Jump to content

Upper Tier Tracking Thread


Recommended Posts

I'm happy to be hear on the day of your daughters wedding. May your first child.... Be a masculine child.

 

 

Totals for the Original Front

 

 

DR and co.
  120k+ - 9 (0) --> 9 (1)
  100k -  10 (1) --> 12 (2)
  80k -   68 (37) --> 61 (37)
 
DH and co.
  120k+ -  21 (14) --> 21 (14)
  100k -   8 (3) --> 9 (6)
  80k -    10 (6) --> 8 (4)

 

 

Commentary

As the surrenders start to pile up and threads like these become less interesting let us remember what once by reliving it. Today is a vintage day with a 120k nation out in war mode to prove it. Today that nation is Mentor of the Guru Order. I don't think the question is whether he will still be above that threshold come next update but whether he will still be above 80k with all of the top nations of competence coming out of the woodwork. Also another sizable buy up from both sides but DR and co. also show a sizable drop in 80k nations which is uncharacteristic so far on this front. Well see if this is just a blip on the radar or a sign of things to come.

 

 

 

Totals for Front 1

 

 

Aztec and co.
  120k+ -  7 (0) --> 7 (0)
  100k -   5 (0) --> 7 (1)
  80k -    23 (11) --> 22 (10)
 
TOP and co.
  120k+ -  4 (2) --> 4 (2)
  100k -   1 (1) --> 1 (1)
  80k -    7 (3) --> 7 (3)

 

 
Commentary
This thread sees little change except for a couple buyups on the Aztec and co. side. Really really exciting stuff...
 
 
Totals for Front 2
 

SF/XX/Aftermath and co.
  120k+ -  10 (0) --> 10 (0)
  100k -   15 (1) --> 14 (1)
  80k -    63 (26) --> 57 (19)
 
CnG and Co.
  120k+ -  33 (22) --> 30 (20)
  100k+ -  21 (12) --> 20 (12)
  80k -    43 (19) --> 40 (17)

 

 
 
Commentary
This is where we continue to see the real fireworks. If every time we see a surrender we saw a huge drop in top tier nations from the Equilibrium coalition they might run out soon. In all seriousness though it is amazing that even with two alliance surrenders CnG and co. is still in good shape to compete on this front. Some alliances such as NpO and Sparta have seen sizable drops in the 80k tier recently which starts to make some alliances very very pertinent to the numbers. MHA and NEW alone account for  little over 40% of all the top tier nations on their entire front. It would be a good idea to go back after this war and get a good look back at why some alliances took massive damage to their top tier and others didn't. 
 
 
 
Totals for the Entire War
 

Equilibrium
  120k+ -  26 (0) --> 26 (1)
  100k -   30 (2) --> 33 (4)
  80k -    154 (74) --> 140 (66)
 
Competence
  120k+ - 58 (38) --> 55 (36)
  100k -  30 (16) --> 30 (19)
  80k -   60 (28) --> 55 (24)

 

 
Special Notes
- Mortal Wombat Surrenders taking with them a few top tier nations.
- TORN has now been cleared out of 80k+ nations for two consecutive cycles. GG TORN
 
 
 
I feel that these number will continue to spiral down quickly now that surrenders have begun.
 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, I don't remember tbh. That was so long ago now. I just remember Sparta and MK coordinating a bit back then. And roq talking about how much effort and planning was required to bring down TOP.

 

EDIT: Yeah, they must have. According to the wiki it looks like they hit fringe alliances, but I mean, If we're trying to argue Umb's ability to hit where it hurts, that's not really helping their cause.

And it can't be used against them. Your nonsense is like the same shit that was directed at TOP and gremlins in the past on how they were infra huggers stats collectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt come out swinging anything, you got caught and majority never got a chance to cycle in and out after that. Well, apart from you, you have yet to come out and swing. 

 

I would much rather be out fighting in this war, but orders from milcom take precidence. 

 

I';m like finely aged wine, I just get better the longer you wait for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather be out fighting in this war, but orders from milcom take precidence. 

 

I';m like finely aged wine, I just get better the longer you wait for it.

If you wait too long you will regret not drinking the wine earlier, the wine then becomes lost and worthless on the world stage vs other wines.

Hopefully you will come out before the war ends, I would love to have some of your tech.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to post
Share on other sites

And it can't be used against them. Your nonsense is like the same shit that was directed at TOP and gremlins in the past on how they were infra huggers stats collectors.

Maybe it was true! :o  Umb hit TSO, TFD, Legion, and NATO. TFD and TSO may have been the only targets they could hit, maybe. TFD and TSO were already swamped. Legion and NATO back in those days were for show. Give me a break! You're not really going to argue this are you? Even MK was mad at them for this, I heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was true! :o  Umb hit TSO, TFD, Legion, and NATO. TFD and TSO may have been the only targets they could hit, maybe. TFD and TSO were already swamped. Legion and NATO back in those days were for show. Give me a break! You're not really going to argue this are you? Even MK was mad at them for this, I heard.

 

Your information is bad. I know for a fact we fought more than four alliances that war. M*A*S*H in particular disbanded shortly after we were through with them. I guess you weren't really paying attention though. True, most alliances we declared on that war were only hit by small amounts of nations (10 or so) since most of our guys were out of range, but we were also heavily restricted since the primary combatants were two of our traditionally-closest allies. The hit on TSO was particularly controversial since we were hitting one of TOP's direct treaty partners. MK was (rightly IMO) mad at us for not doing some of the heavier lifting on TOP considering the nature of how that war broke out and Umbrella's relative strength in the top tiers, but the leadership at the time (Roq) and most of the alliance deferred to the length and closeness of our relationship with TOP to the chagrin of those who would have rather canceled the treaty months earlier after the whole situation that winter and left ourselves open to help MK in bipolar. 

 

I'm sure all of this is a little too complex for you of all people to understand, so, in short: you're wrong here and you're probably wrong most of the time when Umbrella is concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your information is bad. I know for a fact we fought more than four alliances that war. M*A*S*H in particular disbanded shortly after we were through with them. I guess you weren't really paying attention though. True, most alliances we declared on that war were only hit by small amounts of nations (10 or so) since most of our guys were out of range, but we were also heavily restricted since the primary combatants were two of our traditionally-closest allies. The hit on TSO was particularly controversial since we were hitting one of TOP's direct treaty partners. MK was (rightly IMO) mad at us for not doing some of the heavier lifting on TOP considering the nature of how that war broke out and Umbrella's relative strength in the top tiers, but the leadership at the time (Roq) and most of the alliance deferred to the length and closeness of our relationship with TOP to the chagrin of those who would have rather canceled the treaty months earlier after the whole situation that winter and left ourselves open to help MK in bipolar. 

 

I'm sure all of this is a little too complex for you of all people to understand, so, in short: you're wrong here and you're probably wrong most of the time when Umbrella is concerned.

Yeah, I did miss mash. I thought about editing it in, but figured it didn't matter since I don't even remember that alliance.

 

How am I wrong about any of this? You have reiterated what I just said, with the addition of MASH. :P I'm just wrong because you say I am, aren't I MrCalkin?  xD

 

All I'm trying to say is that your allies fought TOP while you picked on micros. Every war I can remember you had treaty conflicts with the primary aggressors, so you were forced to scavenge micros.  I understand why those decisions were made, but to come in here and suggest that you've always been in the center of it all beating down the toughest targets by my recollection seems like a stretch of the truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, though. Wasn't it you who said EQ would risk giving DB/etc more consistent sellers by that tactic? If they already HAVE those consistent sellers, then what was that whole bit about in the first place? Or are you just talking out both sides of your mouth? ;)

Would certainly make it easier to stay in seller range :smug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Active Today...

 

Totals for the Original Front

 

 

DR and co.
  120k+ - 9 (1) --> 8 (0)
  100k -  12 (2) --> 11 (1)
  80k -   61 (37) --> 59 (36)
 
DH and co.
  120k+ -  21 (14) --> 21 (16)
  100k -   9 (6) --> 8 (4)
  80k -    8 (4) --> 11 (8)

 

 
----------------------

 

Totals for Front 1

 

Aztec and co.
  120k+ -  7 (0) --> 7 (0)
  100k -   7 (1) --> 5 (0)
  80k -    22 (10) --> 23 (10)
 
TOP and co.
  120k+ -  4 (2) --> 4 (2)
  100k -   1 (1) --> 0
  80k -    7 (3) --> 8 (4)

 

 
---------------------
 
Totals for Front 2

SF/XX/Aftermath and co.
  120k+ -  10 (0) --> 10 (0)
  100k -   14 (1) --> 14 (3)
  80k -    57 (19) --> 59 (21)
 
CnG and Co.
  120k+ -  30 (20) --> 30 (19)
  100k+ -  20 (12) --> 17 (10)
  80k -    40 (17) --> 41 (21)

 

 
-------------------------
 
Totals for the Entire War

Equilibrium
  120k+ -  26 (1) --> 25 (0)
  100k -   33 (4) --> 30 (4)
  80k -    140 (66) --> 141 (67)
 
Competence
  120k+ - 55 (36) --> 55 (37)
  100k -  30 (19) --> 25 (14)
  80k -   55 (24) --> 60 (33)

 

Edited by OverlordShinnra
Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom is not worth having unless it includes freedom to make mistakes...

 

 

Totals for the Original Front


 

DR and co.

 

  120k+ - 8 (0) --> 8 (0)
  100k -  11 (1) --> 11 (1)
  80k -   59 (36) --> 56 (32)
 
DH and co.
  120k+ -  21 (16) --> 24 (20)
  100k -   8 (4) --> 6 (3)
  80k -    11 (8) --> 7 (5)

 

 

 
 
Commentary:
There has now been two consecutive updates where there has been positive momentum for DH and co. This front seemed dead in the water for a while so this is new. The one and only 100k nation continues to be Evil Natalie of FAN who continues to be both of out of war and untouched with the rest of FAN. These types of alliances have and continue to be empty nation listed as filler in these stats. Even knowing that it would probably make the war less even, as a statistician I have to hope that one day these 9 nations in war mode (which constitute a big chunk of nations now) will end up doing anything. Meanwhile the DH and co. becomes more top heavy which means that they will have more and more trouble declaring wars on those lower nations. As long as those nations remain up above 120k they will continue to remain safe from the Equilibrium war machine. That is the only tier at this point on this front that I will deem safe if they really want to be (for instance a 120k nation could sell a lot of stuff to declare down). As of now that constitutes 24 nations that are untouchable but that number could change from buybacks and/or AA switches. 
 
 
 
Totals for Front 1

Aztec and co.
  120k+ -  7 (0) --> 7 (0)
  100k -   5 (0) --> 6 (1)
  80k -    23 (10) --> 23 (9)
 
TOP and co.
  120k+ -  4 (2) --> 4 (2)
  100k -   0 --> 0
  80k -    8 (4) --> 6 (3)
 
 
 
 
Commentary
On the other hand a front that once seemed in reach is getting more and more out of reach. Things are looking grim for TOP and Co. and we are probably about ready to call this front for Aztec and co. None of the war nations that have been saved on the 120k tier of TOP and co. have shown a willingness or ability to get down on any Aztec and co. nations which means its probably game over for their 80k tier. The only x factor here is the tech levels of TOP nations but we almost see those equaled by alliances like The Dark Templar who also continue to show buybacks. We see how important tech is for damage purposes but also for staying able to buy back into tiers that matter.
 
 
 
Totals for Front 2
 

SF/XX/Aftermath and co.
  120k+ -  10 (0) --> 10 (0)
  100k -   14 (3) --> 14 (3)
  80k -    59 (21) --> 53 (19)
 
CnG and Co.
  120k+ -  30 (19) --> 30 (20)
  100k+ -  17 (10) --> 19 (11)
  80k -    41 (21) --> 40 (16)

 

 
Commentary
This remains the standout front from the rest and that is for a few reasons. For one, this seems to be the only front where the competence coalition has seemed to gain a hold on the 100k tier without losing too many nations too quickly or being in too much trouble. This could prove useful in not only getting down on the 80k and below tiers but also for saving more nations as it becomes easier to buyback to 100k then it is to 120k. Another reason is that another alliance, NEW, has been absoloutey inactive in the top tiers while constituting a huge amount of top tier nations in war mode (in this case all 3, 100k nations and 9, 80k nations). If not for them there would only be 10 - 80k nations in war mode on this front total and it would look quite different indeed. Again its going to be interesting to see whether these inactive alliances do anything at all in the war effort from this point forward. It could be very well that they just continue to ignored as CnG and co. clears out the rest of the other 80k nations and starts there way down to 70k and beyond. 
 
 
 
Totals for the Entire War
 

Equilibrium
  120k+ -  25 (0) --> 25 (0) 
  100k -   30 (4) --> 31 (5)
  80k -    141 (67) --> 132 (60)
 
Competence
  120k+ - 55 (37) --> 58 (42)
  100k -  25 (14) --> 25 (14)
  80k -   60 (33) --> 53 (24)

 

 
 
 
Special Notes
- Death Before Dishonor has been cleared out of 80k+ nations for a few updates now, just didn't get to it until this update
- The Legion has now been cleared out of 80k+ nations for two updates and they are also cleared out
 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you for this excellent analysis.  Having just come back to rule my nation again, I was way behind on what's going on in the world.  Looking at the CN wiki, one would assume DH is getting stomped based on the #nations, #nukes, #NS involved.  Interesting to see the tier-split. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this excellent analysis.  Having just come back to rule my nation again, I was way behind on what's going on in the world.  Looking at the CN wiki, one would assume DH is getting stomped based on the #nations, #nukes, #NS involved.  Interesting to see the tier-split. 


And looking at reality, DH is sitting decent. We've put more hurt on the opposition than they'd like to admit. Even with their ability to absorb more damage given the nation ratios.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And looking at reality, DH is sitting decent. We've put more hurt on the opposition than they'd like to admit. Even with their ability to absorb more damage given the nation ratios.

 

I think that's more or less what he was implying.

 

 

So, about this thread, it's been quite enjoyable and informative... it'd be interesting to see some post-war updates. For example, one week after peace, one month, two months, etc. Anybody else agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's more or less what he was implying.

 

 

So, about this thread, it's been quite enjoyable and informative... it'd be interesting to see some post-war updates. For example, one week after peace, one month, two months, etc. Anybody else agree?

 

I'm always a fan of someone else doing work.

 

One thing I will say is that the focus on NS wasn't the best gauge.  If people still haven't realized that yet, I dunno.  Focusing on the TOP front, it doesn't make sense to have a nation with say 11k tech and no wc lumped in with those with decent wc's and 20k tech because the infra makes them look similar in NS.

 

So, for instance instead of the existing lumping for TOP + co it might have been more informative to see (as of yesterday)

 

TOP/TSO/TooTR/Alc

20k+ tech:         3 (2)  {Why the third went back to pm when he was not being sat, i dunno...}

17.5k - 20k tech: 0 (0)

15k - 17.5k tech 0 (0)

12.5k - 15k tech 1 (1)

10k - 12.5k tech 4 (3)

7.5k - 10k tech  6 (4)

 

In contrast, pre-war just TOP (because I'm lazy) was:

 

20k+ tech:   2  (remaining 3 above include 1 from here and 2 from tootr)

17.5k - 20k tech:  3

15k - 17.5k tech 5 (not included, but alchemy had one here as well for instance)

12.5k - 15k tech 10

10k - 12.5k tech 10

7.5k - 10k tech 10

 
There was at the end a gap of 7.2k in tech between the nations over 20k and untouchable, and the highest tech nation being engaged (12.9k), and posting in terms of NS can miss that with infra heavier NS nations in pm.  This was the firewall strategy, and the nations above 20k tech didn't declare a war after 2/16, effectively being out of the front for a full month, so continuing to track them in the mass of nations fighting looked strange.
 
In terms of looking at it going forward, there are clear implications of having an abyss with zero nations between 13k and 20k tech -- at least for the medium term those up in the 20k tech range look untouchable to all but those there.  If someone goes and adds 20k of infra it doesn't make them jump up there even if the NS does.  Similarly, beyond this you see tech much more compressed, with the higher tech nations much closer on an absolute (and relative) scale to the mid tech nations (follows pretty directly from the 7-8k tech loss on average for those above 10k), making the remaining upper tier both shrunken in terms of nations and more within reach.
 
Of course, I'm just putting numbers out for one side of one front, someone should feel free to do the same for the others. But either way, if someone picks this up going forward, watching tech instead of just NS would be good.  After all those tech levels were one of the things viewed as unbalanced, or something.
Edited by hartfw
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always a fan of someone else doing work.

 

Exactly.  :D

 

Also, interesting stats you put forth. I didn't realize the extent to which the TOP front was bleeding tech. It'd be interesting to know our sides tech numbers at the beginning and end (if anyone wants to provide that without me having to do anything for it). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TOP front overall had ~1.1m tech destroyed, roughly 50 - 50 per side, although with some big distributional divisions between the aa's.

 

TOP: 338k down

Alchemy: 88.5k down

Tso: 63k down

Tootr: 49k down

 

Total: 538.5k down

 

Figuring exactly how much and who to include the other side is harder (DBDC and some aa's on MK, but totaling up something like Sengoku/Torn/Tpf/Glof/AB/DT/Arg/SNAFU is 583k

 

(Both includes deletions.)

Edited by hartfw
Link to post
Share on other sites

What people are forgetting is that, since EQ has more nations, they have more potential for tech growth.  Not individually, no, but as a whole.  If we have 3 guys at 10K tech to one of yours at 16K tech, then all three of our guys can reach 13K tech while your guy reaches 19K tech. 

 

I'll take that trade.

 

Just because you have potential doesn't mean there's a likelihood you'll use it.  You had "more potential for tech growth" in the five years prior to the war too (because of the number of nations) and it didn't amount to a tech advantage.

 

Looks to me like the EQ side didn't have the stones to see things through.  Good luck fighting the same war again in a year (with less nations/alliances on your side).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like the EQ side didn't have the stones to see things through.  Good luck fighting the same war again in a year (with less nations/alliances on your side).

Now we get to watch EQ turn on itself, which should be alot of fun. Competence really came out on top here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we get to watch EQ turn on itself, which should be alot of fun. Competence really came out on top here.

 

I don't really see EQ turning on itself. It's quite possible that it won't stick together too well, but that doesn't equal infighting. Regardless, the political maneuverings will be interesting to watch. Will it be a multi-polar world? Eh, maybe.

 

Prediction: DH will try to see that enough alliances back away from DR/NPO. Then they will seek revenge. EQ has never been entirely cohesive, and I don't think that many will dispute that. It was a coalition of the willing and the vengeful, really. So, the bonds keeping EQ in place for the duration of the conflict were not entirely bonds of friendship, as we see with the opposition. That said, these bonds are not only easily shaken, they can also be easily strengthened, or easily rebuilt in the face of a continued or resurgent threat.

 

Thus, it seems to me that each side's core has a FA battle to wage now that the war is over. DH will want revenge and DR/NPO may want to do a bit more grinding. It actually makes for some interesting politics, I think... possibly wishfully. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you have potential doesn't mean there's a likelihood you'll use it.  You had "more potential for tech growth" in the five years prior to the war too (because of the number of nations) and it didn't amount to a tech advantage.

 

Looks to me like the EQ side didn't have the stones to see things through.  Good luck fighting the same war again in a year (with less nations/alliances on your side).

 

5 years?  How is that an appropriate timescale in any sense?  Alliances and coalitions change, and wars happen.  Are you going to say Matt Miller is a terrible nation builder because of his tech level just got severely hurt this war?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always a fan of someone else doing work.

 

One thing I will say is that the focus on NS wasn't the best gauge.  If people still haven't realized that yet, I dunno.  Focusing on the TOP front, it doesn't make sense to have a nation with say 11k tech and no wc lumped in with those with decent wc's and 20k tech because the infra makes them look similar in NS.

 


Of course, I'm just putting numbers out for one side of one front, someone should feel free to do the same for the others. But either way, if someone picks this up going forward, watching tech instead of just NS would be good.  After all those tech levels were one of the things viewed as unbalanced, or something.

 

 

Absolutely. 

 

Additionally, the total carnage done to the lower tech nations is higher relative to the NS (i.e. the lower tech nation at the same 20k NS as a nation with 3x his/her tech will lose most BR's & GA's... and CM's & Nukes do less damage).  So the effect on rebuilding is more severe on the lower tech nation in terms of warchest lost. 

 

Edit: maybe a tech/infra ratio number instead?

Edited by lord6dread
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 years?  How is that an appropriate timescale in any sense?  Alliances and coalitions change, and wars happen.  Are you going to say Matt Miller is a terrible nation builder because of his tech level just got severely hurt this war?

 

No, I'm going to say that Matt Miller is an excellent nation builder because he has acquired a tremendous amount of tech during his existence on Planet Bob.  The amount of tech that he (or anybody else) has lost over the course of his nation's history says nothing about his nation building skills.  The EQ alliances (and their member nations) have had years to demonstrate their ability to nation build.  And over this time, they have demonstrated that they (on average) do it worse than the former-Citadel alliances (who have shown excellent efficiency in moving tech from one to another).  Which brings me to my original point, which is, just because EQ has the potential to grow much faster than the other side, in the wake of the war, it is ridiculous to assume that it is likely that they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...