eejack Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 It looks as though my point is being proactively proven, as within 24 hours of themselves, the Dark Templar top nation (Akrani) and the IRON top nation (Island of Darkness) both deleted themselves, before being subjected to the bill-locked abyss that awaited them. We had this happen a few wars ago - one of our nations was completely unprepared for war and went into peace mode...turns out they were unprepared for that as well and they realized they did not know why they were playing at all and wandered away. If we are getting deletes from this war, it is a shame. However it happens, losing a long term player is something we should strive to avoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 It looks as though my point is being proactively proven, as within 24 hours of themselves, the Dark Templar top nation (Akrani) and the IRON top nation (Island of Darkness) both deleted themselves, before being subjected to the bill-locked abyss that awaited them. Shame to see, regardless of your politics or what side you're on. Especially nations that old with that much invested in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordShinnra Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Hit me with your best shot. Fire Away! Totals for the Original Front DR and co. 120k+ - 9 (0) --> 9 (0) 100k - 11 (1) --> 10 (1) 80k - 72 (40) --> 69 (37) DH and co. 120k+ - 22 (18) --> 20 (15) 100k - 12 (6) --> 9 (3) 80k - 8 (3) --> 10 (6) Commentary Throughout the time I've been tracking the individual fronts of this war I've noticed a few trends. One of which is, big alliances such as NPO and IRON are not taking the same kind of damage to their 80k tier as other alliances are. They seemingly get knocked out only to have another nation (sometimes one that was previously at war) buy up into that range. In this way their mid-upper tier is almost never ending and its interesting to watch the ebb and flow there while most other alliances are getting layed to waste. Some of this stems from a lack of war in that range. But some of it just stems from being who they are with never ending middle tiers with large warchests. This brings up another issue though and that is a lack of war. While some alliances are pushing all they can through to do damage, others haven't declared a single war in this range since I've been tracking. And with certain rumors going around that certain alliances have stopped engaging it makes you wonder, are these alliances done for good? Will they be left alone only to sit on my upper tier tracking page as a swath of upper tier nations that can do no good? We will see.... Totals for Front 1 Aztec and co. 120k+ - 7 (0) --> 7 (0) 100k - 5 (0) --> 5 (0) 80k - 24 (12) --> 25 (13) TOP and co. 120k+ - 4 (3) --> 4 (2) 100k - 1 (1) --> 1 (1) 80k - 8 (4) --> 7 (3) Commentary What happens when you are down to your last chips on the table and you are not sure you have your opponents beat. What happens when you are down to the last quarter and you trail your opponent but are still within reach? This, folks, is coming down the final wire in the areas where I track now. While obviously the war can wage in different areas and at different tiers I like to think we are getting to a point where its crunch time. Every move will be amlified and your mistakes analyzed so that after the game everyone will point and say that could be why this front (or the war?) was won or lost. Its exciting to be sure. Well today we saw an Aztec and co. nation added to the 80k range and a TOP and co. nation get dropped down. Is this the biggest deal in the world as far as the entire war is concerned. Probably not. But for this front, it is everything and I think every nation that gets back up or drops from this point on could make or break this front. Totals for Front 2 SF/XX/Aftermath and co. 120k+ - 10 (0) --> 10 (0) 100k - 18 (3) --> 14 (1) 80k - 69 (35) --> 64 (29) CnG and Co. 120k+ - 33 (21) --> 33 (22) 100k+ - 26 (15) --> 27 (16) 80k - 42 (11) --> 40 (10) Commentary This seems as good as any time to roll out the 100k+ tier watch for the Equilibrium coalition. We are down to 2. On the one had we have Evil Queen Natalie of FAN from the original front. She hasn't had a war as long as I've tracked (possibly the entire war) and is the favorite to retain the title. In the left corner we have newcomer and probably one update wonder, Dark Halo of Ragnarok from front 2. While this doesn't seem as exciting as the 120k range we fortunately have a royal rumble and anyone can join at any time! In other news, SF/XX/Aftermath and co. are back to losing 5 or more upper tier nations per day which is too many to sustain this war. They are already outnumbered 3 to 1 int eh 120k range and almost 2 to 1 in the 100k range. If it gets close to even at the 80k range it could be all over for who will win this front in the entire upper tier. Of course we've gone back and forth on this for the last couple of updates and each update it seems as if the other side has an advantage from the one previous. Good luck to those remaining! Total for the Entire War Equilibrium 120k+ - 26 (0) --> 26 (0) 100k - 34 (4) --> 29 (2) 80k - 165 (87) --> 158 (79) Competence 120k+ - 59 (42) --> 57 (39) 100k - 39 (22) --> 37 (20) 80k - 58 (18) --> 57 (19) Comments - The Apparatus becomes the new addition of casualties to those who have been cleared out of an upper tier. They have no 80k+ nations remaining and are now "Cleared Out" Look for more alliances to be cleared out as we continue this journey. Until next time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Well today we saw an Aztec and co. nation added to the 80k range and a TOP and co. nation get dropped down. Is this the biggest deal in the world as far as the entire war is concerned. Probably not. But for this front, it is everything and I think every nation that gets back up or drops from this point on could make or break this front. Even if you're just talking about in the upper tier battle, that seems like a serious exaggeration. But +/-1 nation at 80k NS is going to make or break a front involving over 10 mil NS? I think sometimes we forget that the outcome of a war isn't automatically decided by who has the single largest nation on their side when it ends. Edited March 7, 2013 by Prodigal Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordShinnra Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Even if you're just talking about in the upper tier battle, that seems like a serious exaggeration. But +/-1 nation at 80k NS is going to make or break a front involving over 10 mil NS? I think sometimes we forget that the outcome of a war isn't automatically decided by who has the single largest nation on their side when it ends. As far as I'm concerned I'm only covering the war from 80k NS and up. On this particular front we are talking about 6 nations vs. 13 nations in war mode. So yeah a 2 nation shift could indeed make or break this front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banned Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Even if you're just talking about in the upper tier battle, that seems like a serious exaggeration. But +/-1 nation at 80k NS is going to make or break a front involving over 10 mil NS? I think sometimes we forget that the outcome of a war isn't automatically decided by who has the single largest nation on their side when it ends. Every nation lost there shifts the ratio of wars in that fight. That said, it makes it easier to beat down on any that are left in that range. With not so many nations in that fight, if you look at it from the sense of the immediate effect (1 less nation in war in that range) then you would come to that conclusion. However, if you look at the overall effect (a shift in the ratio of nations fighting in that range), the picture starts to look a little different, like the survival of a few more than 1 nation in that range, the impact of down-declaring, etc. Long-term, that can have a much bigger difference than a last-man-standing analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) It looks as though my point is being proactively proven, as within 24 hours of themselves, the Dark Templar top nation (Akrani) and the IRON top nation (Island of Darkness) both deleted themselves, before being subjected to the bill-locked abyss that awaited them. So glad to see you happy for players being deleted! Edited March 7, 2013 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure how you read that far into Cuba's feelings about the matter from his post here, Bob. When I read that post for example, I don't see any particular indication of how he's feeling about it, in one way or another. Edited March 8, 2013 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So glad to see you happy for players being deleted!Point of pedantry: the players haven't been deleted. They still exist. It's their nations that have gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Point of pedantry: the players haven't been deleted. They still exist. It's their nations that have gone. But this is all I have :( My nation is ME! With regard to the upper tier stuff, I'd just mention that the upper tier does not happen in a vaccuum, and just because someone drops below 80k doesn't mean that they cease to exist. For example, I'm in 70k NS range right now, but when I'm fully re-armed and possibly rebuy some infra, I'll appear again in the numbers. Even if I don't rebuy infra and stay in the 70's, I'll definitely be updeclaring from off the chart against someone who is on the chart. So I'm not trying to say that none of this matters (and I really appreciate the tracking work), just cautioning against interpreting the balance of power on such a granular level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Empire of Halin Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Even if I don't rebuy infra and stay in the 70's, I'll definitely be updeclaring from off the chart against someone who is on the chart. Or declare on someone in your AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hershey Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So, there is no total victory for both sides of the Competence Coalition and the Equilibrium Coalition, this is basically a stalemate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So, there is no total victory for both sides of the Competence Coalition and the Equilibrium Coalition, this is basically a stalemate. This isn't chess, win/lose/stalemate aren't the only options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 This isn't chess, win/lose/stalemate aren't the only options. They aren't your preferred options, but it is a very real possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 They aren't your preferred options, but it is a very real possibility. What I want isn't at issue here and it'd be wrong to presuppose what that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Or declare on someone in your AA Bringing up an honest mistake by an inactive member of my alliance would be weak enough in the IC forums, but it's just unnecessary here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 As far as I'm concerned I'm only covering the war from 80k NS and up. On this particular front we are talking about 6 nations vs. 13 nations in war mode. So yeah a 2 nation shift could indeed make or break this front. Whatever works for your propaganda files I guess. I'll say it again. This war will not be won by the upper tier. It is but one aspect of a much larger picture, and doesn't necessarily reflect how things are going over all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 This isn't chess, win/lose/stalemate aren't the only options. So what are the other options? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So what are the other options? I think he means that there's more of a continuum. 0 = clear loss, 100 = clear win, 50 = perfect stalemate. One side might effectively win 75/25, getting a win, but not any sort of knock-out blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hershey Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I think he means that there's more of a continuum. 0 = clear loss, 100 = clear win, 50 = perfect stalemate. One side might effectively win 75/25, getting a win, but not any sort of knock-out blow. I'm not trying to argue with you, I don't see more options out of win/lose/stalemate and Auctor's statement is rather vague. But I am curious to hear what Auctor has to say about more options. Although, you may be correct, Astramora. Here is my opinion below: The definition of a stalemate is a situation in which two opposing forces find that further action is impossible or futile; deadlock. The EQ coalition cannot further its actions above 80k NS where the Competency Coalition controls; meanwhile, the Competency Coalition is being overwhelmed (specifically below the 80k NS) by sheer masses from the EQ coalition. So, to me, no matter how long this drags out, this war won't change much at all, that's why it's a stalemate; needless to say, it is not the same as the "perfect" stalemate, it's where both sides cannot make a decisive move that would change the course of the war, that's the key part. There's a flaw with your continuum, Astramora. How do we determine who is winning this war in terms of percentage? The EQ because of its numerical superiority? Or Competency Coalition because of its ability to control the front above 80k NS? How do we translate the winning percentage? Only history will judge that. The victory, in this case, will always be debatable, regardless of the outcome, unfortunately. Edited March 8, 2013 by Lord Hershey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Empire of Halin Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Bringing up an honest mistake by an inactive member of my alliance would be weak enough in the IC forums, but it's just unnecessary here. yeah I am sure it was a mistake, and what a great mistake. Edited March 9, 2013 by Holy Empire of Halin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sap3179 Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 The first casualty from the competence side have been announced. Lets see how much that affects the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 yeah I am sure it was a mistake, and what a great mistake. Please, continue trying to make me look bad ooc for some reason by talking about what some other coj member did in-game. You're really winning the pr war here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordShinnra Posted March 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Whatever works for your propaganda files I guess. I'll say it again. This war will not be won by the upper tier. It is but one aspect of a much larger picture, and doesn't necessarily reflect how things are going over all. This is an "Upper Tier Tracking Thread". No where did I claim that it was an overall representation of the overall war. You might want to get your eyes checked before you criticize the hard work of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 I think he means that there's more of a continuum. 0 = clear loss, 100 = clear win, 50 = perfect stalemate. One side might effectively win 75/25, getting a win, but not any sort of knock-out blow. Definitely. I'm already pro-DH beat down again 3-6 months postwar. The knockout will come in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.