Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

And what if they do? Will you write an apology?  :popcorn:

If eQ wins over all (meaning we have to pay terms) then yes I will, if we do not, you owe me 15mil 200 tech.

[CubaQuerida]

Can we PLEASE stop with this outnumbered versus teaming nonsense? It's [b]much[/b] more preferable to be on the triple team side than the underdog side and the damage differential is [u]ENORMOUS[/u]. A well coordinated 3v1 is devastating and renders the opponent crippled within a very short period of time. Statistically speaking, even though only one nuke would land, all the ensuing successful attacks do so much damage, that even if the underdog manages to land his 3 nukes (which is almost logistically impossible for 7 days), he still may not win anything other than a handful of air battles. Under these circumstances you would expect to see the underdog side getting HAMMERED, not putting up equal damage numbers. Here's the problem: This is not a tremendously well-coordinated effort and there are NOT as many 3v1's as you think there are. The closer these damage graphs get to 1:1, the bigger the failure by the swarming side. Sure, Week 1 is explosive because everyone can land all their nukes, but that's over and done with. Now is the time we SHOULD be seeing huge shifts in damage output, but it's [i]just not there[/i]. You can say "we're winning" or "you're losing" but the fact is the damage graphs show equality, which is NOT a favorable outcome in a dogpile, regardless of these nonsensical "we have more nukes than you" arguments.

[Sephiroth]

Nice graphs and stats, looks like the Doom House side is taking more damage per nation and over all.

[King William]

People arguing things that should be fact kinda annoy me.

I want DH to burn because well I'm *Pacifica* but they're not going to do so without making us work for it. And losing some NS isn't going to be what does it.

Morale, and politics aside, the physical war is really a matter of time & damages. Meaning opportunity cost (slot usage, wonder purchasing perhaps), and cost in dollars. Those are the only things that matter. If I destroy more tech in 7 days of war, than they can import in 10 days of peace, I'm doing my job. If I deplete their warchest by forcing them to buy nukes, CMs, aircraft, destroying or stealing it in Ground attacks or spy ops, to where they're not in as good a position come rebuilding/down the road compared to me, then I'm doing my job.

Unless the war gets seriously more heated, specifically talking about myself, I can rebuild and have the same "NS" I did prewar, actually more if I keep a full nuclear stockpile since I wasn't doing so. I'll "beat" the other side by gaining NS in war. But what does it really matter? Damages are the only thing that matter. Physically you have money, and time. That's harder to graph and talk about, esp when we can hardly graph the NS changes correctly (no offense meant to those who have done the work for us to see, it is not your fault, but simply nature of the beast).

[Smittay]

Nice graphs and stats, looks like the Doom House side is taking more damage per nation and over all.

Hey cutie  :ehm:

 

It's easy to use nuclear weapons as an excuse for not being able to dominate despite superior numbers. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you're getting dished a similar amount of damage by a much smaller force.

[Neo Uruk]

Nice graphs and stats, looks like the Doom House side is taking more damage per nation and over all.

Awww, you still have that pent up rage for us? That's cute. I know it's hard to imagine that all the effort towards bringing us down has been wasted, so maybe we'll make your medicine have a nice flavor at least.

[bhane]

There's a huge piece of the puzzle that a lot of people seem to missing - NS is not all equal.  It's a lot less expensive to rebuild low and mid tier nations.  It also takes a long time to buy tech.  A 100k NS nation is worth a lot more than 2 50k nations.  If it were possible to put a monetary and time value on rebuilding the losses, I would bet the numbers would look even better for the Competence side.  

[sammykhalifa]

It's easy to use nuclear weapons as an excuse for not being able to dominate despite superior numbers. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you're getting dished a similar amount of damage by a much smaller force.

 

 

I don't think NS is the best way to judge this, but looking at NS no it's not similar amount of damage. 

 

If I have ten apples and someone takes one away, that really sucks.  But it doesn't suck nearly as much as if someone had three apples and someone took one away.  Now I think your side's doing much better than that (and your NS losses will slow as infra dries up); but in terms of what these charts are looking at, it is not.  It's not hard to figure out who would run out of apples first if things continued unchanged (they won't).

[bhane]

I don't think NS is the best way to judge this, but looking at NS no it's not similar amount of damage. 

 

If I have ten apples and someone takes one away, that really sucks.  But it doesn't suck nearly as much as if someone had three apples and someone took one away.  Now I think your side's doing much better than that (and your NS losses will slow as infra dries up); but in terms of what these charts are looking at, it is not.  It's not hard to figure out who would run out of apples first if things continued unchanged (they won't).

Except that it's not just apples, it's also oranges and those are harder to get since (let's assume)  they're out of season... and also the fruit prices rise exponentially based on how many you have already bought ..... actually this apples analogy sucks.

[sammykhalifa]

Except that it's not just apples, it's also oranges and those are harder to get since (let's assume)  they're out of season... and also the fruit prices rise exponentially based on how many you have already bought ..... actually this apples analogy sucks.

 

 

I never said that the NS model is that great, but that's what we have.  And looking at the NS model of losses and calling it even . . . well, it just isn't.  That's what people are doing here.

[Steve Buscemi]

Thanks for your work here, but again, using flawed numbers based on flawed methodology gives you flawed results. 

[RevolutionaryRebel]

From what I've gathered, Doomgreviances isn't trying to win this war, simply to ensure that it is dragged into a stalemate; something which those graphs seems to suggest, now that the difference between the Coalitinos has flatlined. Yes, in the end, Competence will lose at the current rate, but in order to ensure victory, Equilibrium would have to be willing to sacrifice just as much as their opponents are.

When you fight with a lot of smaller Alliances, you risk losing said smaller Allies during the course of the war, slowly depleting the resources you have at your disposal. Competence hasn't been able to take advantage of this fact, because most of said smaller Alliances are in the lower tiers, where it can't land any punches. Still, the inefficiencies inherent within Equilibrium's structure have allowed Competence to survive, and to drag itself into a position where it should be able to stave off defeat for several months. All in all, unless Equilibrium decides that they have already accomplished what they sought to do - or manages to break the morale of Competence, this war has a long way to go, and the longer the war goes, the higher the stakes for both sides.

This war is Equilibrium's to win - or lose. They have already failed to score a quick, clean victory - who knows how this war will play out.

Edited February 19, 2013 by revolutionary rebel

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Going by Gopher's numbers, Competence has lost 134.69 NS to eQ's 132.37.

 

Now if you start your count after NG joined and after they shed about 15 NS in the NG mass exodus (which from what I can tell those splinter NG alliances have not been included back in Gopher's numbers)

 

Its been 73.64 damage done to Competence and 89.69 damage done to eQ.

 

Also no graphs for you guys, so suck it and read my numbers inside run-on sentences.

[Krashnaia]

If eQ wins over all (meaning we have to pay terms) then yes I will, if we do not, you owe me 15mil 200 tech.

 

I don't think Eq is planning on taking reps, so I'm sorry but no bet. :)

 

Anyway, this is hardly a betting issue. The thing is that you are accusing a group of people to lack cojones to do a certain thing. If they do it, then the least you could do is apologize. It's what I would do if I were claiming that your side lacks guts to keep on the war effort and you are going to crumble soon and kneel for peace, and months pass and you do not.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Chad]

Nice graphs and stats, looks like the Doom House side is taking more damage per nation and over all.

Well, that's overall but really only tells half the story. It means we are winning for now but once dQ gets through out top tiers, dQ has a chance to start eating away at our lower tiers.

 

Hey cutie  :ehm:

 

It's easy to use nuclear weapons as an excuse for not being able to dominate despite superior numbers. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you're getting dished a similar amount of damage by a much smaller force.

I'm not going to get into this with you...

[crypticedge]

Baghdad Bob, do you have any graphs to show how many eQ vs competence nations were deleted (not dropped from their AA, deleted) - I have 2 eQ guys deletions to my name in 20 days play time total

 

Also, I love how you refer to us as competence, because it implies that you are incompetent, something that my wars with your people have shown to be demonstrably true 

[Chad]

Baghdad Bob, do you have any graphs to show how many eQ vs competence nations were deleted (not dropped from their AA, deleted) - I have 2 eQ guys deletions to my name in 20 days play time total

 

Also, I love how you refer to us as competence, because it implies that you are incompetent, something that my wars with your people have shown to be demonstrably true 

How mature.

 

If someone will crunch the numbers I'll be happy to graph it. And I refer to it as Competence because that is how your coalition is referred to in the Sanction Race and on the Wiki. Now please grow up.

[Banned]

What would be interesting to see, is not really so much the total NS losses, but the tech losses during this war.  One could make the argument that NS losses don't really tell much of the story at all, as NS totals in wars are factored by tech, infra, and land.  Where infra is cheap, land is even cheaper, to the point that it's really a non-factor. 

 

The strategy for eQuilibrium was to eat away at Umbrella's tech advantage, and if that's not happening, then the coalition is failing their objective, and hence, losing the war... despite what the total NS numbers might suggest.  If eQuilibrium is dragging Competence down at equal rates of technology, then total nation damage won't matter, it would indicate that they are accomplishing their mission and balancing those numbers. 

 

If possible, a front-by-front analysis of this would be amazing, and I think would tell the story of who is winning/losing in a way that would be much less exposed to debate, unless of course the argument becomes "well if we stay at war for the next 10 years, we'll eventually eat away all the tech" which I think is less than an intelligent argument.

[crypticedge]

How mature.

 

If someone will crunch the numbers I'll be happy to graph it. And I refer to it as Competence because that is how your coalition is referred to in the Sanction Race and on the Wiki. Now please grow up.

 

And yet that doesn't really cover any of the comments I have. Who picked that name for us? Did they realize you were incompetent before they picked it? If not how do you reconcile against such a perfect coincidence? Also, why are your people so bad at this? I'm serious here. Like everyone from eQ that attacks me donates 1 million per attack (they finally realized attacking a second time gives me more money, but that only took them two weeks) to my war chest that I turn around and use to ruin them. 

 

Also, what do you have to say about the NPO leader brehon starting an inter-alliance war then going afk when he is so thoroughly beaten for such a period that his nation is deleted? Doesn't that say something about how this "war" of us thoroughly wrecking eQ is going?

Edited February 20, 2013 by crypticedge

[the rebel]

The strategy for eQuilibrium was to eat away at Umbrella's tech advantage, and if that's not happening, then the coalition is failing their objective, and hence, losing the war... despite what the total NS numbers might suggest.  If eQuilibrium is dragging Competence down at equal rates of technology, then total nation damage won't matter, it would indicate that they are accomplishing their mission and balancing those numbers.

 

That's why the longer the conflict goes on for the more tech Umbrella nations which are in the "grinding zone" lose, granted it drops at a slower rate than everything else but with just fighting a target with one nation at all times over a month has the potential to destory atleast 1800 tech using base damage alone, two months 3600 tech and so on... So it does deplete but at a slower rate so people tend to ignore it like it lasts forever.

[Smittay]

 I'm not going to get into this with you...

 

 

How does it feel to be proven wrong? I wouldn't know, I never have.

 

The SDI will make the amount of nukes dwindle quickly, which then it comes down to the nukes you buy during the war and regular war punches. 

 

Maybe eQ should win. It seems non-eQ has been hoarding too much of the intelligence on Bob for themselves.

 

 

Damn Ninety-nine percenters...

[Neo Uruk]

 
That's why the longer the conflict goes on for the more tech Umbrella nations which are in the "grinding zone" lose, granted it drops at a slower rate than everything else but with just fighting a target with one nation at all times over a month has the potential to destory atleast 1800 tech using base damage alone, two months 3600 tech and so on... So it does deplete but at a slower rate so people tend to ignore it like it lasts forever.

you know what else depletes? NS, at a faster rate when it's infra. Your coalition can't keep up, accept fact.

[the rebel]

you know what else depletes? NS, at a faster rate when it's infra. Your coalition can't keep up, accept fact.

 

What are you blabbling on about?

 

1) I'm talking about the minimum potential that tech can drop of Umb nations in "grinding zone" as well any nation on anyside for that matter.

2) I didn't even mention anything about NS losses

3) telling me in an irrelevant counter argument to "accept fact" on something I wasn't even talking about :facepalm:

 

So congratulations cherry picking an argument out of thin air :facepalm:

Edited February 20, 2013 by the rebel

[Banned]

That's why the longer the conflict goes on for the more tech Umbrella nations which are in the "grinding zone" lose, granted it drops at a slower rate than everything else but with just fighting a target with one nation at all times over a month has the potential to destory atleast 1800 tech using base damage alone, two months 3600 tech and so on... So it does deplete but at a slower rate so people tend to ignore it like it lasts forever.

I really wasn't commenting on the tier game, my question was, who's losing it faster?  If eQ is losing more tech than Umbrella is, then the war is counter-productive of what they hoped to accomplish, when their sheer nation numbers advantage should have them catching up, assuming that they have solid economic programs and are capable of bringing in tech sellers. 

 

Obviously, middle tier nations are coming in with less tech than the super-tier, but while this threat might talk about the change in NS for each coalition, it really doesn't get to the real purpose of this war, which is after all the infrastructure and land is rebought, where does the technology battle lie?  If Competence is really only eating away infrastructure because that's all that was there to begin with, and eQ is chewing away more technology, then eQ is meeting their objectives, and thus, one could argue, winning the war.  After all, isn't winning all about your strategy working out?  However, if the supercharged nukes and higher success rates in the battles in the top-tier are pounding away significantly more technology than is getting pounded back, then what we see post-war is exactly the opposite of what eQuilibrium hoped to accomplish, a world in which Competence carries an even larger technology advantage, and economic programs and the numbers game takes a longer time to have an effect. 

 

So while you can project what "should" happen, and I think we're all seeing the expected is not what's playing out on the battlefield, my question remains unanswered.  Who's winning the tech war?

[Neo Uruk]

 
What are you blabbling on about?
 
1) I'm talking about the minimum potential that tech can drop of Umb nations in "grinding zone" as well any nation on anyside for that matter.
2) I didn't even mention anything about NS losses
3) telling me in an irrelevant counter argument to "accept fact" on something I wasn't even talking about :facepalm:
 
So congratulations cherry picking an argument out of thin air :facepalm:

Yes because you can declare on someone who has 10k+ tech with a 5k ns nation. My argument was entirely irrelevant.