Upper End of the War

[jerdge]

This is a great analysis and thread: my respect.

To add problems/questions:
[list][*]The best strategy for the less top heavy (Equilibrium) might not be to bring down the other side's top layer all at once. Grinding over half of it as soon as possible to then be able to swarm them with their mid to top layers would probably be a good thing, to avoid having later on the problem of a very well defended NS ceiling which will be very expensive to approach, but legions of nuke turrets aren't that attractive either as they'd require a bigger effort of coordination to be kept at anarchy, while the Equilibrium's mid nations cycle from collection mode to combat mode and back, to be able to continue to fund their wars. A minor share of top nations might instead be "intentionally" left out of reach for a while, to be handled much later on after having neutralized their fellows. Think of Matt Miller against The Gremlins.
[*]DH/C&G/TOP (DH&co) nations intentionally remaining high NS won't become nuke turrets, while the Equilibrium nations they'd grind down would become exactly that, with the effect of more than balancing out DH&co nuke turrets and of worsening the (already grim) situation for DH&co mid to low tier nations.
[*]DH&co nations might also decide to sell infra to get down anyway, to re-balance the mid layer fight. I see little disincentive for them to do so, save for the infra cost (which isn't that much in relative terms, if one has several billions on hand).
[*]Higher tech also means bigger military expenses, which in turn means that one's treasury gets spent faster. When the enemy can get meaningful collections and you can't it might make an additional difference, especially if navies are (still) involved.
[*]After some days of war nations have depleted their nukes and must rely on purchases. Against SDI-equipped foes this means that being outnumbered and unable to cycle into Peace Mode - especially if your opponents can restock before DoWing again - becomes very bad. You basically get to hit each attacker ~twice per war cycle (at most), which tends to compensate any tech advantage you may have.
[*]Both sides have a lot of money and they can probably effectively aid most of their low NS combatants for a while, but the outnumbered side (DH&co) will probably start to be lacking aid slots (rather than money) earlier than their opponents.
[*]War weariness musts also be considered IMHO. Being forced to click daily for several weeks or months on end probably isn't what the casual player had in mind mid term. DH&co have smaller numbers and they might be stressed more, but Equilibrium nations might also be less motivated (if it's true that they're less active/politically aware, on average).[/list]

Edited January 23, 2013 by jerdge

[D34th]

[quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1358877553' post='3083811']
This is the best analysis thread I've seen in any war. Great work.
[/quote]

That's true, good job.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Excellent read and analysis, whoever you may be. Please, people, don't ruin it by debating who's aggressing who. Leave that to the countless other threads.

[dem61s]

That's the best read I've had on this forum in a long while. Good job Vasily Blyukher.

[Anarquista]

good thread, too bad my alliance is not applicable

you could simply change "the aggressors" to something neutral,

good work though :)

Edited January 25, 2013 by Anarquista

[SoADarthCyfe6]

Fantastic read, I look forward to more data being analyzed.

[SynthFG]

This is a great analysis and thread: my respect.

• A minor share of top nations might instead be "intentionally" left out of reach for a while, to be handled much later on after having neutralized their fellows. Think of Matt Miller against The Gremlins.
•  

 

I don't recall ever deliberately leaving Matt alone, 

I do remember in Bi-Polar he took massively longer to deal with than his compatriots due to his ridiculously high starting tech level

 

this is going to be a long war, but provided they have the commitment to go the long road then any side with a significant advantage in mid to low tier nations should win eventually

 

Any idea which side that is ?, or what the sides are for that matter ?

[Unknown Smurf]

This is going to be a long war, but provided they have the commitment to go the long road then any side with a significant advantage in mid to low tier nations should win eventually

 

Any idea which side that is ?, or what the sides are for that matter ?

Your side has the much larger advantage in the mid to low tier nations. They have the slight(debatable) advatage in the uppermost tier. It is also generally accepted that DHs side (the other side) has better warchests as they haven't been on the end of a beatdown in a while. 

[Vasily Blyukher]

To begin with, a quick note on tracking sides.  I realize that as the DH counters have been going in they've only been declaring on specific targets, instead of the entire wave that hit TOP or C&G.  For my efforts I will treat the TOP and C&G fronts as broad fronts though and not break it down individual as to who is on who.  One reason is I'd go crazy doing this, the other reason is overtime I assume the the target of attacks will shift as alliances exit the war or cease to have anyone in the upper tier.  

 

On the Equilibrium front though I'll try to break it down a little, as alliances are still dancing around based on who has a treaty with Non Grata and a desire to avoid triggering it.

 

Finally as people move off AA these stats of course get slightly less accurate.  For now I'll consider a movement off AA as removing yourself from the war, due to the fact I can't tell if it is an attempt to escape or just an attempt to lie low and reload the nuclear silos.  Now with all this methodology stuff mentioned, onward.

 

TOP Front

That this point we've seen more people in against TOP and TOP has fired off some treaties as well.  Currently we have the following.

 

TSO and Reaper Entries:

Looking over the stats for TSO and The Order of the Reaper you see heavy usage of peace mode appear right at 100k mark for both alliances. The entry of these alliances brings in the following:

 

Number of Nations: 12 war/2 peace

Strength Range: 229k to 100.2k

 

TOP

TOP itself entered the war with most 100k and above nations out of peace mode.  However as you look over TOP's alliance today you see a lot of the doves are gone and more TOP nations in war mode.  Breaking down TOP's nations you get the following:

 

100k+ Nations: 18 war/7 peace

90k to 100k: 6 war/6 peace

80k to 90k: 5 war/3 peace

70k to 80k: 3 war/7 peace

Total: 32 war/20 war

Below 70k we start to see doves in bulk again.

 

When I last looked at TOP I showed them with 31 committed nations in the 229k to 94k range.  Today we're seeing 32 committed nations in the 194k to 70k range.  I assume we went to 31 to 32 because in the process of expanding my study of TOP nations I picked up one nation that missed the peace mode orders, or I miscounted the first time.  That said the important thing is that TOP is not pulled out tiers out of peace mode and 13 TOP nations have fallen out of the 100k+ range it appears. 

 

Equilibrium Entries:

CoJ and SNAFU are the new entries on this side.  Neither alliance has bothered to peace mode out their lower tiers as any TOP nation that comes out of peace mode to engage of them will clearly be jumped on by much more numerous midtier of the EQ forces.  In terms of CoJ and SNAFU nations who can get some action though.

 

 

100k+ Nations: 11 war/1 peace

90k to 100k: 4 war

80k to 90k: 4 war

70k to 80k: 7 war

60k to 70k: 6 war

Total: 32 war/20 war

 

I've added in the 60k to 70k tier as a 60k nation can hit a 79.8k nation.  So the slide of some TOP nations has opened up another tier that can come out and play a bit.  Of course for the EQ coalition they do get into diminishing returns, as a 50k nation can only hit a 66.5k nation and so on and so forth and you're throwing nations lacking things like WRCs in against nations loaded down with all the military wonders.  That said, a 50k nation still likely has 25 nukes and can at least keep its target in anarchy one hopes.  

 

As for the preexisting coalition, I track the following:

 

 

100k+ Nations: 48 war/25 peace

90k to 100k: 14 war/10 peace

80k to 90k: 20 war/10 peace

70k to 80k: 24 war/10 peace

60k to 70k: 24 war/13 peace

 

That means 11 nations have fallen out of the 100k+ range for the coalition, in exchange for taking 12 nations out of the 100k+ range for TOP.    Both sides have brought in near equal reinforcements in the 100k+ range.  

 

EQ 100k+ Nations: 59 war/26 peace

TOP+Allies 100k+ Nations: 30 war/9 peace

 

The big take away from this I'd say is that EQ has enough peace mode nations to come out and declare on ever TOP nation in war mode as the wars expire this weekend.  This course is the worst case scenario, where every EQ nation currently in war mode is in anarchy and unable to grab slots to keep TOP nations from going into peace mode. In addition to this SNAFU and CoJ nations that were not actually tasked with a target during their DoW can come in and hit TOP+Allies.  It seems likely that each TOP nation above 100k with find itself facing two nations with full nuclear stockpiles next round, based on EQ nations exited peace or CoJ/SNAFU nations joining the party.  Assuming at least some of the peace mode EQ nations come out, some of those currently fighting will get a chance to reload their silos for a week (14 nukes with a WRC) and collect while not in nuclear anarchy.  

 

The Argent Flip

As I mentioned before, I'll also run the stats with Argent fighting on the TOP side, with those numbers you have:

EQ 100k+: 49 war/26 peace

TOP+Allies: 40 war mode/9 peace

 

With Argent fighting on the TOP side, the odds would be closer to 1:1 than 2:1.  In addition those extra 10 nations would make it harder for EQ to detail two full nuclear stockpiles per enemy nation in the upcoming round and might have prevented some EQ nations from getting a break to collect and rearm.  If TOP and Argent had gone in together, they'd have 28 nations above 100k+ in war mode, versus EQ's 26 in peace mode.  While this is all academic, I do find it interesting how just ten nations can skew the sides.

 

C&G Front:

AS expected, the rest of C&G came out to play, with Sparta being the target of both TLR.  Sparta had 11 nations above 100k and a total of 14k above 90k when it entered, making them the 4th ranked contributor in the upper tier for the front.  Sparta did have 125 nations out of peace mode, so there were lots of targets if the intent is to focus on Sparta and make them feel pain.  GOD and Invicta were the targets of GATO.

 

GATO

Number of Nations: 11 war/7 peace

Strength Range: 174k to 110.2k

GATO ended its war mode right at 110k NS which freezes out anyone under 82k from taking a shot at them.  

 

TLR

 

Number of Nations: 18 war/7 peace

Strength Range: 183k to 100.3k

TLR follows the strategy we've seen else, where it has less than 100k NS, off to peace mode with.

 

As for the C&G members currently engaged, they have the following:

 

ODN and Int:

 

100k+ Nations: 14 war/15 peace

90k to 100k: 5 war/6 peace

80k to 90k: 6 war/9 peace

70k to 80k: 4 war/5 peace

 

Last time I ran the stats ODN and Int had 30 nations above 100k out of war mode and active.  Now They're down to 14, for a loss of 16.  This puts their loses in the same bracket as TOP.  

 

Now for the opposing force.  First and foremost, and for purely selfish reasons, I would like to propose that in the future if you fight in a big coalition, you all adopt the same AA for the duration of the war.  As in 'EQ CnG Front'.  Thank you.  That said, the EQ folks fighting on the C&G have:

 

 

100k+ Nations: 82 war/25 peace

90k to 100k: 31 war/21 peace

80k to 90k: 51 war/23 peace

70k to 80k: 51 war/12 peace

60k to 70k: 85 war/23 peace

 

This puts at the EQ CnG Front at losing 13 nations from the upper tier war mode, but picking up 4 peace mode ones.  Whether I miscounted, 4 peace mode nations had dropped off the AA for a bit, or 4 nations in war mode flipped to peace is of course unknown since I'm not tracking that closely.  The end result though is:

 

 

EQ 100k+ Nations: 82 war/25 peace

CnG 100k+ Nations: 43 war/29 peace

 

As such we're hovering the expected 2:1 to odds range for the upper tier.  What is notable is how the alliances are fighting.  Int and ODN are fighting a broad front war with more of their nations out.  That means as their larger nations fall they have comrades lower down to cooperate with.  GATO and TLR though have brought in just the upper tier that is focused on specific targets.  The advantage here is that GATO and TLR enjoy heavy superiority over the alliances they attacked:

 

GATO 100k+: 18 total

GOD/Invicta 100k+: 2 total

 

TLR 100k+: 25 total

Sparta 100k+: 10 total

 

Assuming ODN and Int can hold the line, GATO and TLR can wreck the the upper tiers in areas of their choosing.  TLR of course can shield itself from counters by pointing to its Non Grata treaty and making unsubtle gayroller references.  GATO has a bit less protection, but LoSS and Hooligans could both contribute on this front.  LoSS of course has ties to both sides, so this might in fact be a game to see who can fire off a defense clause with LoSS first.  Don't we all love the treaty web?

 

At the end of the day though, GATO and TLR are looking at fairly pleasant rounds of war, assuming no one counters them and they opt not to expand their fronts.  Meanwhile if ODN and Int manage to keep a roughly even exchange of damage with the coalition hitting them, while GATO and TLR pick off selected alliances, CnG is in a fairly good state for winning in the upper tier, or at least playing for a tie at the worst.  For the EQ side, securing LoSS as an ally (or saying "Screw it, we'll fight them too.") would allow them to conduct operations against GATO.  NG becomes more important with regard to being able to conduct operations TLR.  Alternatively these two new arrivals could be ignored and all efforts focused on breaking Int and ODN in hopes of forcing GATO and TLR to expand their attacks over a wider range instead of focusing on killing one alliance at a time.  Plus getting TLR or GATO to DoW more people opens the door to fire more defensive clauses. as always.

 

Doomhouse Front

So for the new arrivals we have VE and GOONS.  The GOONS were expected and aside from Umar, they don't field anyone over 70k.  Overall the GOONS appear to have secured a decent size reserve in peace mode, ranging from 68k to 40k, while letting everyone else out to play.  VE enters em mass with 141 out of 150 in war mode.  

 

On the Doomhouse front thinks are more interesting in that as far as we know, Umbrella is the only alliance that can directly engage NPO and IRON without triggering NG's entry.  MK might have options in this area given their ties to NG, but it would depend on how NG opted to see the action.  Specifically if they consider MK's actions to be an oA while NPO and IRON are exercise a MD, they could enter on the EQ side.  For now I'll just assume Umbrella is the only who can engage them.

 

TIO is also someone worth avoiding until LoSS is committed, as discussed when I talked about countering GATO.  For AI about the only thing left to do is see if their protectorates opt to jump in, so they're a fairly safe target.  NATO is in the same boat as AI, as they don't have anyone left to bring in.  Right now we see GOONS and VE deploying against AI, joining with MK who is already conducting operations against them. 

 

Making AI feel pain accomplishes a few things.  First off it peels their forces off of Umbrella, which does a lot for Umbrella in terms of favoring up the odds for Umbrella as AI started the war with the largest upper tier of the EQ side.  We've already seen AI call in Gramlins on the Doombird AA, which appear just to be a vacationing element of Umbrella.  If MK, VE, and GOONS can hammer AI to the point where AI has to call in aid that means an attacking alliance hitting MK or VE. That opens the door for MK firing off a treaty with NG or VE bringing in Mortal Wombat.  Deinos of course can already act based on actions taken against Umbrella or via an oA with TL.  

 

On the flip side this means that NPO, IRON, NATO, and TIO enjoy a relatively free hand against Umbrella for now.  The longer AI weathers the storm, the more time those nations have to engage just Umbrella. 

 

Attempts to read the tea leaves aside, the stats:

 

 

GOONS and VE:

100k+ Nations: 13 war/2 peace

90k to 100k: 5 war/0 peace

80k to 90k: 7 war/0 peace

70k to 80k: 6 war/0 peace

60k to 70k: 10 war/3 peace

 

Mushroom Kingdom:

100k+ Nations: 16 war/6 peace

90k to 100k: 1 war/5 peace

80k to 90k: 1 war/5 peace

70k to 80k: 2 war/10 peace

60k to 70k: 0 war/7 peace

 

Umbrella:

 

100k+ Nations: 44 war/1 peace

90k to 100k: 3 war

80k to 90k: 1 war

70k to 80k: 2 war

60k to 70k: 3 war

 

The next result is MK has lost 3 nations above 100k+ while Umbrella has lost 6 (or they're just off amusing themselves on other AAs).  For the other side, I've combined IRON and NPO for their Non Grata ties, but listed everyone else separately   

 

AI:

 

100k+ Nations: 2 war/15 peace

90k to 100k: 3 war/1 peace

80k to 90k: 12 war/1 peace

70k to 80k: 20 war/2 peace

60k to 70k: 29 war/1 peace

 

NPO and IRON

100k+ Nations: 17 war/14 peace

90k to 100k: 10 war/9 peace

80k to 90k: 29 war/5 peace

70k to 80k: 32 war/7 peace

60k to 70k: 30 war/9 peace

 

NATO

 

100k+ Nations: 8 war/3 peace

90k to 100k: 5 war/2 peace

80k to 90k: 2 war/1 peace

70k to 80k: 4 war

60k to 70k: 12 war

 

TIO

100k+ Nations: 4 war/9 peace

90k to 100k: 8 war/2 peace

80k to 90k: 6 war/3 peace

70k to 80k: 13 war/6 peace

60k to 70k: 11 war/1 peace

 

We've seen some pretty hard drops on the EQ front here.  AI has gone from 18 war mode nations above 100k to 2.  At the start of the war IRON and NPO had 41 total nations in this range, now they field 17.  You can see these nations dropping down by varying degrees and ending up somewhere between 70k and 90k.  I would suggest this is due to the fact that a lot of these nations had a lot of infra but not so much on the technology side.  Infra burns away a lot more quickly in war which is why you see things like this where AI and IRON were all five of the top NS drops.  At this stage, barely a week in, that isn't definitive, but if EQ nations are doing extreme swings in infra where they are nuked down and then have to buy back up because 89% of their active nations above 100k were knocked down, that will suck warchests dry.  This could be a problem, especially if the theory that Umbrella holds a fair edge in warchests is true.

 

Stepping beyond NS drops and losses, I want to look at this front moving forward.  Assuming that NG remains neutral and thus no one wants to wake them up, that leaves 45 100k+ Umbrella nations facing 31 NPO and IRON nations.  Adding in the TIO and NATO forces that makes it 55 nations to Umbrella's 45.  

 

Meanwhile MK and VE nations above 100k+ don't have a lot to go around in terms of AI nations to pound, unless a lot of AI nations buy back up.  That opens the door for MK backing off AI, leaving them to VE, and going over to support TOP.  MK could do the same thing that TLR is doing, smack an alliance with overwhelming firepower and enjoy immunity from counterattack due to their NG treaty.  Alternatively MK could move on to NATO or TIO.  Finally of course MK could just pull nations back to collect and buy nukes.  

 

Currently all of EQ has 41 nations in peace mode here, versus 44 Umbrella nations they'll need to redeclare on.  That means most Umbrella nations can expect to face only one fresh nation in the next wave unless other forces are called in.  EQ will have 41 fresh nuclear stockpiles to allocate over 44 targets if they pull everyone out.  15 of those fresh stockpiles are of course AI nations that will likely find themselves engaged by VE and MK nations who can take some of the heat off Umbrella and leave Umbrella to deal solely with the other 26 fresh stockpiles.  

 

The Big Picture

 

The TOP front is a bloody slog.  TOP and Allies are outnumbered high up, but still not by a decisive margin.  I'd guess the strategy here is something along the lines of holding on this front until MK can come in and start punching people in the face, while using its NG treaty to ensure they fights counter free.  On the EQ side the desire remains the same, drag TOP down into the shark tank and get some good bites on them before DH forces redeploy onto this front.  If TOP can be dragged down enough that opens the door for forces to be redeployed over to the C&G front or the Doomhouse front, whereas if TOP keeps everything a bloody mess then all the alliances engaging TOP have to stay focused on them.  

 

On the C&G front we're seeing Int and ODN being hit hard.  GATO and TLR though are currently functioning as raiders.  TLR is likely to remain counter free thanks to its ties.  GATO may remain counter free depending on LoSS and how much EQ wishes to avoid provoking a LoSS entry.  Assuming ODN and INT can keep internal morale up while inflicting comparable damage on the enemy's upper tier while TLR and GATO pick other alliances off, this is a front an an area that EQ alliances can potentially be hit hard.  Alternatively breaking ODN and Int allows EQ deployment onto other fronts.  The real prize would be to inflict so much damage on ODN and Int that C&G sues for peace, but I'm not sure if this is possible given the numbers in the upper tier.  

 

With the Doomhouse front, it will be interesting to see where MK goes next, basically if DH is happy with their front and MK forces move over to another front or MK decides to remain focused on the DH front ready to engage AI nations that buy up into range or come out of peace mode.  VE may suffer in its midtier, as it the only alliance on the DH side that has one out currently.  However its upper tier is in a good place, especially when working in conjunction with MK's.  For Umbrella they likely have a similar to job as TOP, hold people down.  As long as IRON and the NPO are forced to focus heavily on Umbrella they can't go off and attack other people while avoiding counters due to NG ties.  TIO and NATO will likely be rolled up once all the treaty lines have been sorted out and DH forces feel AI has been neutralized.  

 

Right now it seems as long as NG remains neutral, but ready to hit anyone who counters an ally, and everyone is afraid of NG, that DH holds a bit of an advantage in this area.  TLR and MK can consider redeploying with near impunity, while NPO and IRON, who could do so as well, are bogged down against Umbrella.  That being said the EQ side has plenty of openings to do some damage on multiple fronts.  In addition when you consider one of the reasons for the war was strategic concern over DH's upper tier reaching an untouchable level due to tech stockpiling, if the war ends with every EQ nation at ZI and ZT, but no DH nation above is 1k tech, that did technically accomplish the goal of closing the tech gap.  That's the extreme level of damage, but there are outcomes where EQ gets beaten down but walks away happy because the post-war tech gap is less than the pre-war one.  

 

 

Edit:

Oh and hooray, all my talk about NG might be moot as war screens show NpO and Avalanche nations (plus others) countering TLR.  I suppose in the future I'll have to check war screens in addition to all those stat screens.  For now I'll keep the talk as if NG is neutral, but my content could already be dated.  A NG entry on the C&G front would even that front up in the upper tier and likely assure any future deployments would go to the TOP front.  What matters is how NG enters, if they enter on the coalition and thus consider ties to NPO and IRON superseded, suddenly Umbrella doesn't have to fight IRON and NPO solo.  That changes how quickly MK and Umbrella might be able to sweep the upper tier and then send part of their upper tier over to another front.  

 

 

Edited January 26, 2013 by Vasily Blyukher

[jerdge]

I am starting to think that DH & co will be able to win in the upper tier, while the remaining of their forces are ground down by the sheer numbers of the Equilibrium side. If this happens we might then have a long war of attrition with the EQ side eroding a well defended NS ceiling, slowly dragging down DH+ nations, but only a very few at a time. Such a situation could in theory eventually favour the EQ side, as they'd be able to bring most of their nations back to "normality" (exit from anarchy, collections, nuke purchases) and thus enjoy an easier internal stability, whereas DH+ would have to accept that a lot of their members surrender and/or fight from ZI & anarchy for a long time.

All of this would actually heavily depend on the discipline, determination (and political ability) of each individual alliance, and I am totally uncertain about which side is going to prevail on that aspect. What's sure is that it would be the very first time that we experience such a situation on a vast scale.

Edited January 25, 2013 by jerdge

[Feanor Noldorin]

This is the best OWF thread I've seen in a long long time. Kudos.

[dem61s]

Hmm. I am curious to see how the CnG front will look like after everyone has entered there. The war in the upper tier looks very interesting too. I can't remember another war with odds being so close. It would be interesting to see how the mid/low tier situation develops too.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Your side has the much larger advantage in the mid to low tier nations. They have the slight(debatable) advatage in the uppermost tier. It is also generally accepted that DHs side (the other side) has better warchests as they haven't been on the end of a beatdown in a while. 

It really isn't debatable. 

[Vasily Blyukher]

I am starting to think that DH & co will be able to win in the upper tier, while the remaining of their forces are ground down by the sheer numbers of the Equilibrium side. If this happens we might then have a long war of attrition with the EQ side eroding a well defended NS ceiling, slowly dragging down DH+ nations, but only a very few at a time. Such a situation could in theory eventually favour the EQ side, as they'd be able to bring most of their nations back to "normality" (exit from anarchy, collections, nuke purchases) and thus enjoy an easier internal stability, whereas DH+ would have to accept that a lot of their members surrender and/or fight from ZI & anarchy for a long time.

All of this would actually heavily depend on the discipline, determination (and political ability) of each individual alliance, and I am totally uncertain about which side is going to prevail on that aspect. What's sure is that it would be the very first time that we experience such a situation on a vast scale.

Regarding this, I'd say it all depends on how well DH wins the upper tier.  A decisive victory with a lot of large nations sitting around doing nothing means they can do massive aid drops to help compensate for the fact they can't collect out of anarchy or the like.  A less decisive victory means less aid and a lot more pressure on DH nations to fight a nasty slog in the midtier.  DH could also do things like attempt to resume tech dealing or the like so that EQ faces the added pressure of that while they're pounding the DH midtier, the rich get richer.  

 

With the political will thing, one of the issues EQ faces is DH playing kingmaker and focusing on specific alliances.  DH may end up with the ability to say "Yeah EQ will win the midtier, but we're going to unload everything we have into your alliance.  The coalition might win but you personally will leave this war with no upper or midtier and never be relevant again.  So how about white peace?".  A couple guys take that offer and suddenly it is 18 v 4 and so on and so forth.  Both sides are going to need discipline and political will.  

 

[DeathAdder]

Very nice breakdowns. Was an excellent read.

[Unknown Smurf]

It really isn't debatable. 

Eh, I mean I agree with you but if you go off of NS solely the advantage is in AI&co's favor.. while WC/tech levels are in Umb&co's. 

 

EDIT: Based on the WCs I've seen, and I haven't seen too many. 

Edited January 26, 2013 by Unknown Smurf

[Unknown Smurf]

A couple guys take that offer and suddenly it is 18 v 4 and so on and so forth.  Both sides are going to need discipline and political will.  

 

I'd say this is the most important. I believe DHs strategy is to get SF/XX (or some in that sphere) to peace out. 

[Ivanelterrible]

This is a fantastic thread. The only thing I really wish was included (and I'm not begrudging you at all for not attempting it as it would be an amazing pain in the ass) is a figure showing what percentage of the upper tiers NS on each side came from tech and what percentage came from infra.

[JoshuaR]

Vasily Blyukher you are an excellent poster. Best thread on the forums right now. Cool stuff.

[jerdge]

Vasily Blyukher you are an excellent poster. Best thread on the forums right now. Cool stuff.

Yes, Vasily, please post more. I can't believe you have just 8 posts on this board!

[Commander shepard]

I think you got NPO and NpO mixed up in the bottom comments about what happened to TLR. NPO and TLR are allies.

[Vespassianus]

Good thread, i enjoyed the read, keep up the good work.

[Avakael]

How exactly does one make a "subtle" gayroller reference? Great read, though ^_^

[Instr]

Huh, interesting analysis; but you really haven't hit the core of the problem on its head.

[Vasily Blyukher]

Thanks to everyone for the encouragement and positive feedback.  It keeps me going while doing the C&G front stats.  

This is a fantastic thread. The only thing I really wish was included (and I'm not begrudging you at all for not attempting it as it would be an amazing pain in the ass) is a figure showing what percentage of the upper tiers NS on each side came from tech and what percentage came from infra.

 

I've kept thinking about doing that, as it would allow me to say scientifically that it was really infra vs tech in the upper tier, as opposed to just assuming it.  For now I'm holding off on any attempts to do this since people have full war chests and are rebuying left and right.  In a week or two I'm thinking I might track the Top 5 or Top 10 nations of a few key alliances and use them as a sample.  

I think you got NPO and NpO mixed up in the bottom comments about what happened to TLR. NPO and TLR are allies.

Thanks, I did mean little p.  Corrected it.