War Losses Charts

[Nobody Expects]

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.

Ordinarily in the first month of a war while the nukes are burned off the party with the fewest nations should do the most damage as they generally are able to have a much better nukes given to nukes taken ratio.

DBDC acquired about 1m NS from other AA's not involved in the war, taking that out its still a slight NS Damage done victory for EQ. Indeed some of DBDC came from both LoSS and MHA lol!

This war won't end in a stalemate, of that you can be certain. Edited February 18, 2013 by Nobody Expects

[Chad]

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.

More nations and more strength > Pride and stubbornness.

[Micheal Malone]

Yes, but the fact that at 3:1 odds during the first month of nukes DH/CnG have stood their ground, and now we're working on entering into normal ground where damage tends to favor the outnumbered opponent, that only fuels the stubborn pride.

[Namayan]

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

 

If Equilibriums propoganda machine can count an accurate stat of sheer damage, since the basis of the Statistics is total NS rather than actual damage.

 

All this stat is based on NS strength before the war and NS damage now.  It is totally different from sheer damage done as things like rebuying infra, AA hops, deletions, etc are not counted.

 

Not only that, the statistics based of this based on the totality rather than divided into tiers and front.  This division is needed since each tier and each front has different situations and/or results.

[shahenshah]

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.

 
1. AA hoping isnt skewing things significantly. Yes they do kinda makes affect a tad bit inaccurate, but on aggregate basis, say as one nations leaves DBDC, it'll count as a loss for DBDC, and if it joins Umbrella, then it adds to Umb stats, so the overall affect is less inaccurate than per-alliance basis stats. Tho, yeh it may miss smaller AAs here and there but I dont think it will change the overall picture much, the damage done will still be roughly equal, which should be worrisome for dQ and the reason for that is mentioned below.

2. EQ with odds of 3:1 have still dealt equal damage. That is infact v. bad for dQ, you can nuke three times the nations we can and yet the damage output is equal. You should have done actually far more damage then we would have done by this stage before the nukes ran out on non-peace mode nations. So moving forward, your damage output will be even lower unless you bring out non-peace mode nations, which I personally do not think will happen despite all the chest thumping. Edited February 18, 2013 by shahenshah

[Micheal Malone]

1. AA hoping isnt skewing things significantly. 

2. EQ with odds of 3:1 have still dealt equal damage. That is infact v. bad for dQ, you can nuke three times the nations we can and yet the damage output is equal. You should have done actually far more damage then we would have done by this stage before the nukes ran out on non-peace mode nations. 

 

shahenshah take the time to look over the stats. Do you really think NG has lost 5+ million NS?

 

 

Edit:

Tired eyes, I mis-took the 6mil NS. Ok you're correct it's not skewed too horribly, though it is still skewed.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Micheal Malone

[shahenshah]

shahenshah take the time to look over the stats. Do you really think NG has lost 5+ million NS?

 

 

Edit:

Tired eyes, I mis-took the 6mil NS. Ok you're correct it's not skewed too horribly, though it is still skewed.

If you see my post, I agree this is not entirely accurate stats, but you still get a good overall idea. If Rot can obtain nation based data, from start of war and track those nations off the main AA, Rot can make this v. accurate. 

[Micheal Malone]

True, but they are skewed enough as it stands right now that I wouldn't call it accurate. I agree that it is a decent guide. However take Ogygia for instance. It's taken peak NS, though if you look at the chart you can clearly see that peak NS was when one nation was on there and left, the Ogygia aa hasn't taken any losses because all the nations are in PM.  So clearly the AA hopping IS effecting it. Especially since the #'s being used were chosen arbitrarily as peak NS #'s. I can agree though that it's a great general stats guide and basically shows nearly equal loss on both sides no matter how it's spun.

[Nobody Expects]

I can agree though that it's a great general stats guide and basically shows nearly equal loss on both sides no matter how it's spun.

Indeed which is ultimately a clear indication of the way this war is, has and will continue to go, that being a clear EQ victory by dint of superior Nation Numbers and NS.

[shahenshah]

True, but they are skewed enough as it stands right now that I wouldn't call it accurate. I agree that it is a decent guide. However take Ogygia for instance. It's taken peak NS, though if you look at the chart you can clearly see that peak NS was when one nation was on there and left, the Ogygia aa hasn't taken any losses because all the nations are in PM.  So clearly the AA hopping IS effecting it. Especially since the #'s being used were chosen arbitrarily as peak NS #'s. I can agree though that it's a great general stats guide and basically shows nearly equal loss on both sides no matter how it's spun.

I agree hence I was suggesting that if nation-wise data is compiled from start of the war and now and assign those nations back to parent AA, then we can increase accuracy greatly. I know both sides are tracking things on nation-wise bass (duh) so hopefully we can obtain data from here or there. Rot if you cant obtain, PM me and I'll try to hook you up.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Yes, but the fact that at 3:1 odds during the first month of nukes DH/CnG have stood their ground, and now we're working on entering into normal ground where damage tends to favor the outnumbered opponent, that only fuels the stubborn pride.

 

Uh, early on, the outnumbered opponent has the advantage.  If it's all 3:1, the larger side can be nuked at thrice the rate of the smaller side.  After that, the smaller side will run out of nukes, and so they'll be able to deal less damage, while the larger side should still have people with nukes.

[WorldConqueror]

Indeed which is ultimately a clear indication of the way this war is, has and will continue to go, that being a clear EQ victory by dint of superior Nation Numbers and NS.

How very droll.

[bcortell]

Uh, early on, the outnumbered opponent has the advantage.  If it's all 3:1, the larger side can be nuked at thrice the rate of the smaller side.  After that, the smaller side will run out of nukes, and so they'll be able to deal less damage, while the larger side should still have people with nukes.

Not enough attention is being spent on this. The fact that damage is near equal right now is not a good sign for DH and company. 

 

 

Also, re: the NS stuff.  Yes, peak NS should not have been used.  He could see what the NS of the nations in the offshoots were at the start of the war, subtract that from their previous AA and then it would be more accurate.  (Of course, even though some of the AA's didn't exist on the entering war date, he would just put the NS of the nations under those AA's.)

 

Re tiers and fronts:  I think the tier debate (at least in the upper to mid level) is being discussed in other threads.  The different fronts are also being discussed in those threads for the tiers mentioned.  It wouldn't be difficult to get a general idea of how each front is doing using this info.  He could create different tabs for each front.  The problem he'll probably get is with crossing over- the offshoots aren't really limiting themselves to different fronts and a decent amount of AA's on EQ's side are hitting different fronts.  So, it wouldn't be perfect (or completely accurate), but it could give a general idea of each front. Personally, I don't find it that hard to just see who is fighting who and do some quick math (or use a pen and paper, but I bet that's too much work for most here). 

[Hime Themis]

Good Rotavele

 

We appreciate the hard work and effort put into this. For those of us with no dog in the fight and no need to spin the numbers it makes it far easier and more enjoyable to keep track of the war It certainly saves us having to sift through the heap of propaganda and various front, tier and PM chest thumping to see some real facts that we can asses in our own way.. I am always amazed at the fact that those who do not bother to actually do the work take the time to critique it in public. If there are inaccuracies I am sure Rotavele or others who do this work would appreciate a private Pm with thoughtful ways to improve the work.

 

 So without any spin, retrofit or critique. Thank You.

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

[Beauty]

Yes it is counted as peak NS, and he constant switching does disrupt getting an accurate reading. However, it has been done by both sides so mehh. I tried to combat this by taking NG's entering NS (Before the major hoppage) and deducting all the peak NS alliances from that, and listing that as NG's entering NS.

 

This can't really be done for Umbrella seeing as many DH and Deinos have used DBDC's AA.

[Nobody Expects]

Hear hear to what Hime Themis said. You have done an excellent job correlating this information and it is most interesting.

Many thanks,

N.E.

[Aeros]

The arguments here also ignore the fact that doing the same amount of damage is not enough for DH to win this, since "doing the same damage" to 30 odd alliances is way different to "the same damage" to 12 or so.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The 3 to 1 NS difference happens only if it translates into full on 3v1s. I don't think it was so much the case in the upper tier, where most of this war has been fought so far. In most cases, we had a lot of 2vs2s and even a lot of spots where dQ had the number advantage (super tier). Also, after nations run out of nukes, the damage tends to even out. The 3v1 will bring a lot of damage in GAs, as the other nation relies heavily on its two nukes per day. If they land, they land and the damage is pretty even. If not, the group of three will have a much better day.

 

However, like I said in the first page, good job Rotavele. Number crunching is always a pain, esp. with so many AAs involved. 

[Anarquista]

good job here rotavele o7

 

i don't think the losses are counted twice since we are measuring the AA's strength

leaving the AA should count as a loss,

and whatever new AA they went to should be counted as a starting NS

[Secret]

good job here rotavele o7

 

i don't think the losses are counted twice since we are measuring the AA's strength

leaving the AA should count as a loss,

and whatever new AA they went to should be counted as a starting NS

 

What they're trying to say is that the NS was transferred, not lost. In other words, you either have to adjust UMB's starting NS (-DBDC) or count them as one entity, which can be problematic since DBDC isn't just Umbrella. 

[Prodigal Moon]

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.

This is the only thing we should all be rooting for, really. How fun would that be if for the rest of our time here war was the only constant, rather than the exception? I think the political side of things has had plenty of time to develop. Both sides seem to think they're going to win this. So let's just battle it out from now on until there's only a few nations left standing.

[Anarquista]

What they're trying to say is that the NS was transferred, not lost. In other words, you either have to adjust UMB's starting NS (-DBDC) or count them as one entity, which can be problematic since DBDC isn't just Umbrella. 

oh i get it i think

[Schattenmann]

shahenshah take the time to look over the stats. Do you really think NG has lost 5+ million NS?

 

Let's back up and put this in very simple terms: Between deletions, desertions, battle damage, and idiotic changes in AA, there is no way to weed out one cause for some portion of NS loss and then account for it.  If you want all your NS counted in one place, wear one AA; that's what AAs are for.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Schattenmann

[Namayan]

Let's back up and put this in very simple terms: Between deletions, desertions, battle damage, and idiotic changes in AA, there is no way to weed out one cause for some portion of NS loss and then account for it.  If you want all your NS counted in one place, wear one AA; that's what AAs are for.

Exactly, someone from equilibrium actually understanding the stats. NS loss is totally different from War Losses. The fantastic spinning of information that NS loss equals War loss is more of Equilibrium's propaganda. NS loss does not mean damage received or dealt, it literally means NS loss.

Now, until someone collects actual War losses or damage received or dealt in battle, then we can only say the statistics are War losses.

[tayloj7]

Nevermind it does double count DBDC losses.

 

 

welp was gonna point this out but seems i was beaten to it,  (also noticed that the average for the Doomhouse/CnG part should go from I2:I18, it currently excludes GATO :3).