Alliance Strength Analysis

[nippy]

All I see here is that Umbrella needs more infra, dammit.

[Homeboy]

Oh look at that we made another list

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1314483743' post='2789533']
Graham, if you took out the average rankings, how would that change the overall rankings?

Also I wonder if a point system could be made? Where a certain amount of tech is worth a point, a wrc is worth X points, the same could be done with nations of different sizes, etc.
[/quote]

The problem is finding a balance.

If you reward a better average, the result is a quantitative predication favorable towards low-member, well-developed high-tier nations.

If you reward sheer amounts and/or numbers, you do the same for large alliances.

Tiers would be a more objective way of determining things, but it again you'd still run into the same problem on an individual tier level.

[Alterego]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1314542941' post='2789945']
I fail to see the logic behind this view.
[/quote]

When you look at an "alliance" you look at every member. If an "alliance" like MHA has 190 members out of 563 below 5k NS or 247 nations out of 563 below 10k NS then that "alliance" is on average weak despite its high total NS. It doesnt matter that they have 23 nations over 100k NS because we are looking at alliances as a whole not just the best bits minus the crap bits. An alliance is only as strong as its 200 weakest members.

[LeonidasRexII]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1314603542' post='2790422']
When you look at an "alliance" you look at every member. If an "alliance" like MHA has 190 members out of 563 below 5k NS or 247 nations out of 563 below 10k NS then that "alliance" is on average weak despite its high total NS. It doesnt matter that they have 23 nations over 100k NS because we are looking at alliances as a whole not just the best bits minus the crap bits. An alliance is only as strong as its 200 weakest members.
[/quote]

True except for the engagement limits. Since nations are limited to engagements within a range of 75 to 133% of their NS even small nations can and should be evaluated when determining an alliances overall strength. As an example we could use the alliance and NS levels you chose and compare them to some other high ranking alliances. We'll try Umbrella and TOP since they're the top 2 on the OPs Strength list. The engagement ranges for 5K NS is 3750-6650 (Range 1) and for 10K is 7500-13300 (Range 2)

[u]MHA Nations[/u]
Range 1 - 60
Range 2 - 43

[u]Umbrella Nations
[/u]Range 1 - 2
Range 2 - 2

[u]TOP Nations
[/u]Range 1 - 0
Range 2 - 5

[u]Mushroom Kingdom[/u]
Range 1 - 4
Range 2 - 5

[u]Fark[/u]
Range 1 - 14
Range 2 - 23

So only based on numbers MHA has a decided advantage against the top four "Strongest" alliances in those two ranges, with 309 offensive war slots compared to 165.

Military prowess isn't the only measure of an alliance, because Economics arguably plays an even greater role than militaries in determining an alliances strength. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the nations involved were good little boys and girls and purchased their FMs right away. MHA would still hold an advantage there by having 515 aid slots compared to the 275 available to the next four alliances in my example.

As far as the low NS nations being the "crap bits", your words not mine, of an alliance I think you're off the mark on that point. A two to one military advantage and the ability to produce 25000 more Tech per month than four other alliances combined is anything but crap.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1314603542' post='2790422']
When you look at an "alliance" you look at every member. If an "alliance" like MHA has 190 members out of 563 below 5k NS or 247 nations out of 563 below 10k NS then that "alliance" is on average weak despite its high total NS. It doesnt matter that they have 23 nations over 100k NS because we are looking at alliances as a whole not just the best bits minus the crap bits. An alliance is only as strong as its 200 weakest members.
[/quote]


I somewhat disagree with this, an alliance with larger numbers could wipe the floor with the smaller numbered elite alliances because they would have their upper tier be able to drop off the wars after a week while their next tier would take over.

MHA for instance, on numbers alone their top 80 has an ANS of probably 80,000+. These 40-65 member "elite" alliances with ANS of 50-70k would have to face that top 80, then that top 80 would have their wars drop off after a week and be fine, while the elite smaller alliance would have another wave on them because MHA's next 50 nations have an ANS around 50k.

That could repeat down the chain until it go to the level that the elite alliance was able to terrorize the lower tiers due to superior war chest, improvement, and wonder counts.

This is not taking into account activity, or other factors that can't be known in a survey of sheer numbers like this.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Vol Navy

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1314603542' post='2790422']
When you look at an "alliance" you look at every member. If an "alliance" like MHA has 190 members out of 563 below 5k NS or 247 nations out of 563 below 10k NS then that "alliance" is on average weak despite its high total NS. It doesnt matter that they have 23 nations over 100k NS because we are looking at alliances as a whole not just the best bits minus the crap bits. An alliance is only as strong as its 200 weakest members.
[/quote]

Strongly disagreed. Everyone else has covered the other points but I'll just add that having lots of inactive members will, at worst, be meatshields, and blunt an opponent's attack by blocking nukes. In a defensive war, the most inactive members will stick around and absorb full damage at least during the first week, even if they don't launch a single cruise missile in defense.

These massive alliances will always take much more damage on the charts, but individual nations will come out of a war with less damage, and thus be less likely to surrender or lose a war.

[Natan]

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1314605952' post='2790432']
Military prowess isn't the only measure of an alliance, because Economics arguably plays an even greater role than militaries in determining an alliances strength. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the nations involved were good little boys and girls and purchased their FMs right away. MHA would still hold an advantage there by having 515 aid slots compared to the 275 available to the next four alliances in my example.

As far as the low NS nations being the "crap bits", your words not mine, of an alliance I think you're off the mark on that point. A two to one military advantage and the ability to produce 25000 more Tech per month than four other alliances combined is anything but crap.
[/quote]

Do we look like we have a shortage of incoming tech?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Natan

[grahamkeatley]

I have updated the weightings to the following;

Members 1
NS 1
ANS 2
Infra 0.5
Tech 1
Nukes 2
Nukes Average 1
Infra Average 1
Tech Average 1
Infra:Tech 2
MP 1
SDI 0
WRC 1
Total MilWon 2
Avg MilWon/member 1

Some areas are still double counted but I have adjusted weighting to allow for an alliance to gain for Total or Average as evenly as I could. I have removed weighting to SDI as a measure of strength, but SDI's still count in towards to Total MilWon numbers.

And the Rankings adjust to;

1 : Umbrella - 179
2 : Fark - 180.5
3 : The Order Of The Paradox - 184

4 : World Task Force - 212
5 : Mushroom Kingdom - 259.5
6 : Green Protection Agency - 264

7 : Non Grata - 300.5
8 : FOK - 344.5
9 : Sparta - 346
10 : Global Order Of Darkness - 407.5
11 : Orange Defense Network - 412
12 : The Last Remnants - 414.5
13 : Valhalla - 449
14 : Argent - 453.5
15 : Nordreich - 477.5
16 : Nueva Vida - 481
17 : Independent Republic Of Orange Nations - 483.5
18 : Asgaard - 485.5

19 : Viridian Entente - 507.5
20 : Nusantara Elite Warriors - 520
21 : Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States - 522.5
22 : Mostly Harmless Alliance - 539.5
23 : The Prolific Empire - 545.5
24 : The Phoenix Federation - 568
25 : Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations - 569
26 : The Foreign Division - 569
27 : The Dark Templar - 572
28 : NATO - 588.5
29 : Olympus - 589
30 : New Polar Order - 592
31 : The Grämlins - 598
32 : New Pacific Order - 620.5
33 : Federation Of Armed Nations - 628
34 : Siberian Tiger Alliance - 633
35 : RnR - 633
36 : OMFG - 641
37 : Créole - 647.5
38 : Random Insanity Alliance - 651
39 : Legacy - 655.5
40 : Global Alliance And Treaty Organization - 666.5
41 : The Democratic Order - 667
42 : Basketball Ninjas - 683
43 : The Legion - 707.5
44 : Green Old Party - 720
45 : Multicolored Cross-X Alliance - 722.5

46 : Global Democratic Alliance - 751
47 : World Federation - 752.5
48 : Colossus - 784.5
49 : The Templar Knights - 790
50 : The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons - 792
51 : We Are Perth Army - 801
52 : Echelon - 803
53 : The Apparatus - 816.5
54 : Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics - 832.5
55 : Europa - 843
56 : Loss - 862.5
57 : The Brain - 878
58 : Wolfpack - 901
59 : Ragnarok - 920
60 : North Atlantic Defense Coalition - 940.5
61 : The International - 941
62 : Cult Of Justitia - 955
63 : The Realm Of The Rose - 975
64 : Christian Coalition Of Countries - 979

65 : AGW Overlords - 1008.5
66 : New Sith Order - 1016
67 : Menotah - 1024.5
68 : Imperial Assault Alliance - 1028
69 : Coalition Of Royal Allied Powers - 1049.5
70 : Pax Corvus - 1055.5
71 : The Shadow Accord - 1060.5
72 : Guru Order - 1080.5
73 : Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism - 1087.5
74 : United Purple Nations - 1091.5
75 : Knights Of Ni! - 1097.5
76 : Libertarian Socialist Federation - 1103.5
77 : The Imperial Order - 1109
78 : Aurora Borealis - 1154.5
79 : Phoenix Rising - 1201.5
80 : Death Before Dishonor - 1203.5

At this point and for the next 24 hours, the stats are relatively up to date and I can adjust weightings on the fly now. So if anyone wished to formulate their own weightings using those categories - I can produce Rankings fairly swiftly after.

GK

[Wu Tang Clan]

Nice work GK. This is pretty cool.

[IYIyTh]

My only question is how does one count the average NS (2,) Nuke average (1,) Tech and Infra average (1 a piece,) and Avg Mil. Wonder/person (1.)

Average NS is double counted, but again, does little to calculate actual strength. My previous example: If you add Umbrella and Goons stats into one super alliance, you will see the #1 alliance, as calculated currently, fall to 15-30, despite actually gaining assets in NS. Having more nations/more activity etc would be on paper and certainly in practcice an [i]advantage[/i], not a disadvantage.

One would figure each additional nuke could only help one's military strength, the average not being important because you would assume you're only taking the amount of nukes from not capable nations of the alliance and nothing more. In this instance you are penalized for having nations (assets,) who are non-nuclear capable, which, doesn't make sense as nukes [i]generally[/i] do the same damage and should be weighted as such (Ceteris Paribus.)

Same goes for tech and infra average, in that they have no correlation to strength in that they are merely averages of the alliance's tech, and infra, respectively. In fact, they might be disregarded altogether. A solid alternative would be to take a percentage of the alliances top tier (say 15% of each AA,) and calculate their respective tech, infra averages as a more objective approach/solution, as I think that's what these variables are attempting to measure. However, it should be noted this variable should be weighted, and probably if so it should literally be worth .15 as it is only measuring 15% of the alliance.

The average military unit wonder is similar to the nuke problem. Each additional military wonder could only [i]help[/i] one's military strength. Taking the average of this number only provides a statistic of the amount of military wonders relative to the entirety of the alliance. It doesn't make sense that a Manhatten Project in alliance X will not count more than a Manhatten Project in alliance Y in terms of additional strength added simply because alliance X has more nations whom are not at or who have not yet purchased military wonders.

Edited August 29, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Drai]

It looks good for most of the rankings but then you get weird ones like MHA and NpO who could absolutely destroy a number of alliances ahead of them.

But for the most part it's actually a good representation. I'm surprised to see MK at #3 though. Especially when activity isn't taken into account. We've taken huge beatings the past 2 wars and had a lot of deletions in 2011.

[CzarBomba]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314641110' post='2790562']
Various points made.
[/quote]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. We already have a list for the types of things you are talking about (the Display All Alliances link). It covers things like overall tech, infra, nukes, etc. It's true that it doesn't take wonders into consideration (except MP's indirectly), but it covers about everything else. I believe this exercise is meant to measure an alliance's pound for pound strength. It's meant to expand on that "war ready" concept. That is why small or inactive nations pull scores down, as they should, given that they are a part of each alliance in question.

Let's use our two alliances as examples, MHA and DT. Head to head, without question MHA would win if we ever came into conflict. You can see how obvious that statement is simply by looking at the link I mentioned above. You don't need lists like this to tell you that, as it would be completely redundant. However, I can guarantee you a significantly higher percentage of DT members are "war ready" in comparison to MHA members. This list is good evidence of that, as I think that is what it's meant to show.

GK, apologies if I construed this entirely the wrong way. I think you did a hell of a job with this.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='CzarBomba' timestamp='1314664109' post='2790677']
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. We already have a list for the types of things you are talking about (the Display All Alliances link). It covers things like overall tech, infra, nukes, etc. It's true that it doesn't take wonders into consideration (except MP's indirectly), but it covers about everything else. I believe this exercise is meant to measure an alliance's pound for pound strength. It's meant to expand on that "war ready" concept. That is why small or inactive nations pull scores down, as they should, given that they are a part of each alliance in question.

Let's use our two alliances as examples, MHA and DT. Head to head, without question MHA would win if we ever came into conflict. You can see how obvious that statement is simply by looking at the link I mentioned above. You don't need lists like this to tell you that, as it would be completely redundant. However, I can guarantee you a significantly higher percentage of DT members are "war ready" in comparison to MHA members. This list is good evidence of that, as I think that is what it's meant to show.

GK, apologies if I construed this entirely the wrong way. I think you did a hell of a job with this.
[/quote]

Oh, I get that. I think I'm just thinking Alliance Strength means one thing...

This list is close, but more a representation of the average of each alliance when compared to eachother.

Edited August 30, 2011 by IYIyTh

[CzarBomba]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314665010' post='2790682']
This list is close, but more a representation of the average of each alliance when compared to eachother.
[/quote]

Agreed. I think perhaps that was the intention, to a large degree, at least.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Seventh place is acceptable.

[Steve Buscemi]

I think the ratio of military wonders/econ wonders is extremely important. It isn't affected by high avg. NS really, lower tier nations would have 0/0. You could even exempt nations with 3 or less wonders, as the first three are usually econ no matter how war ready you are.

In this way MHA could compare to Umbrella in an apples to apples comparison. I'm sure they would fail miserably in that stat too, but an alliance like the NPO who would normally fail due to constant beatdowns, would probably do better as I believe they have a lot of military wonders.

Or:

Take all the nations above 8500 infra and what % of them have a WRC. That would do it as well.

Edit: using this metric here is what I got as a rough sample.

WRC/Members at or above 8500 infra. Due to infra loses most of the war ready alliances have ratio's over 1.0.

(3.5 - 14 WRC/4 members over 8500i - GOONS)

3.50 - 14/4 - GOONS
1.51 - 80/53 - NG
1.50 - 57/38 - FOK
1.45 - 77/53 - Umbrella
1.16 - 92/79 - TOP
1.05 - 79/75 - Sparta
1.04 - 86/83 - IRON
1.03 - 63/61 - TLR
0.82 - 89/109 - MHA
0.52 - 61/118 - GPA
0.40 - 22/54 - TDO

I think this stat is important, as obscure as it is. GPA/TDO/neutrals I'd expect to be at the bottom. Alliances like the MHA score low and I'm guessing despite their high overall NS, they wouldn't have as many people willing to fight and lose infra as say the GOONS/NG/FOK/etc would be.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Steve Buscemi

[OldSelf]

I ran some normalisation on GK's data previous. I suppose you can consider the higher average weighting to reflect non tangible factors (good blitz, staggers, reaction time).

What this represents is up to you, I've separated the tiers on rough idea of deviations.

(1360/GK)^2/(1360/GK + 1)


1 : Umbrella 6.71
2 : Fark 6.65
3 : The Order Of The Paradox 6.51
4 : World Task Force 5.55
5 : Mushroom Kingdom 4.40
6 : Green Protection Agency 4.31
7 : Non Grata 3.71
8 : FOK 3.15
9 : Sparta 3.13


10 : Global Order Of Darkness 2.57
11 : Orange Defense Network 2.53
12 : The Last Remnants 2.51
13 : Valhalla 2.28
14 : Argent 2.25
15 : Nordreich 2.11
16 : Nueva Vida 2.09
17 : Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 2.08
18 : Asgaard 2.06
19 : Viridian Entente 1.95
20 : Nusantara Elite Warriors 1.89
21 : Boards Alliance Of Protectorate States 1.88
22 : Mostly Harmless Alliance 1.80


23 : The Prolific Empire 1.78
24 : The Phoenix Federation 1.69
25 : Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations 1.69
26 : The Foreign Division 1.69
27 : The Dark Templar 1.67
28 : NATO 1.61
29 : Olympus 1.61
30 : New Polar Order 1.60
31 : The Grämlins 1.58
32 : New Pacific Order 1.51
33 : Federation Of Armed Nations 1.48
34 : Siberian Tiger Alliance 1.47
35 : RnR 1.47
36 : OMFG 1.44
37 : Créole 1.42
38 : Random Insanity Alliance 1.41
39 : Legacy 1.40
40 : Global Alliance And Treaty Organization 1.37
41 : The Democratic Order 1.37
42 : Basketball Ninjas 1.33
43 : The Legion 1.26
44 : Green Old Party 1.24
45 : Multicolored Cross X Alliance 1.23


46 : Global Democratic Alliance 1.17
47 : World Federation 1.16
48 : Colossus 1.10
49 : The Templar Knights 1.09
50 : The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons 1.09
51 : We Are Perth Army 1.07
52 : Echelon 1.06
53 : The Apparatus 1.04
54 : Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics 1.01
55 : Europa 1.00
56 : Loss 0.96
57 : The Brain 0.94
58 : Wolfpack 0.91
59 : Ragnarok 0.88
60 : North Atlantic Defense Coalition 0.85
61 : The International 0.85
62 : Cult Of Justitia 0.84


63 : The Realm Of The Rose 0.81
64 : Christian Coalition Of Countries 0.81
65 : AGW Overlords 0.77
66 : New Sith Order 0.77
67 : Menotah 0.76
68 : Imperial Assault Alliance 0.75
69 : Coalition Of Royal Allied Powers 0.73
70 : Pax Corvus 0.73
71 : The Shadow Accord 0.72
72 : Guru Order 0.70
73 : Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism 0.69
74 : United Purple Nations 0.69
75 : Knights Of Ni! 0.69
76 : Libertarian Socialist Federation 0.68
77 : The Imperial Order 0.68
78 : Aurora Borealis 0.64
79 : Phoenix Rising 0.60
80 : Death Before Dishonor 0.60

Edited August 30, 2011 by The Iggy

[grahamkeatley]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314641110' post='2790562']
My only question is how does one count the average NS (2,) Nuke average (1,) Tech and Infra average (1 a piece,) and Avg Mil. Wonder/person (1.)

Average NS is double counted, but again, does little to calculate actual strength. My previous example: If you add Umbrella and Goons stats into one super alliance, you will see the #1 alliance, as calculated currently, fall to 15-30, despite actually gaining assets in NS. Having more nations/more activity etc would be on paper and certainly in practcice an [i]advantage[/i], not a disadvantage.
[/quote]

I think your later comment is quite apt in describing what is being shown here. It is a broader stroked average for alliances. It is placing a Ranking point for Total Strength and Average Strength. To try and create a Ranking system which would allow Total and Average to compete on a more balanced level.

[quote]The average military unit wonder is similar to the nuke problem. Each additional military wonder could only [i]help[/i] one's military strength. Taking the average of this number only provides a statistic of the amount of military wonders relative to the entirety of the alliance. It doesn't make sense that a Manhatten Project in alliance X will not count more than a Manhatten Project in alliance Y in terms of additional strength added simply because alliance X has more nations whom are not at or who have not yet purchased military wonders.[/quote]

I agree with what you are trying to hit at, and I agree that an average on Nukes or Wonders has very little impact on showing the total Military of an Alliance. But I wasnt really trying to display military might across the board. Overall the Totals towards Strength rank highly; MPs x1, WRCs x1 and again the Total of all MilWon x2. The average MilWon x1 is then introduced to provide an average balance to those that would be, as CB said, pound for pound. It has no correlation to Total Military Strength of an alliance but does play a part in showing strength of the alliance as a full unit. But it is not as important in the bigger picture which is why it is weighted less.

Same with Nukes - the Total is an important number but Total comes with more members without any true correlation to the spread and also for the fact that many in a bigger alliance wont have them, too. Which is a bad thing for Overall unit strength. So to attempt to balance the overall picture, I lesser weighted average brings that more in line.

The biggest issue with my rankings is that those on the extreme are punished/rewarded out of whack. Meaning those elite/elite get too much weighting on some areas and those with mass numbers are punished too much in certain areas. So the likes of TOP, Argent and Umbrella jump a little beyond their station - while those like MHA, IRON, NPO, NpO who should all feature higher in a Military Strength ranking should appear higher.

GK

[Derantol]

Could there be a pair of rankings? One with all the averages, and one with all the totals? Or just the totals that aren't factored into the ASR, such as a WRC, SDI, MP, and perhaps infra and tech, though they do indirectly affect NS.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1314680363' post='2790845']
Take all the nations above 8500 infra and what % of them have a WRC. That would do it as well.

Edit: using this metric here is what I got as a rough sample.

WRC/Members at or above 8500 infra. Due to infra loses most of the war ready alliances have ratio's over 1.0.

(3.5 - 14 WRC/4 members over 8500i - GOONS)

3.50 - 14/4 - GOONS
1.51 - 80/53 - NG
1.50 - 57/38 - FOK
1.45 - 77/53 - Umbrella
1.16 - 92/79 - TOP
1.05 - 79/75 - Sparta
1.04 - 86/83 - IRON
1.03 - 63/61 - TLR
0.82 - 89/109 - MHA
0.52 - 61/118 - GPA
0.40 - 22/54 - TDO

I think this stat is important, as obscure as it is. GPA/TDO/neutrals I'd expect to be at the bottom. Alliances like the MHA score low and I'm guessing despite their high overall NS, they wouldn't have as many people willing to fight and lose infra as say the GOONS/NG/FOK/etc would be.
[/quote]

Actually, this is a very nice stat. It's biased against the people who haven't been fighting many losing wars (like Sparta and FOK). But it's a good measure of low NS firepower and how long they're willing to keep fighting, hence GOONS and NG's high rating from the beating they took last war without deleting.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that nations that score high in it currently have low warchests and weren't able to rebuild to their original level (though you could measure WRC to 6999/7999 infra for that warchest indicator, because that's accepted as a good infra level)

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1314807801' post='2791638']
Actually, this is a very nice stat. It's biased against the people who haven't been fighting many losing wars (like Sparta and FOK). But it's a good measure of low NS firepower and how long they're willing to keep fighting, hence GOONS and NG's high rating from the beating they took last war without deleting.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that nations that score high in it currently have low warchests and weren't able to rebuild to their original level (though you could measure WRC to 6999/7999 infra for that warchest indicator, because that's accepted as a good infra level)
[/quote]
I don't see why you are comparing us with Sparta while we have a totally different WRC / members above 8500 infra ratio. Ours is more comparable with Non Grata. The reason for this good ratio isn't because we have been winning wars. It is because we have a lot of beat down nations. This is because we tend to enter the main fronts of a war early and fight on a long time. For example the last war we fought NpO for like 2 months, and during Karma we fought NPO for 3 months.

[grahamkeatley]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1314807801' post='2791638']
Actually, this is a very nice stat. It's biased against the people who haven't been fighting many losing wars (like Sparta and FOK). But it's a good measure of low NS firepower and how long they're willing to keep fighting, hence GOONS and NG's high rating from the beating they took last war without deleting.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that nations that score high in it currently have low warchests and weren't able to rebuild to their original level (though you could measure WRC to 6999/7999 infra for that warchest indicator, because that's accepted as a good infra level)
[/quote]

How does it measure Low NS Firepower? GOONS are ranked highest but only have 4 Nations. I think it is interesting to compare, but ultimately its showing 4 members being more than double the rating of other alliances with 40-50 Nations in the same range.

GK

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1314811289' post='2791670']
I don't see why you are comparing us with Sparta while we have a totally different WRC / members above 8500 infra ratio. Ours is more comparable with Non Grata. The reason for this good ratio isn't because we have been winning wars. It is because we have a lot of beat down nations. This is because we tend to enter the main fronts of a war early and fight on a long time. For example the last war we fought NpO for like 2 months, and during Karma we fought NPO for 3 months.
[/quote]

Lets stop beating around the bush and merge already.

These slow merger discussions are killing me

[Alterego]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1314607306' post='2790435']
I somewhat disagree with this, an alliance with larger numbers could wipe the floor with the smaller numbered elite alliances because they would have their upper tier be able to drop off the wars after a week while their next tier would take over.

[/quote]
Well go and make a thread about who would win in a 1v1 fight because this thread isnt about who would win in a 1v1 fight. This is basically a thread about alliances war readiness (POUND FOR POUND)

Highest NS doesnt mean you are most war ready
Most members doesnt mean you are the most war ready

I said it earlier, if the egos of the fat boy alliances are so badly damaged by this thread just get back on the scales. You are all still obese.
[url="http://www.cybernations.net/allAlliances_display.asp"]FAT BOY SCALES HERE[/url]


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Magazine_pound_for_pound"]POUND FOR POUND[/url] fighters might not beat the heavy weights but at least the heavy weights dont cry and say they are better than these leaner lighter fighters.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Alterego