Top "war-ready" Alliances

[King Louis the II]

To compare mass member alliances and elite ones often lead to bad interpretations.

For academic sake lets compare Gremlins and MHA.

If you look at average numbers Gremlins have a huge advantage
if you look at raw numbers MHA has a huge advantage

the two statements are only partially true.

To me the best way to compare mass number alliances is doing the following.

how many members has gramlins? Lets assume 40 (I am not sure but I guess will be around that)
Now compare this numbers to MHA top 40 nations (and ignore the rest)

I havent run this numbers, but MHA has 20 nations over 100k. The next 20 will be between 100-70.

this is basically an elite alliance inside a generic one.

(ADDED: the 40th MHA nation is 88k. MHA has 23 nations over 100k so basically is like an elite alliance with an average NS of 95k with 40 members)

So MHA is probably more powerful than gremlins, but not as much as the rwa numbers would imply.

the only exception to the rule is Umbrella since no mass alliance has a top 80 tier (aproximately the number of umbrella members) like umbrella.

Edited August 25, 2011 by King Louis the II

[Sephiroth]

A lot of alliances that used to be very war ready, aren't so much anymore. Also many that used to not focus enough on their military readiness have improved. A big factor into it is how much the alliance wants to fight and how much they want to avoid war to save their stats, as well as how war oriented the current leaders are.

If an alliances response to getting attacked is to beg for terms and do anything necessary to end the war without fighting back, all their military stats or willingness of individual members to burn for the alliance worthless. Stats are useless if the nation ruler's response to getting attacked is not even trying to fight back as they complain to their leaders to get them peace sooner.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Methrage

[OldSelf]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314221988' post='2787793']
[paraphrase]
any alliance attacking an alliance of this structure has enormous logistical problems and would likely get their proverbial "!@#$," rocked.
[/quote]


While expecting attackers have solved predictable issues-
There is a minimum number of nations and organisation required to fight MHA that set high preparedness requirements, this can be construed as war-readiness (or strategy or something..).

However, by the same quality MHA sets itself a minimum standards of organisation to function, this can be measured as war capability- Which scales objectively high.

Were war-readiness verifiable only by end results, you may need to simulate and consider further factors

[jerdge]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1314229046' post='2787837']I think this would be better if you took into account both percentages and raw data.
[...]
I'd suggest ranking them according to each on separate lists, and then averaging those scores to have a third final list.
[...][/quote]
Well, that's basically what I did.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1314244401' post='2787975'][...] about as much fight as GPA did during the Woodstock Massacre which is to say, not much.[/quote]
Did you know that in the GPA there were players that hate war so much (IRL) that refused to fight at all? Non-violence has been in CN, although I think most/all of them then deleted. (I also don't think that RL ethic necessarily translates in a game, but I respect their commitment to their ideal.)
I am not saying that the GPA would have fought well without that phenomenon, anyway.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314245952' post='2787990']A lot of alliances that used to be very war ready, aren't so much anymore. Also many that used to not focus enough on their military readiness have improved. A big factor into it is how much the alliance wants to fight and how much they want to avoid war to save their stats, as well as how war oriented the current leaders are.

If an alliances response to getting attacked is to beg for terms and do anything necessary to end the war without fighting back, all their military stats or willingness of individual members to burn for the alliance worthless. Stats are useless if the nation ruler's response to getting attacked is not even trying to fight back as they complain to their leaders to get them peace sooner.[/quote]
Like with other factors, these are mostly unknown (to external parties) until the fight starts, which is nice, anyway, otherwise we could never be suprised.
Good posts, BTW, Meth: I think that the vast majority of players hasn't your experience of actually fighting uphill, am I right?

Edited August 25, 2011 by jerdge

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='The Iggy' timestamp='1314252492' post='2788029']
While expecting attackers have solved predictable issues-
There is a minimum number of nations and organisation required to fight MHA that set high preparedness requirements, this can be construed as war-readiness (or strategy or something..).

However, by the same quality MHA sets itself a minimum standards of organisation to function, this can be measured as war capability- Which scales objectively high.

Were war-readiness verifiable only by end results, you may need to simulate and consider further factors
[/quote]

Even if what you're saying was/is true, I believe the OP set out to measure it in Quantitative format, which nullifies the validity of said argument.

Unless you're going to assign a value to something unmeasurable such as what you speak of as a control, which would could do, but would still show that I'm right, in that it only goes so far.

Throwing pebbles at a giant might have worked for David, but not many in a random number generator.

Edited August 25, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1314253578' post='2788036']
Well, that's basically what I did.


Did you know that in the GPA there were players that hate war so much (IRL) that refused to fight at all? Non-violence has been in CN, although I think most/all of them them them deleted. (I also don't think that RL ethic necessarily translates in a game, but I respect their commitment to their ideal.)
I am not saying that the GPA would have fought well without that phenomenon, anyway.


Like with other factors, these are mostly unknown (to external parties) until the fight starts, which is nice, anyway, otherwise we could never be suprised.
Good posts, BTW, Meth: I think that the vast majority of players hasn't your experience of actually fighting uphill, am I right?
[/quote]
I've fought many nuclear wars with me fighting 6 opponents at the time, ranging from 1-2 war cycle (like with NPO, Non Grata, FOK, Fark, CSN, VE) to several months of nuclear war (like with GOONS and ODN). I've fought as a King leading an alliance into their first war against a sanctioned alliance as the clear victors in a decent length nuclear war as well, such as when I was King of FCC and declared war on IRON to assist Gremlins in the Karma War. So I've fought almost every possible type of war and like to see the limits off the war system. Some people think a war consists of launching your attacks with a random result where skill doesn't matter, that just shows how limited their understanding of how to fight a war is and using the numbers for your best advantage regardless of enemy odds. Those who think its luck based are the easiest to beat.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Methrage

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314221988' post='2787793']
Prevailing opinion around these boards is like taking the local ten year old on the playground's advice on something.

Oh sure, MHA is bloated.

Doesn't take much to see that and the lack of tech.

Doesn't mean we don't have a solid mid-upper tier and/or structure enough to win a war.
Just patently false.

What's funny is I'm glad we are so "talked-down," because let's face it, the amount of damage any alliance would take attacking an alliance of this structure has enormous logistical problems and would likely get their proverbial "!@#$," rocked. Hell, even those who think you could "win," would "win," a war that no one would respect you for winning, meanwhile your precious pixels are torn to pieces.
[/quote]

Well, of course we are all biased in regards to our own alliances, but in regards to MHA, I don't think it'd be at all impossible for an alliance 1/3 your size to take you down, provided said alliance was well organized and well led.

I would think that it would simply be a matter of determining which members need to be attacked and which ones ought to be ignored. If dealt a solid blow up-front where most of your active/prepared/well-trained nations are neutralized via anarchy, it frees up room to slowly but surely chip away. In such a case, it would undoubtedly be a destructive war for whoever you are fighting, but victory can be achieved even whilst being ripped apart.

A 1v1 war would be radically different then what we normally see, so its hard to justify comparisons between the two.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1314256156' post='2788048']
Well, of course we are all biased in regards to our own alliances, but in regards to MHA, I don't think it'd be at all impossible for an alliance 1/3 your size to take you down, provided said alliance was well organized and well led.

I would think that it would simply be a matter of determining which members need to be attacked and which ones ought to be ignored. If dealt a solid blow up-front where most of your active/prepared/well-trained nations are neutralized via anarchy, it frees up room to slowly but surely chip away. In such a case, it would undoubtedly be a destructive war for whoever you are fighting, but victory can be achieved even whilst being ripped apart.

A 1v1 war would be radically different then what we normally see, so its hard to justify comparisons between the two.
[/quote]

I disagree.

While you might identify who is and isn't active, you can't account for the vast majority of the unknown, and you'd largely be assuming this alliance of 1/3rd would be fighting a defensive war, because let's face it, if you're sending even an alliance of this size one target each, you have to expect a maximum of 3 counters. To say an alliance could fight well at 1/3rd our size and comparable average stats (Aggregated of course to per nation,) would be, in my eyes, impossible. Leadership and the will to fight till zt only go so far in this game. As experienced with IRON and Ramlins, and the opposite tiers, GOONS vs NPO and friends, (GOONS took a considerable amount of damage even while being fed aid by Umbrella, their lifeline, it would be assumed this wouldn't occur in a 1v1,) you can have the most active tier in the game, but vastly outnumbered you will get ground down eventually.

Nevermind the fact that unless the entire alliance is 100% engaged there are likely plenty of nations free to send plenty of aid and filter in/out in the interem while the opposition faces constant harrasment.

Victory, defined as winning, would thus in my opinion be out of the question.

This isn't even getting into my bias in that I know what we are and aren't capable of, which of course isn't ideal, is fortunately much greater than credited.

Edited August 25, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Finnish Commie]

I'll give all you ODN hatahs one thing, ODN hasn't really gotten to fight a proper war in some time, although the same could be said about pretty much all the alliances on the winning side of Karma. Quite tough to say how well we'd fare against a real opponent when all we get is Legion

Maybe one day we'll see and you might be surprised

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1314245651' post='2787988']

the only exception to the rule is Umbrella since no mass alliance has a top 80 tier (aproximately the number of umbrella members) like umbrella.
[/quote]

From a NS perspective Fark's top 75 aren't that far behind Umbrella's top 75.

[Krispy]

Again, I think the original point of the thread is lost when everyone is comparing "Who would do better in a war" and accounting for allies as well. "War Readiness" is not the same as "Ability to Win in a War" and everyone seems to be focusing on the latter.

I think it would be nice if in the OP the stats for each alliance at the time the list was compiled were included.. but I'm an analytical person so I like to have all the details.

How the metrics should have been:
Total nukes is one metric (Max would be 25 * # of members in alliance) - What capacity are they at?
Nukes per person should be one. Ranges from 1-25, What's the end result.
Total Tech - Not sure how to boil that down to a scaled number
Tech per member - Basic Average
Total WRCs - Max would be how many nations are capable of having a WRC, so at what capacity is the alliance at?
WRCs per member - I think a total WRC / Total members is skewed since not all members are able to buy a WRC.

I think the numbers should be re-compiled for a more accurate snapshot/ranking. Anyone else have any other metrics to track?

[King Louis the II]

again, average numbers dont work as it is implied. Pick gremlins as an example (picking them because I like them and think they are good). Add 60 random members to their current 40.
The average will decrease, but the original 40 are still there. It would be stupid to think that adding 60 members will actually DECREASE their war capacity.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1314279612' post='2788114']
From a NS perspective Fark's top 75 aren't that far behind Umbrella's top 75.
[/quote]

Thats true. But I think these 2 alliances are kind of exceptions in the rule.

[Krispy]

[quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1314281267' post='2788130']
again, average numbers dont work as it is implied. Pick gremlins as an example (picking them because I like them and think they are good). Add 60 random members to their current 40.
The average will decrease, but the original 40 are still there. It would be stupid to think that adding 60 members will actually DECREASE their war capacity.
[/quote]

I disagree, because their ALLIANCE as a whole wouldn't be as ready. If the 60 weren't as battle hardened and ready as the 40 then the attacker could just roll those lower 60 members for tech/land/money while fighting the other 40. Of course that doesn't quite work in reality because of NS Attacking ranges, but the idea is still there.

Combined metrics of totals (as a percentage of capacity where applicable), and averages (per person or per applicable persons) are great ways to check overall-readiness. Tech is a tricky metric because it also should be looked at not just in total numbers or average per person but as a ratio to infra so that is yet another one to track.

Putting it to the test in an actual war is something else entirely.

The metrics used in the original list are flawed and skew the results, I think we can all agree on that.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Krispy' timestamp='1314282802' post='2788140']The metrics used in the original list are flawed and skew the results, I think we can all agree on that.[/quote]
I can agree that other approaches could have given "better" results (although, what is the metrics for results now?) but the results I obtained where exactly what I was aiming for, hence they're not "skewed".
The approach has its limits and I didn't try to hide them or to claim it's the best one. The subtitle reads "a point of view".

[shahenshah]

[quote name='masterbake' timestamp='1314226668' post='2787819']
Grämlins would never have been fighting alone in the first place if it had not been for Ramirus. We at MHA (and probably most of the other alliances on our side) at the time would have been happy to tie up the lower ranks of IRON in perpetuity if not for the vile nature of Ramirus's treatment of our government and members. We asked him for a reasonable end game and when he didn't have one he insulted us. He begged us to cut the ties and we did. He wanted to destroy Grämlins more than IRON did I think and he succeeded.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how many would support a perpetual war on IRON even if Ramirus asked nicely. But its good to know there was a possibility . It didnt matter what he asked. ESA was as much as people would get. Ramirus missed that train, infact he jumped out of it. It did not matter what he asked would be reasonable or not after ESA. Everything after ESA was unreasonable to us.

Edited August 25, 2011 by shahenshah

[Krispy]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1314284373' post='2788150']
I can agree that other approaches could have given "better" results (although, what is the metrics for results now?) but the results I obtained where exactly what I was aiming for, hence they're not "skewed".
The approach has its limits and I didn't try to hide them or to claim it's the best one. The subtitle reads "a point of view".
[/quote]
I wasn't blaming you, just saying a lot of the bickering could be resolved by more accurate and efficient metrics. Well who am I kidding, bickering will still be there regardless...

It's a great list man, and it sounds like you put a lot of work into it so cheers to that! Maybe I'll get off my ass and compile a new one based on more in-depth metrics (don't hold your breath though lol).

Again, I'm a really analytical person, so if results are based on improper metrics it bugs me lol. A great analogy I've always liked is, just because ice cream sales and drownings increase at the beach on the same day doesn't mean ice cream causes people to drown.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Krispy

[jerdge]

[quote name='Krispy' timestamp='1314285229' post='2788154']Well who am I kidding, bickering will still be there regardless...[/quote]
There are three things certain in life: death, taxes and bickering on CN. And I'm not sure about the first two.

[Steve Buscemi]

Nice to see an attempt at an objective way to measure war readiness though, thanks. Of course like everyone else, MHA is terrible at war. NPO, NpO, and Fark have all been pretty abysmal. Fark only recently being put in that category after needing time to rebuild it's warchests....[i]after a curbstomp[/i].


What would be interesting is to see a 50% weight with your stats and 50% on a OWF poll ranking alliances 1-20. That way you weed out the GOP/NPO/NpO/MHA/Fark's and gain the NoR, etc.

[Krispy]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1314288120' post='2788167']
Nice to see an attempt at an objective way to measure war readiness though, thanks. Of course like everyone else, MHA is terrible at war. NPO, NpO, and Fark have all been pretty abysmal. Fark only recently being put in that category after needing time to rebuild it's warchests....[i]after a curbstomp[/i].


What would be interesting is to see a 50% weight with your stats and 50% on a OWF poll ranking alliances 1-20. That way you weed out the GOP/NPO/NpO/MHA/Fark's and gain the NoR, etc.
[/quote]
If you add in an OWF poll then the ranking becomes subjective, and polling will be biased towards alliances with more members.

[Sephiroth]

The alliance that is the most war ready is whoever has the most nations with a full set of wonders and the ability to keep fighting after they've been near ZIed and warchests have been depleted, while they keep a prolonged nuclear war going, rebuilding their infra/tech high enough. A nation with 24 wonders, full improvements, less than 100 tech, and less than 2k infrastructure can continue fighting indefinitely regardless of how many nations they fight or the stats of the nations they are fighting. If a nation ruler remains focused enough and has enough experience, they can have an invincible nation who can continue launching nukes, as any damage the enemy does is cheaply rebuilt.

The tech, infrastructure, land, money, all of these can work both for or against you in war, although by fighting in real war you lose these. Nations with over 1,000 tech can't realistically afford to rebuild the tech as they lose it, putting up a consistent fight long term. Nations with lots of infrastructure will blow their warchest if they keep rebuilding their infrastructure and its above 2-3k. A nation at less than 1,000 infrastructure can buy it cheaply though, making any damage done cheap to fix. Its also cheap to rebuild up to 85 tech.

So a nation able to keep rebuilding high enough tech/infra to buy more nukes and stay out of bill lock with their war slots full is the ideal kind of fighter I think. Stats are lost quickly in war, but who can keep fighting regardless of how much damage they take is the most war ready. Do stats matter compared to wonders, when someone with just the minimum amount of infra/tech to buy nukes can easily win against an endless supply of nations who have more stats to lose? The damage accumulated from the one who is already 1k infra and 85 tech is nothing that can't be rebuilt from war funds. While the ones rushing in to attack who are just barely within upper range and around 1k technology/3-4k infrastructure, just lose a lot more as they are their nations are ground down to being near ZI as well.

The nations war ready to fight after their warchest has run out and been nearly brought to ZI a few times are much more valuable compared the ones who considered their stats to be their fighting capability who give up once their stats have been brought low enough.

Having a huge stat advantage I think can win wars when you have big enough numbers advantages that no matter how many the enemy takes down, there is an endless supply, but in a 1 on 1 I think the most war ready will come down to those who have fought enough wars that many of their members have fought to ZI at least once and ready to keep fighting after their nations are wrecked without caring about the lost stats. Some of these larger alliances have much more to lose, which would make it even harder to keep the entire alliance convinced its worth losing all of them to keep the war going.

If I were to vote on an alliance, it probably be TOP. As they have high stats, high willingness to fight to the end, large capacity to keep aid flowing to those on their side who need and a good understanding of game mechanics. Also they have experience, fighting both on the winning and losing side of a war.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Methrage

[MCRABT]

[quote name='masterbake' timestamp='1314226668' post='2787819']
Grämlins would never have been fighting alone in the first place if it had not been for Ramirus. We at MHA (and probably most of the other alliances on our side) at the time would have been happy to tie up the lower ranks of IRON in perpetuity if not for the vile nature of Ramirus's treatment of our government and members. We asked him for a reasonable end game and when he didn't have one he insulted us. He begged us to cut the ties and we did. He wanted to destroy Grämlins more than IRON did I think and he succeeded.
[/quote]

Grämlins wouldn't have been fighting IRON at all after we agreed peace with the rest of the coalition if it was not for Ram, so your theoretical situation has no bearing on the stipulation I made. IRON never wanted to destroy Grämlins period, we offered white peace from day 1. The only person who wanted to destroy anything was Ram.

[NationRuler]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1314291624' post='2788186']snip
[/quote]
Seriously what.

Protip: nations at ZI and $0 regardless of how many wonders they have and how strong their resolve is will never be the deciding factor in a war.

I mean seriously, you're telling us that a nation with full wonders and less than 1000 tech is better than one with 10k tech? Because they can nuke 100 day old nations? Are you insane?

[kriekfreak]

I think the rating of all sanctioned leaders would give you a good -less subjective- feel about how war-ready some alliances are.

[Silhouette]

We get a mention? Cool beans.