[Lord Jache Send Ravens Across Planet Bob]

Welcome to the war!

[Memo from Hooligans]

Welcome to the war!

[Remember What I said About Umbrella?]

Now in the Anarchy thread, when they declared on Umbrella, I said that Umbrella would drop to 30 nations by the end of the war. Everyone said I was crazy, that cant happen, they will be fine. GUess what? Umbrella is down to 65 NATIONS! So looks like Umbrella is well on their way to 30.

 

Which if Umbrellaw here to fall to thirty, they will undoubtadley go lower.

 

Technically you are correct.  However, you should consider the other Umbrella Nations AA hopping which are still part of Umbrella.

[Upper End of the War]

I disagree that that's the trade off. IMO it's "have we depleted enough the nuke turrets' treasury/tech?" and "have we brought down enough super nations?" vs "are we confident enough that our coalition doesn't start falling apart?"
Assuming of course that "Competence" doesn't start to fall apart first.

Besides the risk to lose cohesion, "Equilibrium" has no trade off to consider in the continuation of the war. Stats wise it's "the longer, the better" for them. To put it really simply, save maybe for 5-10 nations which can remain out of range for several months or years, tech can basically go just one way during war, which is down, and it bottoms at zero.
Eq's advantage in numbers is large enough for them to be able to have the reasonable expectation that an "appropriatedly" long war will eventually grind down almost all Co's initial tech advantage - save for those very few nations that will remain out of reach. I say "very few" because - give it enough time - Co won't be able to keep their nations out of reach of most of Eq and to protect the bottom of their super layer at the same time: those that get into a nuclear war (to attack/defend from Eq nations that grew in range) can only go down. Some may buy back a few times, but it's not going to be financially sustainable. Unless it doesn't last too long, which again means that Eq has all to gain from a prolonged war.
The real problem for Eq is that they may discover that their coalition isn't going to fight "long enough" (or "hard enough"), for whatever reason - and many reasons can be imagined and/or have been cited in this thread. An "early" end might really be a disaster for the expectations they had when entering this conflict, as Co would have retained their lead, and the resources needed to maintain it.

I must also observe that what initially looked quite an unbiased point of view now doesn't really seem neutral anymore, Vasily. You keep mentioning the problems and worries that can be imagined for the Eq side but you never even remotely touch on the problems and worries that can be imagined for the Co side.
It's not an issue - not even a criticism - of course! Having an opinion and a side is OK and the quality of your commentary hasn't been negatively affected by your "alignment". Please keep up with your excellent work.

 

I think jerdge what others failed to see is that no at all members of Equilibrium are maximized or fighting hard or as efficiently as some members.  You have been generalizing numbers as totality of Equilibrium rather than seeing front by front as Vasily Blyukher analyzed.  As analyzed by him, Equilibrium had an advantage at the TOP front which was neutralized by the visits of Umbrella/DBDC.

 

If you looked at the numbers, The front is being pushed down to 60K NS wherein War zone area being 100k-80k.  When you look at this other statistics made by an NSO member(allies of Pacifica) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3687-stats-itb-5/.  Equilibrium is losing 47 nations feb 12-20 dates from around at 100k-80k. This loss was already mitigated by the entrance of Apparatus and GDA which lessen the losses at that range during that date.

[Announcement from the Mushroom Kommune]

The GDA are invincible. I pray the holy power of The Flubb haunt you in your dreams.

Flubb is the man!

[Upper End of the War]

Let's try to resume what concepts we refined here to move to the next step of this discussion, OK? Here's my draft.

Hi jerd. Thank you for resuming. With regards to DMZ, I do not think it exists yet.

According to this statistics which is dated Feb 11(http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/), 100K+ is Co territory while between 100k-80kNS is Eq territory. There seems to be a statistical tie between 60k-80k based on percentage loss.

So unless someone gathers actual data on lower than 80K tiers and divided them by War Front, we cannot assume who is winning the wars below 80K NS. With regards to the C&G front, the 80K and below wars has not even yet started. So the data, will probably be more available at the 80K NS and below where there alliances on both sides fighting both in the Original front and the TOP-DT front.

[Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)]

You aren't spinning numbers. You just don't seem to have a very good grasp on the warfare slot/nuclear mechanic of the game. If nations at war absorb 1000 NS damage per day, a 3v1 war would see Equilibrium absorbing 3000 and the one Competence nation absorbing only 1000 (because nations are only nuked once). Competence should be dishing out more damage to Equilibrium because there are more nations and more NS to be damaged.

This is also misleading since your are assuming that damage is equal on each of Equilibrium's nations. It is the reason I have been requesting for a tier by tier and front by front statistics as this will really define what is happening.

When damage is equally divided among nations any coalition with superior numbers will have an advantage. but the current war is far from that. Not every Equilibrium nation is receiving equal damage to mitigate any damage the other coalition has dealt.

A perfect example would be Matt Miller from IRON's damage taken from Timmmeh and loco during their respective battle on different dates cannot be distributed around the coalition to lessen the damage to Matt Miller.

[War Losses Charts]

The distinction you're trying ot make is silly and whiny.  Whether by deletions, desertions, battle damage, launching more nukes than you can rebuy, AA shuffling, &c. these losses of NS are losses due to war.  NS loss of any kind is a loss incurred by Equilibrium's war on the AAs, regardless of why.
The only debate is whether NS loss by AA shuffling represents a loss of control over that NS.  For all we know, 3,000,000 NS worth of Non Grata nations switched AA because they refuse to fight, and that is a war-induced loss.  Or, the AA switch is due to nostalgia for former alliances who were too weak to actually continue their own existences, but the NS is still under control of NG; however, the subtraction of NS from NG Proper cannot be distinguished to 100% accuracy from all the other kinds of loss, so it must simply be recorded as loss. 
Thus my admonishment that if these goofballs want their NS and losses to be recorded under one AA to the greatest accuracy, they should act like alliances and wear one AA.  As it is, the rudimentary nature of the representation of the data available in-game and the use of AAs demands the treatment that has been given.

I am sure you have a fantastic imagination between the difference whining and pointing out the statistics here is very misleading. War losses is very different from NS loss.

If you look at the Umbrella statistics, those who left Umbrella for Doombird Doomcave were counted as a War Loss. Those on Doombird Doomcave who came from Umbrella had losses were also counted which means The nations who both left Umbrella and those lost a certain NS at DBDC were double counted.

The true statistics on war losses are at the the battle charts of each nation. Once you have it, then we can talk about War Losses.

[War Losses Charts]

Let's back up and put this in very simple terms: Between deletions, desertions, battle damage, and idiotic changes in AA, there is no way to weed out one cause for some portion of NS loss and then account for it.  If you want all your NS counted in one place, wear one AA; that's what AAs are for.

Exactly, someone from equilibrium actually understanding the stats. NS loss is totally different from War Losses. The fantastic spinning of information that NS loss equals War loss is more of Equilibrium's propaganda. NS loss does not mean damage received or dealt, it literally means NS loss.

Now, until someone collects actual War losses or damage received or dealt in battle, then we can only say the statistics are War losses.

[Upper Tier Tracking Thread]

Alliance, Bloc or Coalition Name
120k+ - Number of Nations in Tier from last update (Number in War Mode) --> Number of Nations in Tier Now (Number in War Mode)
100k - " "
80k - " "

Any new stat updates on this?

[Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)]

By that logic, DH/CnG should be outputting 3 times the damage EQ is (for every one nation we damage, you should be able to damage 3). But instead our damage outputs are equal. Which mean EQ is outperforming DH/CnG.

 

And no one is arguing whose upper tier is better. DH/CnGs top tier is obviously superior in 2 of 3 fronts (TOP is getting man handled). But the question is can the top tier alone win the war?

 

The cushion is based if the damage to Equilibrium is spread equally.  However, damage is not spread equally in Equilibrium.

 

Not only that, with the recent entrance of GDA and Apparatus, the graph will definite show a different skew from its original damage path.

 

As admitted by CnG already in many posts in OWF, they are grinding each NS tier before they move unto the next lower tier.

 

It is the difference between the statistics posted by Equilbrium since Equilibrium posters have been focusing on total statistics rather than the breakdown by tiers and by front.  

 

The breakdown will truly tell who is winning and who is losing or if even it is a draw.

[Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)]

Tomorrow the war will complete 1 month, so can someone create another thread and put some peace mode statistics on it about alliances on both sides, like:

• % or/and number of nations in peace mode
• % or/and number of nations in peace mode since said alliance joined the war
• % or/and number of nations in peace mode for more than 2 weeks
• % or/and nation strength in peace mode of each alliance

 

Can someone do that please? It will be a fun thread and the person who do it will have my eternal love for 1/2 hour.

 

 

I would love to see this as well, along with statistical breakdown per NS tier between 100k-80k, 80k-60k, 60k-40k, 40k-20k. Plus a statistical breakdown per front much like Vasily Blyukher did on his analysis on the upper tier at his thread : http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/114908-upper-end-of-the-war/

 

This is the closest thing I could find on what NS tier breakdown:  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/

[War Losses Charts]

So what does victory look like to you exactly if not shear damage done? 

 

If Equilibriums propoganda machine can count an accurate stat of sheer damage, since the basis of the Statistics is total NS rather than actual damage.

 

All this stat is based on NS strength before the war and NS damage now.  It is totally different from sheer damage done as things like rebuying infra, AA hops, deletions, etc are not counted.

 

Not only that, the statistics based of this based on the totality rather than divided into tiers and front.  This division is needed since each tier and each front has different situations and/or results.

[Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)]

I would like to point out the flaw on the statistics on this chart. AA hoppers losses were also counted in their original Alliance lose, e.g. Doombird Doomcave loses were also part of Umbrella losses since they were once part of Umbrella and counted as the loss of Umbrella.

[War Losses Charts]

The biggest problem with these stats is that certain losses are being counted twice (the AA hopping)

 

It's being counted as a loss against the alliance that they left, and then being counted as a loss when damage is done to it. Or am I reading this completely incorrect (entirely plausible).

 

 

I think you are correct. Since Doombird Doomcave loses were also included in the Umbrella loses

[War Losses Charts]

So despite all the stats that people have been trotting out saying we are losing, we are in fact, as we already knew, winning.

That the gist of it?

 

 

I do not see any statistics saying this as such.  The statistics above only states NS loss between certain dates not damage dealt nor receive.  

 

The more accurate statistics would be the per battle war chart and add it up.

 

After that, divide by tier, divide it by front since each tier and each front varies differently.

 

Equilibrium cannot claim victory if an NS tier was already lost by them.

[Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)]

each front is different both in damage in situation. net gain loss is based on NS loss between dates rather than damage dealt as there are many circumstance that nations rebuy infra, delete, transfer to another AA. Even if you put in the more accurate statistics of damage using the tedious battle chart of each nation of each of their wars, it does not factor in what is happening each tier nor at each front which varies on each tier and varies on each front.

[Upper End of the War]

  lol,
Did you just pull that out of nowhere? Some of the alliances on your side are under intense pressure, no where near as close as to any on our side and they have little or no chance of escaping the cycle. Ours are free to move around, sit back, relax, restock, collect and hit back again. You have to actually put pressure and you wasted a good chunk of your resources trying to pressure AI of all the alliances. The best you can hope to achieve is have 90%+ of your alliances in peace mode and that my friend is just more pressure, have fun decaying in 2013. Also, nothing against GATO, just that you seem to have assumed the position of being dQ's [ooc]Saeed al-Sahhaf. [/ooc]

 

Well this thread is about upper tiers.  So, the discussion on the thread is about upper tiers.

 

I highly doubt any of Equilbrium's nations at the upper tiers are eager to hit back again..

[War Losses Charts]

I also think everyone should factor out that this damage was calculated based on Total number of NS before entering the war versus total NS. This is highly disproportionate since damage dealt is very different from total NS especially if one rebuys infra. A more accurate way of knowing the actual damage is the battle charts which very tedious. But that is the sacrifice of accuracy.

[War Losses Charts]

Thanks for getting the total statistics. Can you further break this down into tiers, by front and by War/peace mode?

There also seems to be a bias on this since you only broke down DH side while adding your total coalition rather than breaking up by tiers and by fronts.

[Mushroom Kingdom Official Sanctification]

Does this mean Evopolis is coming out of peace mode?

 

e: that ~700 million dong warchest won't last long if so  :D

 

AA of AA should just cancel their protectorate treaty with TTK since TTK cannot uphold their treaties by protecting AA of AA military or politically regardless of being at war or not.

 

The whole purpose of the protectorate treaty was to protect AA of AA which has failed to do so.

 

AA of AA should ask another alliance to protect them instead.

[Upper Tier Tracking Thread]

I believe that the upper end war is becoming less relevant each day and the mid tier war is where the war is really heating up.  Perhaps the discussion would be more relavent if we added the mid tiers as well.

 

The problem with this version of mid-tier war is that the mid-tier of DH is the top top tier of Equilibrium.  So it is really depends on how you define mid tiers.

 

I believe this is the only statistical data available to everyone on mid tiers: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/

 

The data shows a tie between the 80k-60K NS tier between Jan 26 and Feb 11 based on number of nations lost at that tier.

 

I have not included the 100k-80k since this tier is where the majority of Equis 'top tier' resides.  So, if you want 100k-80k included, that would be a 'top tier' discussion rather than a mid tier one.

 

The reason the data on this thread is good is that the data shows peace mode and war mode nations and by front by front stats.

[Upper End of the War]

Busted staggers are a fact of life. When you have so many moving pieces as there are mistakes happen. They seem to be the exception rather then the norm. And honestly, this war is all about Umbrella. The hangers on are incidental. If ODN et al go to peace mode it only helps the cause of burning Umbrella.

 

 

That does not seem to be the case.  As this thread is all about the upper tier's which Umbrella has already won.  One of the purpose of the war is for the rest of eQuilibrium to catch up to the tech of Umbrella which is totally failing.  Of course the top tiers of equi is already in peace mode to avoid the super nations of DH.  Which in turn gives these DH nations to do whatever they want even dealing tech.  This means tech difference will be even more.

 

Based on http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/#commentsStart:

 

Jan 26:

 

 

150K+ NS

eQui  - 30

DH - 35

 

 

100K-150K+ NS

eQui  - 231

DH - 153

 

20K+ tech

eQui  - 7

DH - 24

 

Feb 11:

 

 

 

150K+ NS

eQui  - 7(-23)

DH - 29(-6)

 

 

100K-150K+ NS

eQui  - 90(-141)

DH - 97(-56)

 

20K+ tech

eQui  - 2 (-5) 

DH - 20 (-4)

[Upper End of the War]

Any news on when we will see the next set of stats?

 

I'm curious to see what it will look like.  I am off the opinion that at least 80k is the line, and it may go as low as 60k.  I only need to look at the alliances like AI and the ones GATO and NG hit to see what the trend is once the over 100k is claimed.  Mind you that depends on how long the war is going.

 

I based my conclusion on these statistics:

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/

 

As of Feb 11, the stats shows Equilibrium superiority at the 100k-80k NS ranges.  DH has an advantage above 100K-150K NS ranges.  While DH also has total superiority at 150K+. While 80k-60K NS range seems to be tie.

 

I based this on the difference between the number of total losses from Feb 4 to Feb 11. As well as the information that Equilibrium has given up the 150K+ ranges.  Of course, this should change and I am excited to see the updated stats.

[ModEdit: The Great Rainbow Caper accords]

Congratulations db4d on your new treaty. Does this mean jrkee and yosoamazing gets to hit me ? Or is it the other way around that I get to hit them? YosoAmazing!