War Losses Charts

[Beauty]

Been using this and passing it around to NADC Members and our allies. However I thought if Im gonna work so much on this, then I might as well just throw it out for more people to see.

 

Enjoy or what not, Feel free to let me know if you believe something is wrong.

 

Spreadsheets

War Losses by Alliance

 

War Losses by Blocs (Real and Associated Blocs)

 

Last Updated March 19, 2013

 

Update Logs

 

[3/17] Umbrella and MK's NS now comes from the Umb/MK nation trackers located here.

 

[3/17] Blocs chart now running.

 

[3/19] Umbrella/MK NS is now taken from their in-game NS, due to Umbrella/MK members expressing they do not intend on returning post-war.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Rotavele

[Namayan]

Thanks for getting the total statistics. Can you further break this down into tiers, by front and by War/peace mode?

There also seems to be a bias on this since you only broke down DH side while adding your total coalition rather than breaking up by tiers and by fronts.

[Farnsworth]

cool, thanks for sharing. i enjoy tracking the data and seeing what's up, but don't have the will to collect it myself. 

Edited February 18, 2013 by Farnsworth

[IYIyTh]

thank you backwards elevator

[magicninja]

War losses is a misnomer. You are tracking all losses. I know GATO lost a few largish nations since the war started....between the 10th and 14th iirc. Dunno our chart and or the Sanction race should give an indication. 

[JoshuaR]

I definitely appreciate these types of threads.

 

Anyone out there care to take any of the statistics that people have been tracking willing to graph them? I have a hard time just with the numbers by themselves, personally, and graphing is fun because I can relate the change over time.

[OverlordShinnra]

this is great. Glad you took the time to do this.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Good work, Rotavele. For TOP, in unaccounted numbers, we have an extra 410k NS.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[Timmmehhh]

darkfall and Goons west should be included with Umbrella. Regarding DBDC 560k NS was MK, 170k was GOONS, 166k was TOP and the rest, 1,5 million was Umbrella. There are also a lot more splinter aa's so the losses of MK and UMB range around 40%.

[IYIyTh]

War losses is a misnomer. You are tracking all losses. I know GATO lost a few largish nations since the war started....between the 10th and 14th iirc. Dunno our chart and or the Sanction race should give an indication. 

 

Yes and No.

 

Usually typical losses are accounted for normally if there is no war, and deletions are in fact a side-effect of war. There have been multiple billion dollar deletions on both sides.

 

So long as the alliance hopping is checked it's a fairly accurate representation of NS going up and down. Not necessarily tech/infra, et al. But certainly NS.

[magicninja]

Yes and No.

 

Usually typical losses are accounted for normally if there is no war, and deletions are in fact a side-effect of war. There have been multiple billion dollar deletions on both sides.

 

So long as the alliance hopping is checked it's a fairly accurate representation of NS going up and down. Not necessarily tech/infra, et al. But certainly NS.

 

Eh most of the deleted nations on both sides were probably on their way out anyway. Just saying "War Losses" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies all of the losses are due strictly to battle. "War-time Losses" sounds more accurate to me.

[Namayan]

I also think everyone should factor out that this damage was calculated based on Total number of NS before entering the war versus total NS. This is highly disproportionate since damage dealt is very different from total NS especially if one rebuys infra. A more accurate way of knowing the actual damage is the battle charts which very tedious. But that is the sacrifice of accuracy.

[Alterego]

Eh most of the deleted nations on both sides were probably on their way out anyway. Just saying "War Losses" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies all of the losses are due strictly to battle. "War-time Losses" sounds more accurate to me.

 

 its just something we can use to see how the war is going. Just say thanks great job on the war losses chart and stop geeking the place up. There is no PR battle in this thing <_<

[Commander shepard]

darkfall and Goons west should be included with Umbrella. Regarding DBDC 560k NS was MK, 170k was GOONS, 166k was TOP and the rest, 1,5 million was Umbrella. There are also a lot more splinter aa's so the losses of MK and UMB range around 40%.

Not all of the 1.5 million came from Umbrella pre-war(just before declaration)

 

 

 

 

There also seems to be a bias on this since you only broke down DH side while adding your total coalition rather than breaking up by tiers and by fronts.

 

The only bias is you want these statistics to represent something other than just losses.

"War Losses Chart", if you want break it by front for yourself then use 5 minutes of your time to do so.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Commander shepard

[Chad]

I definitely appreciate these types of threads.

 

Anyone out there care to take any of the statistics that people have been tracking willing to graph them? I have a hard time just with the numbers by themselves, personally, and graphing is fun because I can relate the change over time.

Tomorrow when I get home from work I was planning on graphing some of these babies.

[Nobody Expects]

So despite all the stats that people have been trotting out saying we are losing, we are in fact, as we already knew, winning.

That the gist of it?

[Namayan]

So despite all the stats that people have been trotting out saying we are losing, we are in fact, as we already knew, winning.

That the gist of it?

 

 

I do not see any statistics saying this as such.  The statistics above only states NS loss between certain dates not damage dealt nor receive.  

 

The more accurate statistics would be the per battle war chart and add it up.

 

After that, divide by tier, divide it by front since each tier and each front varies differently.

 

Equilibrium cannot claim victory if an NS tier was already lost by them.

[Eumirbago]

I like this. Thanks for taking the time on it Rotavele :)

[Micheal Malone]

The biggest problem with these stats is that certain losses are being counted twice (the AA hopping)

 

It's being counted as a loss against the alliance that they left, and then being counted as a loss when damage is done to it. Or am I reading this completely incorrect (entirely plausible).

[Namayan]

The biggest problem with these stats is that certain losses are being counted twice (the AA hopping)

 

It's being counted as a loss against the alliance that they left, and then being counted as a loss when damage is done to it. Or am I reading this completely incorrect (entirely plausible).

 

 

I think you are correct. Since Doombird Doomcave loses were also included in the Umbrella loses

[Micheal Malone]

Ok, so I'm not going crazy then?

[Nobody Expects]

Nevermind it does double count DBDC losses.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Nobody Expects

[Aeros]

I do not see any statistics saying this as such.  The statistics above only states NS loss between certain dates not damage dealt nor receive.  

 

The more accurate statistics would be the per battle war chart and add it up.

 

After that, divide by tier, divide it by front since each tier and each front varies differently.

 

Equilibrium cannot claim victory if an NS tier was already lost by them.

 

So what does victory look like to you exactly if not shear damage done? 

[Micheal Malone]

Its done from Peak nation strength, its not perfect, but its a good guide. The losses are not being double counted, the peak NS however contains the AA hoppers twice if summed.

i.e. Umb lost the 2.454m NS that went to DBDC, but only the losses that DBDC incurred as part of DBDC count.

 

So as I surmised the AA hoppers are being counted twice, so the peak NS gets losses when they leave to the new AA, and then losses when they lose NS on the hopped to AA. So objectively the numbers are skewed.

 

Don't get me wrong, if they're more accurate than I'm reading that's great. But I think this patch of #'s is skewed by counting those members twice, thereby counting their loss twice.

 

Its a good general guide with that aside though I suppose. Good on you Rota for trying to add more to the statistics side of things.

 

Edit:

@Aeros please see above. Then look at the statistics again. EQ has lost 39mil by this chart, and DH/CnG has lost about 41mil. Now factor in the fact that AA hopping is skewing #'s, and then factor in the fact that EQ is at 3:1 odds nation count, and it would be easy to see why DH/CnG would consider this in their favor.

 

 

As a general aside, I've stated this before on IRC, the only resolution to this war will end up being stalemate/cease-fire.  DH/CnG have stubborn pride on their side, and EQ has the Nation count on their side. Nobody is going to want to surrender and lose their pride. DH/CnG holding their own with 3:1 odds will call it a strategic victory, and EQ will likely edge out DH/CnG in damage and consider it victory. Neither side will admit to surrender in terms.

 

The only thing I'm really interested in is how long this war can drag out. We could make the last days of this world a fiery hell if we keep at it. And it may just be the best way to handle things.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Micheal Malone

[Nobody Expects]

I editted my post. The main squewing occurs around Umb and specifically DBDC. A portion of the 2.4m NS on DBDC at peak should be taken out of the Umb losses, but not all of it as a goodly number of the DBDC nations came from elsewhere.