Jump to content

War Losses Charts


Beauty
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Take Michael Jordan in his prime.  Now take an average Joe off the street.  In a one on one basketball game average Joe would get crushed.  

Take 100 average joe's, let them all play on the court at the same time.  They will win.

 

You might win, but if you end up winning this it will not be because you are utilizing strategy to defeat us or skill of your individual nations, but because eventually there comes a point where overwhelming numbers wins.  

 

We haven't reached that point yet, we are still giving you one hell of a beating and we still have much more fight left in us.  We can still win this.

So you (Competence, not so much you personally) go from saying "quality will defeat quantity" to "if you beat us, it really wasn't fair and you're really not that good." It seems no matter the situation, win or lose, your side will either rub in our face that we lost despite superior numbers or you will devalue our victory. Reminds me of a spoiled kindergartner severely lacking in sportsmanship.

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you (Competence, not so much you personally) go from saying "quality will defeat quantity" to "if you beat us, it really wasn't fair and you're really not that good." It seems no matter the situation, win or lose, your side will either rub in our face that we lost despite superior numbers or you will devalue our victory. Reminds me of a spoiled kindergartner severely lacking in sportsmanship.

The truth is more like this: your upper tier will be completely destroyed (whatever comes out of peace mode). Meanwhile, the same can be said of our lower tier. There will be some ceiling above which your nations will not exist, and a ceiling below which ours will live in hell. Until the war ends, and everyone is a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting through all the garbage propaganda and rah-rahing (which many people can't seem to let go of despite this supposedly being an OOC forum) and looking at how things are going, it seems to me that there will really be no clear-cut winner on a macro level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distinction you're trying ot make is silly and whiny.  Whether by deletions, desertions, battle damage, launching more nukes than you can rebuy, AA shuffling, &c. these losses of NS are losses due to war.  NS loss of any kind is a loss incurred by Equilibrium's war on the AAs, regardless of why.

The only debate is whether NS loss by AA shuffling represents a loss of control over that NS.  For all we know, 3,000,000 NS worth of Non Grata nations switched AA because they refuse to fight, and that is a war-induced loss.  Or, the AA switch is due to nostalgia for former alliances who were too weak to actually continue their own existences, but the NS is still under control of NG; however, the subtraction of NS from NG Proper cannot be distinguished to 100% accuracy from all the other kinds of loss, so it must simply be recorded as loss. 

Thus my admonishment that if these goofballs want their NS and losses to be recorded under one AA to the greatest accuracy, they should act like alliances and wear one AA.  As it is, the rudimentary nature of the representation of the data available in-game and the use of AAs demands the treatment that has been given.

 

If you really think a few million of NG's NS left overnight because they didn't want to fight, then you are truly talking out of your ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is more like this: your upper tier will be completely destroyed (whatever comes out of peace mode). Meanwhile, the same can be said of our lower tier. There will be some ceiling above which your nations will not exist, and a ceiling below which ours will live in hell

 

From a neutral looking in, this seems to be the case. From what I've pieced together from alliances on both sides, Co's lower tier is getting smashed, and eQ's upper tier is getting whipped. If this is truly the case, with almost no doubt seems correct, a stalemate will happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you (Competence, not so much you personally) go from saying "quality will defeat quantity" to "if you beat us, it really wasn't fair and you're really not that good." It seems no matter the situation, win or lose, your side will either rub in our face that we lost despite superior numbers or you will devalue our victory. Reminds me of a spoiled kindergartner severely lacking in sportsmanship.

I think the message around Competence in the beginning was "there's no way in hell we win this" given that eQ had superior numbers from day 1. 
From that, our side began to realize that eQ had insanely low tech for all the infrastructure they were carrying around, and oddly, didn't have very large warchests either.  The message became "Well, they're still going to take us out in a 22:2 rush, but we're going to blow them up in the process."

 

eQ's completely piss-poor organization skills and lack of ability to keep nations out of peace mode where they hold a 4:1 advantage in member numbers, well I think that says something... either staggers are getting messed up en masse (which doesn't seem to be the case), or there is just a general lack of desire by far too many eQ nations in that tier to jump out declare a war.  The fact that the upper-tier situation developed the way that it did, or that the battle lines for that sweet ground between 100k and 80k are beginning to look completely Competence controlled, and that Competence is now operating on the message, "We CAN win this thing", well that doesn't fare so well for you.  We were happy to fight when it was "blow things up on your way down".  Even if we don't win, that top-tier isn't ground that suddenly eQ is going to take over within the 6 months following the war, and we all know the re will be a summer war, and there isn't going to be enough time for eQ to come back at this.  Even if the terms suggest you "win" the war, which I think white peace looks much more likely at this point, it will be a complete strategic failure, as you'll come out with a stronger middle-tier advantage, and have to go back to economically trying to grind as many nations as possible through the wall before the next war, whatever that will look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about ad hoc coalitions here. Moment the war ends, there is no "Equilibrium" as it stands now.

 

So speculating about some new wars and its line ups, is fairly hard. That will completely depend on the incident which shall sparkle it. Speculating about are combatants achieving their war goals is also difficult as these goals vary not only between the two perceived sides, but as well within them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really think a few million of NG's NS left overnight because they didn't want to fight, then you are truly talking out of your ass.

 

As I said, they're all in peace mode and they have evacuated the NG AA.  An observer cannot assume that they still belong to NG, and they are not fighting for anyone.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schatt, I wasn't whining. I was pointing out that the statistical data being presented was inaccurate. For two reasons, the AA shuffling causing "loss" data, and the fact that the starting NS used was peak NS. As I pointed out in one of my posts Ogygia has a "loss" ns counted against it. Which has never happened considering every member of Ogygia was PM. If you'd like to weave your web of words for propoganda purposes, do it in a different thread. If you'd like to talk statistical data, then please present me where I'm incorrect.

 

And as I also have said in one of my earlier posts, good on Rota for doing the stats. I'm not knocking Rota at all, merely commenting objectively on the data and methods used. Especially since the data is then being used in the graph thread which is then inaccurate.

 

Schatt, I wasn't whining. I was pointing out that the statistical data being presented was inaccurate. For two reasons, the AA shuffling causing "loss" data, and the fact that the starting NS used was peak NS. As I pointed out in one of my posts Ogygia has a "loss" ns counted against it. Which has never happened considering every member of Ogygia was PM. If you'd like to weave your web of words for propoganda purposes, do it in a different thread. If you'd like to talk statistical data, then please present me where I'm incorrect.

 

And as I also have said in one of my earlier posts, good on Rota for doing the stats. I'm not knocking Rota at all, merely commenting objectively on the data and methods used. Especially since the data is then being used in the graph thread which is then inaccurate.

 

My comments, as kolsara noted, weren't on the exactness of the data, but were in fact that it is not possible to present 100% accurate data due to the nature of the system which are poor enough due to the way they're presented in-game, and made worse by your own idiotic side AAs.  So stop complaining about that. 

What is accurate is that you are getting your asses kicked in to such a degree that the data doesn't need to be exact for us to know it.  The spreadsheet can be made more accurate, but it is satisfactorily accurate right now.

 

from what i can see, schatt knows its inaccurate, hes pointing out its your side's fault for pointlessly AA hopping.

 

edit: I would fix that double quote if the new reply system wasn't so fucking terrible.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a neutral looking in, this seems to be the case. From what I've pieced together from alliances on both sides, Co's lower tier is getting smashed, and eQ's upper tier is getting whipped. If this is truly the case, with almost no doubt seems correct, a stalemate will happen

I don't really see a stalemate when 3-5% at best of their nations are safe and 95+ percent are getting swamped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you (Competence, not so much you personally) go from saying "quality will defeat quantity" to "if you beat us, it really wasn't fair and you're really not that good." It seems no matter the situation, win or lose, your side will either rub in our face that we lost despite superior numbers or you will devalue our victory. Reminds me of a spoiled kindergartner severely lacking in sportsmanship.

 

No, what I am saying is that if you do beat us with this zerg rush "strategy" it won't be because of the individual skill of your nations, but rather because overwhelming numbers can win.  That doesn't take away from a win, and it doesn't mean we will have lost for being incompetent.  We will still be quality, regardless if we win or lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I am saying is that if you do beat us with this zerg rush "strategy" it won't be because of the individual skill of your nations, but rather because overwhelming numbers can win.  That doesn't take away from a win, and it doesn't mean we will have lost for being incompetent.  We will still be quality, regardless if we win or lose.

 

You can think whatever you like about yourselves. But please note that the objective of EQ is not to prove that you are a bunch of incompetent guys (besides, you already proved that by provoking most of Bob to pile on your arse), but simply to beat you down.

 

Anyway, if it's so important for your self-steem to prove your value as a CN player, then why don't you get out of Peace Mode and demonstrate your suppossed skills on the battlefield? :popcorn:

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can think whatever you like about yourselves. But please note that the objective of EQ is not to prove that you are a bunch of incompetent guys (besides, you already proved that by provoking most of Bob to pile on your arse), but simply to beat you down.

 

Anyway, if it's so important for your self-steem to prove your value as a CN player, then why don't you get out of Peace Mode and demonstrate your suppossed skills on the battlefield? :popcorn:

 

You can do better than that.  I've already answered that question many times now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I am saying is that if you do beat us with this zerg rush "strategy" it won't be because of the individual skill of your nations, but rather because overwhelming numbers can win.  That doesn't take away from a win, and it doesn't mean we will have lost for being incompetent.  We will still be quality, regardless if we win or lose.

Most of the world is quite well aware that you have high activity, good tech ratios, co-ordination and all the other hallmarks of skilled nations. That isn't really a matter up for debate. Nor is it up for debate that we have less upper-tier nations that meet all those characteristics, and have to make up for that by sheer weight of numbers. If you want to see that as a silver lining or a point of pride in spite of loss, you're welcome to do so. I won't begrudge you for a perfectly rational way of boosting morale.

But I would advise you not to spend too much time on it. Much as skill doesn't take away from a win, it also doesn't take away from a loss. And whilst focusing on what you did right is a great feel-good line, a better policy would be focusing on what went wrong.

And, no offense, but for the rest of us your self-affirmations of quality are at best irrelevant and at worst alienating. A more relevant point perhaps would be to what extent our grand-numbers and deep-reserves strategy will be successful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I am saying is that if you do beat us with this zerg rush "strategy" it won't be because of the individual skill of your nations, but rather because overwhelming numbers can win.  That doesn't take away from a win, and it doesn't mean we will have lost for being incompetent.  We will still be quality, regardless if we win or lose.

You are assuming everyone on your side is competent and everyone on other side is incompetent. That's a really stupid assumption to make. We have all sorts of people on both sides. I'm sure you can quote plenty of examples of incompetency on this side and I can assure you the same for your side. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So more than 95% of Co is in war mode?  I didn't think so. If that was the case eQ would've stopped making peace mode jokes by now

 

I think he meant the NS range. In certain NS ranges for both sides, you step out of PM, good luck.

 

God forbid if you DoW someone and end up fighting a 4-6 front war with little backup.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming everyone on your side is competent and everyone on other side is incompetent. That's a really stupid assumption to make. We have all sorts of people on both sides. I'm sure you can quote plenty of examples of incompetency on this side and I can assure you the same for your side.

 


No, not everyone on our side is extremely competetant and not everyone on your side is incompetant, both sides have varying degrees of individual nations who are competaant, incompetant, or lazy/inactive.  But we have a higher proportion of members who are on the active side who have good coordination, good tech to infra ratios (even more so tht this war has destroyed so much infra) while yours haven't quite had the same focus on importing tech as heavy or as long as ours have.

 

Will this change post war?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  What I am saying is that regardless if we win or lose, we will still be competant.  How does it feel to potentially lose to the other side?  Overwhelming numbers can usually pull off a victory if the fight lasts long enough. 

 

However neither of us has any incentive to stop this conflict right now.  We have a lot more work to do from our side, and the job you set out to do isn't done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, they're all in peace mode and they have evacuated the NG AA.  An observer cannot assume that they still belong to NG, and they are not fighting for anyone.

 

Oh neat a Shatt sig. I'm honored but you forgot to include my last message...any reason why?

 

Also yeah these stats are a bit skewed...interesting still I guess.

Edited by magicninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, no offense, but for the rest of us your self-affirmations of quality are at best irrelevant and at worst alienating.

I think alienating alliances becomes less of a concern when the lead is already flying. I mean it's pretty clear where everyone's respective loyalties lie at this point, no?
Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...