Top "war-ready" Alliances

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1314151751' post='2787365']
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.
[/quote]

I'd disagree. In a long-drawn out war, the average alliance will suffer if they get hammered in the sub 5% range, because thats where most of their members are, and members getting hammered will make their feelings on the war known with their feet and their words within the alliance. That can seriously damage alliance morale and can tender long-term damage to an alliance even if they win in the top tier wars.

In the top 5%, its a given that everybody is going to have a WRC, that most people are going to have decent tech levels. In that level, the main difference is how many friends an individual has and exactly how far they've gone in getting technology.

Below the top 5% and down into the middle ranges is where preparation pays off, because differences between nations are more pronounced.

[Prime minister Johns]

This is a pretty accurate list of the alliances sorted by nuclear capability, but there is more to war than just nukes, admittedly nukes play a large role in the modern CN alliance army, but other matters need to be considered when creating a list of 'war readiness'.

There are other tangible and intangible factors that need to be considered.

Tangible factors:
1: Size of conventional forces (When considering the battles between non nuclear capable nations.)
2: Size of the average war chest of a member of that alliance. (this can only be truly accurately obtained by spying with the in-game mechanism on every member of the alliance in question, but a reasonable idea can be obtained by conducting a randomized representative sample.)
3: Technology to infrastructure ratio
4: The amount of military wonders and improvements present present in that alliance. (It should also be considered while you are considering this that improvements can be swapped if need be, but the percentage of nations that will do this is an intangible factor)

Intangible factors:
1: General belligerence (It does not matter how good your army is if you are not willing to use it)
2: Activity level of the alliance. (What percentage of the members of the alliance will actually be active to see the declaration of war and attack in the first wave? A crushing first strike can set the mood of the war)
3: Loyalty level & morale of the alliance. (How likely is it that members of the alliance will surrender when the going gets tough?)
4: Coordination level of the alliance. (Do they have a method to assign suitable targets to members, or do they rely on educated guesswork?, Is there an efficient chain of command?)
5: Treaties of the alliance. (How much help can the alliance in question call upon from other alliances?)

Quantifying the tangible factors is a simple matter of mathematics and statistical analysis. But the intangible factors are somewhat harder to gauge and even with first class intelligence on the alliance in question the best that can be obtained is an educated guess.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314148704' post='2787313']
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]I reckon ODN could take them 1v1 now[/i], simply due to game mechanics.[/quote]
Haha! Good one! Wait...

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg[/img]

Not saying NPO is some god at war, they aren't, but I am sure they could destroy ODN in 1v1. Maybe I'll pay attention to ODN next war I guess.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1314153017' post='2787385']
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/
[/quote]
Your data clearly shows that MK is the best alliance, I don't know what you're on about.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1314153194' post='2787391']
Haha! Good one! Wait...

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg[/img]

Not saying NPO is some god at war, they aren't, but I am sure they could destroy ODN in 1v1. Maybe I'll pay attention to ODN next war I guess.
[/quote]

ODN has 17 nations over 100k NS, and 80 nations over 50k NS, while NPO has nine nations above 100k NS, and 44 nations above 50k NS. ODN's nations in between 100k NS and 50k NS also have a significantly higher average NS than NPO's, which is to say they're concentrated in the upper tier. Our warchest requirements are extremely stringent, in my opinion some of the best in the game, at any rate we have much more saved than NPO does. NPO might have a chance in the lower tiers simply due to force of numbers, but we would devastate them in the upper tiers, which as I have said is where wars are won.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1314153017' post='2787385']
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/
[/quote]
32? I need to find who this is so I can yell at them.

[Sephiroth]

Despite our size, NTA tends to be pretty war ready.

[Krack]

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1314152213' post='2787372']
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
[/quote]

Actually, that's exactly what I was saying (albeit poorly I guess). Alliances that have mustered highly effective blitzes have demonstrated the ability to organize a large proportion of the their membership and co-ordinate together. That's far more important to winning than the actual tactics of the blitz itself (although I do think the tactics of the opening blitz are fairly important; at least more so than you appear to believe).

[flak attack]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1314153798' post='2787398']
Your data clearly shows that MK is the best alliance, I don't know what you're on about.
[/quote]
We still have 32 too many of those things

[Sephiroth]

Here is a list of alliances I've fought,
noCB War - Fought NPO and VE
Karma War - Fought IRON
BiPolar War - Fought FOK, Fark, CSN, Guru Order.
BiPolar War Aftermath - Fought Gremlins to assist IRON/TORN/DAWN. Then several months of war with GOONS after they attacked while I was still at war with Gremlins.
Six Million Dollar War - Fought VE
Roguefest 2010 - Fought GOONS again
DH-NPO War - Fought MK and ODN.
More Recently - Fought Non Grata

So out of large alliances, I've fought NPO, IRON, VE (twice), GOONS (twice), MK, FOK, Fark, CSN, Non Grata and I've fought individual nations from \m/ and FAN who have attacked while I was fighting other alliances before.

When I fought Fark/CSN, they sent some of their best fighters on me (Random Jim, Goose, some guy with over 9,000 tech), so that was a tough fight. VE also fought a good fight in the Six Million Dollar War, as well as in the Karma War. Hard to pick which alliance is most war ready, but when I fought Fark/CSN they were pretty war ready, VE was pretty ready when I fought them in the Six Million Dollar War.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Methrage

[Iceknave]

Interesting list.

It also doesn't consider how recently an alliance has been at war.

An alliance that has been in a major conflict recently will be less prepared to fight another war soon after the end of the last conflict, especially with alliances that have much larger lower and mid tiers compared to upper tiers. That'll push a good number of the alliances that were involved in the Doomhouse - NPO down a bit on the list (with probably the main exception to this being Umbrella, being composed of mostly upper tier nations).

Also, the size of an alliance does play a role as well. Larger alliances will tend to have more lower/mid tier nations, which drops their values for all the major metrics you've measured, dropping their "war readiness" as you've defined it. Smaller alliances (especially those following the "elite" recruitment style) will tend have more upper tier nations, which increases their values for all the major metrics you've measured. Adjusting for the size of the alliance might help, but I dunno for sure.

[D34th]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314153897' post='2787401']
ODN has 17 nations over 100k NS, and 80 nations over 50k NS, while NPO has nine nations above 100k NS, and 44 nations above 50k NS. ODN's nations in between 100k NS and 50k NS also have a significantly higher average NS than NPO's, which is to say they're concentrated in the upper tier. Our warchest requirements are extremely stringent, in my opinion some of the best in the game, at any rate we have much more saved than NPO does. NPO might have a chance in the lower tiers simply due to force of numbers, but we would devastate them in the upper tiers, which as I have said is where wars are won.
[/quote]

ODN has this stats simple because they are always cuddling in the winner side of wars, not because they are amazing at nation building, if ODN ever face a losing war again I'd expect them to be begging for peace in the second week. I bet that NPO or us could easily defeat ODN in a long term war, simply because ODN members aren't used to face nothing that don't be a enormous advantage.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1314153017' post='2787385']
Cruise missiles/member:

WTF (24.509/member)
TDO (11.492/member)
[b]Umbrella (5.022/member)[/b]
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/
[/quote]


Wow, looks like some people are gonna get Natan'd

[Sephiroth]

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.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314153897' post='2787401']
ODN has 17 nations over 100k NS, and 80 nations over 50k NS, while NPO has nine nations above 100k NS, and 44 nations above 50k NS. ODN's nations in between 100k NS and 50k NS also have a significantly higher average NS than NPO's, which is to say they're concentrated in the upper tier. Our warchest requirements are extremely stringent, in my opinion some of the best in the game, at any rate we have much more saved than NPO does. NPO might have a chance in the lower tiers simply due to force of numbers, but we would devastate them in the upper tiers, which as I have said is where wars are won.
[/quote]

Theres the whole 'knowing what your doing' thing that comes into play.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1314156638' post='2787456']
Theres the whole 'knowing what your doing' thing that comes into play.
[/quote]
NOMNOMNOM comes to mind as a brilliant ODN strategist.

Edit:
[quote]About NOMNOMNOMNOMNOM:
1 surrender, 4 deletions from the game, 1 ZI caused. 14 Nukes NOM'd![/quote]

I think all 14 of those were from me, but that was 14 nukes he absorbed so others wouldn't.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Methrage

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314156442' post='2787451']
ODN has this stats simple because they are always cuddling in the winner side of wars, not because they are amazing at nation building, if ODN ever face a losing war again I'd expect them to be begging for peace in the second week. I bet that NPO or us could easily defeat ODN in a long term war, simply because ODN members aren't used to face nothing that don't be a enormous advantage.
[/quote]

Actually as everyone knows I've bounced around to quite a bit of alliances and ODN is probably the second most prepared for war I've been able to personally see. It's true that I have been in some really crappy alliances though so I'll give you that one.

IAA however was able to hold out against some pretty bad odds as long as Polar did in the last war, and we weren't half as prepared as ODN would be. So I'd say that you are wrong.

[Vol Navy]

Wars are won by having the most allies. This upper tier stuff in a 1 vs 1 setting was proven a fallacy by the IRON/DAWN/GRE front. Gre and their upper tier was slowly eaten alive by IRON once GRE's allies decided they weren't going to put any more effort into keeping their fat out of the fire.

As for the individual fighting the order of importance are as follows.

Willingness to burn >>> Activity >>> Tech >>> Military Wonders.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1314158632' post='2787481']
Wars are won by having the most allies. This upper tier stuff in a 1 vs 1 setting was proven a fallacy by the IRON/DAWN/GRE front. Gre and their upper tier was slowly eaten alive by IRON once GRE's allies decided they weren't going to put any more effort into keeping their fat out of the fire.

As for the individual fighting the order of importance are as follows.

Willingness to burn >>> Activity >>> Tech >>> Military Wonders.
[/quote]

It actually had nothing to do with Gre's allies not helping them. Gre did that entire fight by themselves alone. Gre had a huge upper tier advantage in that war and could have easily held out for much longer. The reason they lost was the fact that Ramirus alienated his own alliance to the point where his own members began to leave one by one, and when IRON gained the advantage, they attacked head on.

Edited August 24, 2011 by AAAAAAAAAAGGGG

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1314116542' post='2786887']
The Rubber Ducky Division ...
[/quote]
...still exists?

[KagetheSecond]

The lack of Argent on these lists pleases me. It means seeing them burn will be that much easier.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1314153194' post='2787391']
Maybe I'll pay attention to ODN next war I guess.
[/quote]
Don't bother. ODN makes it a point to declare on the low-hanging fruit. They're like the Italian army, they look real pretty in those uniforms and they're sure to defeat Ethiopia. (no offense, Jerdge)

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1314153897' post='2787401']
ODN has 17 nations over 100k NS, and 80 nations over 50k NS, while NPO has nine nations above 100k NS, and 44 nations above 50k NS. ODN's nations in between 100k NS and 50k NS also have a significantly higher average NS than NPO's, which is to say they're concentrated in the upper tier. Our warchest requirements are extremely stringent, in my opinion some of the best in the game, at any rate we have much more saved than NPO does. NPO might have a chance in the lower tiers simply due to force of numbers, but we would devastate them in the upper tiers, which as I have said is where wars are won.
[/quote]
Again, yes, in the boundaries of this readiness discussion, sure ODN has more nations in the ranges you cited and may or may not have more money saved. But in the real world the assertion that ODN is more war ready based on stats gained by tip-toeing around every war is laughable, much like ODN itself. Even when you declare on micros, you do it after they've all been at war for a month to begin with. The government of ODN doesn't even know the definitions of aggressive and defensive, and have demonstrated in more than one conflict that they are shocked, [i]shocked I say [img]http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-wotwot.gif[/img][/i] that a declaration of war opens them up to attacks.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1314158632' post='2787481']
Wars are won by having the most allies. This upper tier stuff in a 1 vs 1 setting was proven a fallacy by the IRON/DAWN/GRE front. Gre and their upper tier was slowly eaten alive by IRON once GRE's allies decided they weren't going to put any more effort into keeping their fat out of the fire.

As for the individual fighting the order of importance are as follows.

Willingness to burn >>> Activity >>> Tech >>> Military Wonders.
[/quote]
I agree that simply comparing 1 vs. 1 won't determine who will win a war, but your Gre example is off.

IRON won that fight because Gremlins imploded because of Ramirus. Gremlins were their own worst enemy on that one.

A better example is TOP in Bipolar. The best upper tier the world has ever seen, but they couldn't overcome a coalition of alliances that while weaker individually, were stronger as a group.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1314158632' post='2787481']
Wars are won by having the most allies. This upper tier stuff in a 1 vs 1 setting was proven a fallacy by the IRON/DAWN/GRE front. Gre and their upper tier was slowly eaten alive by IRON once GRE's allies decided they weren't going to put any more effort into keeping their fat out of the fire.

As for the individual fighting the order of importance are as follows.

Willingness to burn >>> Activity >>> Tech >>> Military Wonders.
[/quote]
Depends on the Military Wonders, no SDI means your nation is an easy target to burn with no wasted nukes. No Manhatten Project you can't nuke back, no WRC and you can only build one nuke a day instead of 2. So big tech advantages can easily be worn down by a nation with no tech compared to one with no military wonders.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Methrage

[Kalasin]

ODN would defeat NPO (or, for that matter, NpO) in a war. Whether or not that's from avoiding hard wars is irrelevant. The fact remains that we have a much stronger upper tier than either Order, which is why it's hilarious that they're ranked so highly on this list.