[Stats ITB: 7]

Statistics based on the blog for 1/26 until 3/5:

Coalition : Nations at 1/26 (Nations at 3/5) / Difference of Nations between 1/26 and 3/5 (Nation difference per day per tier)

Eq

150k+: 30 (7) / -23 (0.59)

150k-100k : 231 (51) / -180 (4.62)

100k-80k : 292 (161)/ -131 (3.36)

80k-60k : 449 (416)/ -33 (0.85)

Co

150k+: 35 (24)/ -11 (0.28)

150k-100k : 153 (71) / -82 (2.102)

100k-80k : 104 (52)/ -52 (1.33)

80k-60k : 117 (118)/ +1 (0)

[Stats ITB: 7]

The losses seem to die down a bit.

Eq good news is that it minimized its losses at the contested area which is 80k-100k. The bad news for Eq is that the Tech nation losses for Co has already dropped down for 10-15k tier and 7-15k tier not only that Co has minimized its losses also in all NS tiers.

The stat also is revealing that GATO & Co plan is coming to fruition since the contested Area of 100k-80k wherein Eq lost for the 3rd straight week more nations at that tier. If Eq will want its plan of numerical superiority to come into fruition, the tiers lowers than 80k and below NS tiers should start losing more than just single digits plus should equalize or should make Co lose more nations at the 80k-100k NS tier.

[Stats ITB: 6]

With the amount of people spending billions on Infra to get back to 100k+, it's difficult to say who's losing what in that tier.

If you check the charts, 2/3 of TOP's nations out of peacemode in that NS range have rebought a lot of Infra at some point to get back up there & the other is keeping himself at 4k Infra so is only suffering NS lost on tech. I'm sure it's going on on our side too.

You are correct at the TOP front it will be difficult to say who will win at the top tiers if you consider just TOP, OTR and TSO.

I even expected Eq to win at that front decisively but Umbrella aka DBDC super nations interfered which probably change the course of top tier wars at that front.

[Stats ITB: 6]

I'd rather lose 7% than 14% of my crew in that range.. any day.

PS, Umbrella is about to lose another in that range.. I and my squad have him by the ankles.

Well the totality is not the same if you based it per NS range. Your percentage is based on losses of all ranges rather than per tier. There is a percentage difference between the 150k-100k and 100k-60k NS ranges.

The tier by tier are more needed than totality since this will be the basis of decisions. Imagine if you based stats based on what you say and disregard the tier by tier stats, the plan for peace moding everyone at 100K NS and above for Eq will not push thru. Thus, making everyone at 100K and above at war mode because the totality stats says Eq is winning but losing on a certain tiers which result into massacre of the top tiers of Eq.

The same goes for Competence, wherein if they only based the stats top tiers, and disregard the mid tiers stats, their midtiers will be massacred since they will not peace mode those mid tiers.

[Stats ITB: 6]

It's interesting that, through Eq is losing nations over 60k NS slightly faster than DH, DH is losing nations over 7k tech (specially at the 10k-15k range) almost twice faster than Eq.

Who said tech is harder to destroy than infra?

you are partially correct on that one. DH is losing more tech nations between 7k-15k

[Stats ITB: 6]

thank you for the stats.

It seems Eq is losing more within the 100k-80k NS range. While Co is losing more at the 80-60k NS range.

At least at the 100k-80K ranges, Eq was abled to minimize the losses from 47 down to 23. But still lost more at those ranges.

One of the possibilities of Eq losing more nations consistently for 2 weeks at the 100k-80k NS range is DoW down by 100k-150k NS nations as well as C&G tactic of releasing only nations within those ranges.

While at the 100k-150k range is a technical tie, we know the tactic of Eq is to peace mode everyone within those ranges much like the tactic of C&G at the mid to lower tiers.

[Stats ITB: 5]

I was actually referring to the 80-100k strength range in my previous post, because you were saying something about Equilibrium losing nations at a greater rate than Competence.

And even if the losses in the 60-80k range are equal, that doesn't matter to Equilibrium. They might not fight better, their losses might be the same even though they have more members, but the very fact that they have more members means that they'll be able to outlast Competence.

We shall see one week to one month from now if whose strategy is working: accdg to Eq; superiority numbers at 100k-80k tier while Acddg to Co: DoW down by higher Tiers. Based on the one week happened this week at the 100-80k (-47) Eq vs (-17) Co. There was a total change from the week of feb 4-11 where (-17) Eq lost less Co(-42). As there was a 60% percentage decrease with Co and a 247% increase in Eq at the 100k-80k losses. This is vital since Eq is expected to dominate this Tier area completely. If the pattern continues for this week and the next week, Eq will lose a lot of ground at that NS range. So, for this week Eq needs to control that area and stop losing an increase of losses.

[Stats ITB: 5]

Yeah, but you forget that there's 2.85 Equilibriums for every 1 "Competence" in the 80-100k range.When they all get brought down into the 60-80k range, the overwhelming number of Equilibrium nations will crush them.

Eq does have numbers at the 80-60k tier. However, if you read the stat thoroughly, you will see that those numerical superiority is not affecting competence much. Accdg to this stat, The losses at 80-60k ranges are equal.

Not everyone in eq is as good or as efficient in war as Pacifica, DUckroll or DT. numerical superiority becomes only an advantage if everyone is as good as everyone.

[Stats ITB: 5]

For equilibrium the changes from feb 12 to feb 20:

NS range = Total at the tier(change since feb 12)

150k+ = 7(0)

150-100k = 69(-21)

100-80k = 202(-47)

80-60k = 435(-20)

For Competence the changes from feb 12 to feb 20:

NS range = Total at the tier(change since feb 12)

150k+ = 24(-5)

150-100k = 67(-20)

100-80k = 71(-17)

80-60k = 123(-19)

The feb 20 suggests that Competence still dominate 150k+. 150-100k seems to be a statistical tie. While 100k-80k, Equilibrium lost more 47 vs 17 yet still retains numerical superiority. At the bottom rank there seems to be a tie in losses but Equilibrium seems to be numerical superior

The one thing I noticed is Equilibrium seems to have lost its ground at the 100k-80k which is suppose to be the meat grinder or the DMZ as others suggested. If this patterns continue (Equilibrium loses 2.76 nations from 100k-80k NS vs Competence 1), things will not look good within month for them as the losses at this tier was done within a week.

[Stats ITB: 4]

i have to agree with loco and wally about the PM on counting at as possible war combatants.

However, based on the table, a rough indication on what is happening by comparing the number of nations per tier. Equi side lost more nations at the 100-150K NS and the 60K-80K NS in all fronts. While DH side lost more between 80-100K NS. Although DH side, lost more at the 150K NS and above, we already know Equi conceded that front/tier.

Based on that data, Equi coalition's superiority seems to be revolving around the 80k-100K NS. While at the 60k-80K NS Equi lost more numbers, but the percentage loss is almost the same. So the 60k-80K NS can still be considered as a draw.

[Would this be a interesting read?]

didn't you quit already?

[Day 15: Web Fixes]

DB4D should point also to VE, undeclared war, reason for MW going in and UCoN thru an oA

[Electoral College Challenge]

looks like Oli or Eumi could win depending on the Florida result

[Electoral College Challenge]

Obama - 271

Romney - 266