Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)

[Krashnaia]

Do you actually believe that with umbrella warchests and tech buying rates you will recover far more than them? As well as MK, TOP, and CnG?

 

You can rebuild your infra to a decent shape with just about two billion bucks. Anything more is throwing money down the flush. So it doesn't matters that much if at the end of the war you have a warchest of 10 billion or 3 billion.

 

As tech-buying rates go, last time I checked everybody had just 6 Foreign Aid Slots.

[Neo Uruk]

 
You can rebuild your infra to a decent shape with just about two billion bucks. Anything more is throwing money down the flush. So it doesn't matters that much if at the end of the war you have a warchest of 10 billion or 3 billion.
 
As tech-buying rates go, last time I checked everybody had just 6 Foreign Aid Slots.

Yes, buying infra only happens once and it is only post-war. And everybody uses their aid slots at the same efficiency. These are two things that are undeniably true. Edited February 20, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Chad]

Yes, buying infra only happens once and it is only post-war. And everybody uses their aid slots at the same efficiency. These are two things that are undeniably true.

I think you are missing his point...

[Banned]

I would love me some of whatever you are sniffing, this war is playing out just about exactly how most people thought it would, at least most that I talked to.  NG entering was always considered likely, but that was probably the worse thing to "go wrong" for us.

 

Some of your AA's are at 50% NS lost, you have an upper tier that can't contribute and someone on our AA has been tracking Umbrella tech losses (by nation name, not AA) and they are over 300K tech lost.  We might lose more NS than the other side by the end of this, it's a very strong possibility, but 6 months after the war ends we will have recovered far more than "competence" and if this war doesn't come to a satisfying ending, there will be a repeat, we all know this.

 

So yes, Competence can certainly cause us a lot of short-term pain, but pissing everyone in eQ off by being douches will keep us together until you are stomped into oblivion, either this war or next.

Ok, so Umbrella has 300k tech lost.  How much have they destroyed in the process?  It's really only meeting the objective of eQ if Umbrella is losing more than they're destroying.  If Umbrella is destroying more, then eQuilibrium is not obtaining the eQuilibrium that they're seeking in the war to neutralize Umbrella's tech advantage, they're only widening that gap.  I don't know in this case, which is true, hence the purpose of my original question.  Who is losing tech faster?  I think this really has to be looked at coalition-wide.  Judging by what I've been reading, I would guess that the tech battles at this point will look something like eQ is losing more tech in the higher tiers and winning the tech battle in the mid-tiers.  However, if upper level nations are down-declaring, how will that play out in the bigger tech picture?  It leads me to believe that eQ's power points in the middle tiers will not be able to sustain regular tech buying as they'll be in continued wars and only tossing that tech into the fire.  It also means though that those on Competence side that are actively down-declaring would be doing the same. 

 

All the while, the super-nations are going back into a regular tech-buying cycle, or just tossing out war aid.  Niether of those will have a sever impact on the outcome of the battle for NS ranges at the 80k-100k counter-declaration level, as both sides of that battle will ultimately be throwing their tech into the fire, but it could generate a struggle for eQ to ever regain the edge in the coveted super-tier in the post-war efforts.  Despite that, if the overall tech destruction advantage is going to eQ, then there is a flag that can be waived reading "Mission Accomplished".  If not, then the entire war is a failure for eQuilibrium, and whether or not terms come down to an admission of defeat or not, if the overall objective is not only failed, but creates a larger gap where eQ was trying to neutralize the existing gap, then that is defeat.

 

You can rebuild your infra to a decent shape with just about two billion bucks. Anything more is throwing money down the flush. So it doesn't matters that much if at the end of the war you have a warchest of 10 billion or 3 billion.

 

As tech-buying rates go, last time I checked everybody had just 6 Foreign Aid Slots.

 

The number of slots you have available really isn't the issue being discussed.  Of course everybody that uses their slots has the same limitation (barring the use of FAC's, but those with FAC's are equal to those with FAC's).  The point being made is that Umbrella and their allies, most notably perhaps TOP and MK, didn't get all that tech only because they're really old nations.  Being old helps, but it was also the work, blood, sweat, and tears of themselves and/or their economic departments, that either found them a lot of sellers, or found them enough reliable sellers that created the advantage.  Being dominant in their conflicts didn't hurt any, but the tech didn't appear from that either.  They bought it, because they're active enough to seek it out.  How each aid slot is being used post-war isn't the issue, that's obviously equal, but the percentage of aid slots being used, that's the point of the discussion.

[Smittay]

I am not using graphs to convince anything. I have not produced these numbers nor have I done any investigation on my own. I literally used numbers given in other threads to create the graphs (including the top tier tracking threads and sanction race). I don't know why your side insists on this thread being a propaganda thread just because you think these graphs say you are losing.

 

Perhaps those on the Disequilibrium side who believe this thread is Equilibrium propaganda should follow the example of your smarter members (namely Namayan or Shinnra) who have seen the data, notice small discrepancies in the data (because no one has taken the time or effort to divide each front by tier and present the data that way), and still recognize that the charts are the best representation of the numbers so far.

 

The charts everyone seems to be arguing about (NS lost), by the way, have been sourced from numbers presented by Rotavele. His numbers have been recognized by both sides as skewed a bit but still usable for analysis.

 

So you're confessing to using numbers that are questionable and/or skewed and that you are now passing them off as hard fact? I shudder to think of a Planet Bob filled with people like you, who try to use "statistics" to twist truth and present it in a way that the average prole would not be able to tell the difference between your lies and the truth that is available to the all of us.

 

Why did you not get your own numbers? Why take the numbers of a nutter?

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

P. sure in this thread my numbers have been the only ones that aren't skewed.

[sammykhalifa]

P. sure in this thread my numbers have been the only ones that aren't skewed.

 

Haha.

 

"Everyone's biased except for me!"

[Anarquista]

too much looking a gif horse in the mouth ITT

 

do not fear jazz, you mean these recently discovered umbrella stats are skewed?

 

 

...

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AuOBgJ-MOr7rdFJxVW9HZDA4V0ViczJUYkxIajEyLXc&output=html

...

Edited February 20, 2013 by Anarquista

[the rebel]

Statistics, the only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
 

Now that it is cleared up there is no need to argue about wrong or right statistics.

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Haha.

 

"Everyone's biased except for me!"

 

I legit sat down and copied all the numbers from the wiki, so unless the wiki is bias, my numbers can't be. 

 

Don't you think if they were I would have made it look like DH had given more damage than received. 

[Max Power]

Nice Umbrella stats, NE. Sucks that NR and CSM deleted. :(

You can rebuild your infra to a decent shape with just about two billion bucks. Anything more is throwing money down the flush. So it doesn't matters that much if at the end of the war you have a warchest of 10 billion or 3 billion.

 

As tech-buying rates go, last time I checked everybody had just 6 Foreign Aid Slots.

So post-rebuilding, it doesn't matter if you have a warchest of $8B or $1B? Wouldn't you want to buy stuff at some point? Or drop aid? Or even prepare for the next war?

 

No one has 100% efficiency. It's about how you use the aid slots.

 

(This was already kinda addressed but not nearly in enough detail.)

[berbers]

Do you actually believe that with umbrella warchests and tech buying rates you will recover far more than them? As well as MK, TOP, and CnG?

And you also believe that with your coalition already splintering at the seams, it will reform some months down the line post-war, just to throw more gasoline upon itself for us to light?

 

Umbrella's slot usage pre-war was terrible compared to the Umb of old, lower than MK actually.  TOP's slot usage was like 8% or something.  So unless they all of a sudden start getting back to their previous (like 2 years ago) level of peace-time activity, no they won't recover fast.

Edited February 20, 2013 by berbers

[berbers]

Ok, so Umbrella has 300k tech lost.  How much have they destroyed in the process?  It's really only meeting the objective of eQ if Umbrella is losing more than they're destroying.  If Umbrella is destroying more, then eQuilibrium is not obtaining the eQuilibrium that they're seeking in the war to neutralize Umbrella's tech advantage, they're only widening that gap.  I don't know in this case, which is true, hence the purpose of my original question.  Who is losing tech faster?  I think this really has to be looked at coalition-wide.  Judging by what I've been reading, I would guess that the tech battles at this point will look something like eQ is losing more tech in the higher tiers and winning the tech battle in the mid-tiers.  However, if upper level nations are down-declaring, how will that play out in the bigger tech picture?  It leads me to believe that eQ's power points in the middle tiers will not be able to sustain regular tech buying as they'll be in continued wars and only tossing that tech into the fire.  It also means though that those on Competence side that are actively down-declaring would be doing the same. 

 

All the while, the super-nations are going back into a regular tech-buying cycle, or just tossing out war aid.  Niether of those will have a sever impact on the outcome of the battle for NS ranges at the 80k-100k counter-declaration level, as both sides of that battle will ultimately be throwing their tech into the fire, but it could generate a struggle for eQ to ever regain the edge in the coveted super-tier in the post-war efforts.  Despite that, if the overall tech destruction advantage is going to eQ, then there is a flag that can be waived reading "Mission Accomplished".  If not, then the entire war is a failure for eQuilibrium, and whether or not terms come down to an admission of defeat or not, if the overall objective is not only failed, but creates a larger gap where eQ was trying to neutralize the existing gap, then that is defeat.

 

 

The number of slots you have available really isn't the issue being discussed.  Of course everybody that uses their slots has the same limitation (barring the use of FAC's, but those with FAC's are equal to those with FAC's).  The point being made is that Umbrella and their allies, most notably perhaps TOP and MK, didn't get all that tech only because they're really old nations.  Being old helps, but it was also the work, blood, sweat, and tears of themselves and/or their economic departments, that either found them a lot of sellers, or found them enough reliable sellers that created the advantage.  Being dominant in their conflicts didn't hurt any, but the tech didn't appear from that either.  They bought it, because they're active enough to seek it out.  How each aid slot is being used post-war isn't the issue, that's obviously equal, but the percentage of aid slots being used, that's the point of the discussion.

 

 

Actually, we can lose more tech than DH in this war and still be in a better position in 6 months than we were at the start of this war.  We will recover faster, I guarantee it.

[Krashnaia]

 

Nice Umbrella stats, NE. Sucks that NR and CSM deleted. :(

So post-rebuilding, it doesn't matter if you have a warchest of $8B or $1B? Wouldn't you want to buy stuff at some point? Or drop aid? Or even prepare for the next war?

 

No one has 100% efficiency. It's about how you use the aid slots.

 

(This was already kinda addressed but not nearly in enough detail.)

 

1) No, after post-war rebuilding it doesn't matter that much if you have 1B or 10B as warchest, unless another Global War explodes just after the end of the previous one - something that, correct me if I'm mistaken, hasn't happened ever in all the history of Planet Bob. By the time the next Great War knocks the door, you'll have build back enough warchest to ensure that at the end of the War you'll have the critical 1.5-2 billion bucks you need to rebuild from ZI to 8k-10k infra (a nation this level collects back 2B in less than 6 months - you never wondered why that's roughly the average interim period between Great Wars?). And, after you have built back to around 10k infra after the war, your daily tax collections are more than enough for the purposes of dropping aid, performing tech deals, and any other minor purchases, without suffering a noticeable drop on the pace of your warchest refilling (let's assume you colect a conservative figure of about 12kk net a day. You can pay for all your tech deals of the month with 1.5 days of collection. And you can use all your slots to send aid for the entire month with 4.5 days of collection) . Of course, ideally you should have at hand enough money at the end of the war to rebuild your infra and have a warchest for the next, which means that roughly 4B suffices.

 

2) No one has 100% efficiency, but you are missing my point. Let me illustrate my point with an hipotetical scenario. Let's say, there are 2000 nations from coalition A battling 5000 nations from coalition B. Let's assume them all have bought all the improvements/wonders who increases FA slots. This means that, post-war, coalition A has (2000*6) = 12000 FA slots and coalition B has (5000*6) = 30000 FA slots, every 10 days. This means that even if coalition A has 100% slot usage and coalition B has only 50%, coalition B is increasing their tech faster.

 

But let's introduce a second factor in our abstract scenario. During the course of the war, both coalitions have managed to inflict roughly the same amount of tech losses to their enemies. Let's say that side A had an average of 15k tech per nation and side B had 10k, and total tech losses for each sides have been, let's say, a nice round number, 10 million tech. This means that the average nation of side A has lost 5000 tech per nation and is now at an average of 10k tech. The average nation of side B has lost 2000 per nation and is on an average of 8kk. The average nation of side A needs to perform 50 tech deals (assuming a 3kk-100 rate) to recover, which at 6 of such deals a month means 8.3 months to recover losses. The average nation of side B needs 20 of such deals, which takes them 3.3 months to recover. Even if side A mantains a 100% slot usage ratio and side B keeps just 50%, side B still recovers faster (6.6 months to 8.3).

 

Of course, this is just a rough abstract scenario whose fully translation into real Bob would imply a lot of correctional variables. But you should be able to see the trend. As I said in a previous post, the magic of Quantity is that Quality needs to inflict MUCH MORE damage to Quantity in order to TIE. And you are barely able to reach parity. Your coallition could be dealing 2-to-1 damage to Equilibrium and you would still lose the war. And you are just dealing 1-to-1, at best.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Banned]

Actually, we can lose more tech than DH in this war and still be in a better position in 6 months than we were at the start of this war.  We will recover faster, I guarantee it.

At the end of this war, everybody will go right back to what they were doing before, a situation that found DH with slugger nations and extreme tech that ultimately called together the need for this war.  That said, how can you guarantee that going back to the same-old-same-old is going to change that fact when the war is over?

 

Definition of insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

 

If your econ programs have suddenly discovered something that they didn't discover before, then you may have reason to convince yourself of this statement, but I reasonably doubt that anything is going to change.

[berbers]

At the end of this war, everybody will go right back to what they were doing before, a situation that found DH with slugger nations and extreme tech that ultimately called together the need for this war.  That said, how can you guarantee that going back to the same-old-same-old is going to change that fact when the war is over?

 

Definition of insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 

 

If your econ programs have suddenly discovered something that they didn't discover before, then you may have reason to convince yourself of this statement, but I reasonably doubt that anything is going to change.

 

Well if this war hadn't happened until, say, next christmas, our side would have been in a position to crush you like tiny bugs while taking relatively little damage compared to now.  The number of 100K + NS nations on our side would be triple what it was at the start of the war, while DH's number would most likely be higher, but not anywhere near the same level of growth.

 

Ergo, if we keep pounding each other at a roughly 1:1 ratio, a year after this war ends, if our side remains a side, we will be so much beyond what you can hope to compete against, that the next war will be a cakewalk compared to this one.

 

But I mean don't listen to me, you guys should continue to piss us off with crude insults and such and drag this out as long as possible.

[Caliph]

Well if this war hadn't happened until, say, next christmas, our side would have been in a position to crush you like tiny bugs while taking relatively little damage compared to now.  The number of 100K + NS nations on our side would be triple what it was at the start of the war, while DH's number would most likely be higher, but not anywhere near the same level of growth.

 

Ergo, if we keep pounding each other at a roughly 1:1 ratio, a year after this war ends, if our side remains a side, we will be so much beyond what you can hope to compete against, that the next war will be a cakewalk compared to this one.

 

But I mean don't listen to me, you guys should continue to piss us off with crude insults and such and drag this out as long as possible.

 

Lets be honest here, your coalition can't last a year in war mode against us. 

 

This just goes to show you how having well built nations with proper tech to infra ratios helps out more in the long run than having nations with poor infra to tech ratios. 

 

Whether or not your side will change its ways to push for more tech heavy nations remains to be seen, since a lot of things will change depending on how this war ends up. 

[berbers]

Lets be honest here, your coalition can't last a year in war mode against us. 

 

This just goes to show you how having well built nations with proper tech to infra ratios helps out more in the long run than having nations with poor infra to tech ratios. 

 

Whether or not your side will change its ways to push for more tech heavy nations remains to be seen, since a lot of things will change depending on how this war ends up. 

 

Neither side can fight for a year in this environment, well effectively anyways.  I never meant we would war you for a year, I meant a year from the end of the war our side will be much more ready to fight a round 2 than you guys would be.

 

Edit:  The point I was trying to make with the statement if it was lost is that we have much more damage tolerance than you guys should since we will rebuild faster.  There was also a really good illustration posted by someone showing the average tech lost per nation stats and how many months it would take you guys to rebuild.

 

Coalition A:  loses 1M tech, 1.5K nations

Coalition B:  loses 1M tech, 4.0K nations

 

Coalition A recovers fast than B.  This is very simplified of course, variables such as what tier the tech is lost in, how many of the nations have 0 tech starting and end, etc. are left out.

Edited February 20, 2013 by berbers

[Buds The Man]

See... that graph right there shows what I was stating. Pretty much even damage output regardless of the 3:1 advantage. Many DH/CnG countered the 3:1 advantage by the best way they could, limiting the damage output EQ was able to do with peace mode. In doing so, they have forced a quality over quantity game. And whether you like to admit it or not, the quality of the DH/CnG upper tier was built better than the EQ upper tier.

 

Damage may be even but remember one thing.  This fight is very much David and Goliath in the tech area.  DH/CNG with TOP had a relatively significant advantage there.  For us to take these nations down many of us are having to buy back infra and run in to the meat grinder again.  With out a doubt the upper tier in your coalition has a tech advantage while EQs upper tier was lacking tech. In the end we will continue to grind it down as we are willing to take the damage in order to maintain this war.  As your nations are held in Anarchy your damage output will go down due to the TECH super nuke being taken out of the equation while our damage output should remain a bit more constant. 

[Buds The Man]

Lets be honest here, your coalition can't last a year in war mode against us. 

 

This just goes to show you how having well built nations with proper tech to infra ratios helps out more in the long run than having nations with poor infra to tech ratios. 

 

Whether or not your side will change its ways to push for more tech heavy nations remains to be seen, since a lot of things will change depending on how this war ends up. 

 

Caliph I dont know if that is exactly true.  As long as your nations are held in anarchy with out the options to restock nukes you wont be able to last the year.  While UMB and MK have some super nations with very large WCs I didnt see them that far ahead of nations on this side of the line.  We continue to rotate and nuke and your super tech nukes cant be rebought your tech advantage has been somewhat nuetralized.  If you choose to buy up and out of range which some of you could do you would be sidelined from the war while others would be ground down.  There is no doubt the nation building down by UMB and TOP have created very difficult oppenents but even the mighty will fall with the weight of the world comming down upon them. 

Edited February 20, 2013 by Buds The Man

[Neo Uruk]

 
Umbrella's slot usage pre-war was terrible compared to the Umb of old, lower than MK actually.  TOP's slot usage was like 8% or something.  So unless they all of a sudden start getting back to their previous (like 2 years ago) level of peace-time activity, no they won't recover fast.

Being so far ahead of everyone else does get tiring...letting you guys play catch-up seems fair.

[Brehon]

Yes I was deleted as I had to go out of town to deal with [ooc] some personal issues with my father[/ooc].  I did not leave my alliance, I did not leave my coalition members.  You can take that propaganda and shove it right up your ass.  

 

Try to use more propaganda if you are reaching that hard, you need something else to do.  Morons.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Brehon

[Sir Humphrey]

What is the point of having these threads in an OOC forum if both sides are just going to put their IC spin on the stats anyway?

Edited February 21, 2013 by Sir Humphrey

[Chad]

Yes I was deleted as I had to go out of town to deal with [ooc] some personal issues with my father[/ooc].  I did not leave my alliance, I did not leave my coalition members.  You can take that propaganda and shove it right up your ass.  

 

Try to use more propaganda if you are reaching that hard, you need something else to do.  Morons.

:awesome: Welcome back!  :awesome:

[ChairmanHal]

Considering how many alliances are on the eq side and the near even losses on both if say the Dh/ CNG side is winning. Sure they have a small amount of extra losses but they have dealt back nearly the same amount to an enemy near 3 times larger. 

 

You're not getting it.

 

Facing an enemy that's 3x times their size, in order to be winning they would need to be inflicting more than 3x the damage they are taking.  NS has more value on the DH/C&G side.

 

It gets worse.  Nuke nations on the DH/C&G side will run out of nukes faster and have to face more nuke strikes over the course of the war than a typical EQ nation.  Non-nuke nations will be involved in more engagements, suffer more damage, and get less aid from fewer nations than typical EQ nations.

 

The only way that EQ loses the war is if the DH/C&G side ends it early by convincing the EQ side that it is an unwinnable war and they have every motivation to produce propaganda to that purpose, whether it is skewed statistical charts or constantly badgering EQ proponents with exaggerations and falsehoods.  If EQ stays the course and ignores the propaganda, it is a matter of time before the amount of damage that DH/C&G can inflict will drop off dramatically and they will be forced to surrender or retreat to peace mode FAN style.

 

Be this guy:

 

 

Not this guy: