Jump to content
jerdge

Top "war-ready" Alliances

Recommended Posts

I think if you're going to go for an accurate statistical portrayal of war-readiness you have to go more in-depth than these stats go. Naturally some of the obvious has already been pointed out, like WRC % vs WRC #. But it goes farther than that. A mass-recruiting alliance like Sparta, MHA, Polaris, Pacifica, etc. will never have a WRC percentage anywhere near that of an alliance like Umbrella or TOP which is specifically designed around top-tier nations which will have WRC's. If you want to paint an accurate statistical picture of war-readiness, you have to look at only top-tier nations when you look at WRC percentage. Large alliances with large numbers of low-tier nations will not have the same WRC percentage as Umbrella or TOP, because those low-tier nations simply cannot have WRC's. To look at overall WRC percentage of TOP vs Sparta and say that TOP wins in a landslide is unfair because Sparta has many lower tier nations.

And this goes for other stats as well. Number of Manhattan Projects, SDI's, etc. among mid-tier nations, tech ratios among mid-tier and upper-tier nations, there is a lot that goes into war readiness statistically. And to get an accurate picture you really have to dive deep into those statistics and break things down like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1314119552' post='2786929']If you're doing war readiness, it shouldn't be based on total anything. It should be based on averages. If you're doing some sort of total military power index, then you should include total. I would say that Asgaard is much more war-ready than MHA, but MHA is still a stronger power simply by virtue of being much larger.[/quote]
Yes and no. Averages can "lie" too.
An alliance with a solid top layer and a great number of efficient nation builders/tech sellers could have bad average stats but be well prepared for war nonetheless. You're not off mark, anyway.


[quote name='asawyer' timestamp='1314127604' post='2787051']I realize the fact VE is in the teens on several categories is why I noticed this, but the "Top 10" qualification is completely arbitrary. Establishing static cutoffs for tech ratios and WRC percentages would have given a much more accurate picture.

Someone needs to gather blitz stats, IRC activity levels, and spy thousands of nation's warchests so we can get an actual analysis of war preparation.[/quote]
Oh yes, choosing the top 10 is completely arbitrary, I agree. I had to cut somewhere and that seemed like the simplest method, which isn't the best one but at least was "quick".


[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1314127942' post='2787054']I think the best thing about this topic was putting quotations around war-ready.[/quote]
That wasn't an accident.


[quote name='Trinite' timestamp='1314128199' post='2787055']I would also like to point out that these stats do not accurately indicate what nobody ever said they accurately indicated.[/quote]
Stop being reasonable, you're in the wrong game for that! :)


[quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1314137044' post='2787152']I think if you're going to go for an accurate statistical portrayal of war-readiness you have to go more in-depth than these stats go.[/quote]
Absolutely (and good post). This is just a rough picture.
The "real" analysis would have to be done with a breakdown of every alliance to what basically amounts to an exam (almost?) nation by nation. I hadn't the intention to do all that work, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MHA ahead of NPO? Umm no.

The best way to see which alliances are the most "war ready" is to actually see them in action during a war. Stats just mean the alliances who have the most SDIs, MPs and WRCs have nations who have been around longer, nothing more.

Edited by Charles Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1314130433' post='2787078']Lack of alliances notable for their war capabilities (NEW, and NoR). As RV put it, war is more than wonders.[/quote]
[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1314131420' post='2787090']Clearly NoR is unprepared for war. Someone should declare on us.[/quote]
Both NEW and NoR are actually mentioned.


[quote name='phillip110' timestamp='1314134919' post='2787117']It is also clear that Valhalla is unprepared for war. We should start a bloc together so we can be declared on together. :awesome: [/quote]
Valhalla ranks 25th for [b]total nukes[/b], 34th for [b]tech per member[/b], 21st for [b]total WRCs[/b] and 25th for [b]WRCs per member[/b], which to me looks like you're solid all round without being at the top in any of these four dimensions[sup]1[/sup].
Another alliance that I didn't mention but does more or less the same (or slightly better) is Nueva Vida (34th, 23rd, 24th and 15th, items in same order). GOD also would have to be mentioned (24th, 22nd, 27th, 37th).
Others which would deserve a mention are The Dark Templar (18th for [b]WRCs per member[/b]), RnR (21st for [b]total nukes[/b] and 20th for [b]total WRCs[/b]), GATO (22nd for [b]total nukes[/b] and for [b]total WRCs[/b]), LOSS (29th for [b]total nukes[/b] and 26th for [b]total WRCs[/b]), Ronin (18th for [b]WRCs per member[/b]), Echelon, TORN (notably 14th for [b]WRCs per member[/b]), Grey Council (19th for the same thing).
We could go on "indefinitely" (well, not really) but that would be beyond the scope of this "ranking".


[b]1[/b] Which of course describes only part of the thing. NG, for example, is slightly more than 2 times Valhalla in terms of members (I take NG just to have numbers which are easy to play with) and has comparatively less WRCs and tech per member; but they have 3 times Valhalla's nukes (the 25 cap per nation obviously is at play here) and in the end more WRCs. They just have, as said, 2+ times nations. It would probably take more than Valhalla to fight NG, just because they're bigger. Does this mean that they did a better job? I don't know, that's not the point of this thread (if it has one, that's it).

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Base stats are simply not enough to make an accurate judgment. You also need to factor in how much money the alliance has, how active it is, and more important, how militarily competent they have been historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1314126218' post='2787036']
I have to concur with my friendly paradoxian here. MHA are a beast, I'm sure they could take on the world (where is that picture!).

We lack a bit in averages, because we have some fluff. Once we lose our babyfat I'm sure we are one muscular baby.
[/quote]
[img]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2028/oyababyworld1r.png[/img]

The only one that matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total stats mean nothing, averages are much more accurate.

Alliances with the highest member count (And thus highest in this list, minus the obvious exceptions (Hai PF) are more likely to be less-organised due to just how big they are. It's much easier to organise, for example, the 63 nations of Argent for audits and the like rather than 200+ people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all Unspeakable Evil's fault, i miss his stats....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1314116542' post='2786887']
2) - Umbrella[/quote]
Already inaccurate sorry.
[quote]14) - New Polar Order
15) - New Pacific Order
17) - Green Old Party
18) - World Task Force
20) - The Sweet Oblivion

21) - Orange Defense Network
22) - The Last Remnants[/quote]
What in the $%&@? Why are those five alliances above these two?

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1314141321' post='2787217']
Your list sucks. it includes people who avoid war/nukes/any kind of damage at all cost
[/quote]
Wait, aren't you in Olympus?

Edited by Neo Uruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314117154' post='2786890']
join Umbrella if you love your infra too much :P
[/quote]

oh you, Death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314117154' post='2786890']
You should had used nukes per member instead of total nukes and instead of total WRC use both SDI and MP per members, of course doing that the "elite" alliances will be in the first places, but would me more interesting to see than total numbers.

Also, I once was a member of GPA and I know exactly how you feel, for someone who is interested in this kind of status is extremely boring be in a neutral alliance, not matter how awesome GPA community is, I think is time to you left your hippie behavior behind and join an non neutral alliance.

Join NpO if you like to be where things happens or join Umbrella if you love your infra too much :P
[/quote]

That's why I joined!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1314124000' post='2786998']
As always Asgaard is carrying the weight for MJ :)
[/quote]

LOL, Thrawn I knew you would be here saying that :lol1:

This list is spot on, Nordreich clearly doesn't belong in front of some of those alliances :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1314140138' post='2787188']
The best way to see which alliances are the most "war ready" is to actually see them in action during a war. Stats just mean the alliances who have the most SDIs, MPs and WRCs have nations who have been around longer, nothing more.
[/quote]
I agree! Let's just get rid of the stats and have everyone war each other. Then we'll easily figure out who will win as is actually happens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TSO is just the remainder of the upper tier of a sanctioned alliance that abandoned said original alliance and now calls itself 'elite'. Given its huge levels of inactivity I wouldn't put it amongst the top alliances anyway.

NpO and NPO are not top war-ready alliances. Sure NPO may have loads of WRCs but many of those are in nations which have been beaten down and never rebuilt. Its upper tier is not sufficiently sizeable and it has insufficiently high tech levels to fight effectively, as wars are won in the upper tier these days. I reckon ODN could take them 1v1 now, simply due to game mechanics. As for NpO, it has a very high nuke count but that's because it encourages its members to buy nukes too early and as a result it hurts their warchests.

Neutrals shouldn't even be in a list of war-ready alliances. They are terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Needs some tweaking...would be interesting to see what the numbers would look like if you excluded nations that have less than 3000 infra (mostly tech sellers with unusually low tech levels on hand at any given point in time).

Nice job overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314148704' post='2787313']

Neutrals shouldn't even be in a list of war-ready alliances. They are terrible.
[/quote]

How do you know? Nobody has actually fought a neutral for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1314150118' post='2787338']
Nobody has actually fought a neutral for years.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that wars are won in the top 5%. And in order to affect nations in the top 5% (98k NS), you have to be right around 75k NS or higher. Anything you factor in below this line is basically irrelevant to winning alliance/bloc scale wars. If you want to determine who is best prepared for war, you need to start from this baseline (only nations above 75k NS) and then look at things like # of WRC, # of Manhattan Projects, tech per nation, etc. And it wouldn't hurt to try and subjectively judge what alliances have historically produced the most effective opening night blitzes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314150693' post='2787353']
Exactly.
[/quote]

So you think they can't fight if they need too? Experience is nothing, all you need are ten minutes and a guide. The only question is if their WC's are up to snuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1314151751' post='2787365']
And it wouldn't hurt to try and subjectively judge what alliances have historically produced the most effective opening night blitzes.
[/quote]
Opening blitzes are no longer a seriously important tactic- they're more generally a good indication of the kind of activity an alliance can muster on a short notice (and activity is key to actually using all those pretty stats).

Unless that's what you were saying and I missed it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1314152105' post='2787368']
Experience is nothing, all you need are ten minutes and a guide.
[/quote]

You would be surprised. I have been an officer in a number of wars and I've taught people basic game mechanics when they fought for the first time in TE. It's amazing how clueless people are, even with guides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these stats are relevant. Here are the top 20 alliances ranked on the only important factors.

Total cruise missiles:

WTF: 4289
MHA: 1817
TDO: 1517
GPA: 1108
TLR: 1022
Sparta: 965
Fark: 890
Non Grata: 835
IRON: 801
GATO: 713
TOP: 641
VE: 589
NPO: 524
Umbrella: 467
The Legion: 406
ODN: 340
NpO: 332
NEW: 302
R&R: 278
MK: 32

Cruise missiles/member:

WTF (24.509/member)
TDO (11.492/member)
Umbrella (5.022/member)
TLR (4.985/member)
GPA (4.969/member)
TOP (4.820/member)
MHA (3.221/member)
Fark (3.134/member)
Non Grata (3.070/member)
Sparta (2.797/member)
GATO (2.528/member)
VE (2.485/member)
IRON (2.023/member)
NEW (1.819/member)
NPO (1.248/member)
ODN (1.185/member)
The Legion (1.728/member)
R&R (1.168/member)
NpO (1.149/member)
MK (.227/member)

All hail WTF o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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...