence selling down their infra to get in a lower range. Without any statistical evidence, I strongly believe that the buying of infra, however, has and will continue to outpace the selling of infra. Thus, the raw NS data will likely underrepresent the total damage dealt/received (of both sides). To sum things up: At some point in typing this I forgot it's purpose. LOL

cool, thanks for sharing. i enjoy tracking the data and seeing what's up, but don't have the will to collect it myself.

Oh, what's this? Another MK thread. How surprising. Eh, at least someone is posting something, I guess.

I'm doing it to help Bob's large population of nincompoops. They have difficultly connecting the dots.

The keyword that you're neglecting is "IF"... He said "if" and I, in attempting to explain in layman's terms, also said "if". The extent to which they like their stats and one may then arguably call them a stat hugger (despite any dearth of infra or stats to hug), he suggests, may be determined by their willingness to be ground down to a shell of their former selves, and therein resemble GOONS. It's cute, though, that people keep trying to misunderstand what he meant and also now my explanation of it.

Do people really not understand this? I think it's perfectly clear. I mean, feel free to disagree with him, but there's no need to act like you don't understand it. For those that lack the reading comprehension or language ability to get it: he's suggesting that an alliances of infra-huggers or stat-lovers may call it quits and thereby hasten their sides eventual defeat. For instance, alliances like VE and NSO (NSO is a bit of a different story in that they're on a different front) have seen their ANS plummet and are taking a harder hit (I'm not actually sure how hard NSO is being hit, tbh, but I'm not sharing my opinion, but rather explaining someone else's) than some alliances. It's possible some of these alliances don't want to be the "new GOONS", as he says. I take this to mean a very low ANS alliance. Then he goes through a rather incomplete list of alliances (roughly in order of ANS) that may need to decide if they're willing to "go for broke" and join GOONS at the bottom. Again, this is his prediction, not mine. He's saying that if any of these large, presumably important/significant alliances say, "Hey, you know what, I don't want to ruin my alliance (destroy all our pixels) for this silly war" and thus drop out, it will lessen the chances of eventual victory (perhaps he would even allow a Soviet over German type victory).

It's possible there are other things at play here, of course, but I think you pretty much covered the reason we're seeing what would be undue use of peace mode by the upper tier of AZTEC & Friends IF this war had neatly divided fronts, like those listed in the OP. However, as you mention, this is a coalition war and there's lots of crossover -- and the area in which DH & Co can best afford this crossover is the upper tier. And as one might predict, we (AZTEC & friends) have seen our share of wars from the likes of DBDC. Granted, I'm not omniscient (and that's a damn shame!) and there may be more at play here, but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

Congrats on 7 years of neutrality on Bob! EDIT: Also, Apriland should have made it into the Hall of Fame, if for no other reason than being one of the few names I recognized. And why wasn't AS IV (or was it VII) not nominated? He'd be one of the few others I'd recognize/recall from back in the day.

Glad to see we China-dwellers made an appearance! Thanks for sharing.

If you wanna get to religions then you have to come through me and Chris Crocker Londo Mollari!!! What did she ever do to you? :crazyface:

Someone needs a lesson in cause and effect...

Wow. Lots of try-hards trying hard, I see. I got bored and quit reading midway through the OP. Consider this my congratulations or condolences, whichever you feel is more appropriate.