Sugar Rush War - Damage Tally

[Delta1212]

 
Yes.  We aren't at the point where nukes should be all out making the number important as raw numbers, but the numbers and tiers should be allowing higher tech/wrc nations to be attacking lower tech/nonwrc nations and making a large(r) difference.  Based upon the damage, and cursory examinations of pm, it seems like there isn't nearly as much of that happening as one might have expected going in.

If I'm in two wars and my opponent is in four, I can nuke two nations a day, he can nuke four. Whichever side has more nations fighting is going to eat more nukes, at least this early before they've started running out.

I suspect NpO's side has a higher nation count engaged in the war and is being nuked more times per day, but that this is offset by stronger nukes, better conventional damage (again, from more fighters) and more favorable match ups from the initial declarations.

It also means that while there isn't a huge difference in total damage, the damage on NpO's side is more spread out while that on NSO's side is more concentrated.

[hartfw]

If I'm in two wars and my opponent is in four, I can nuke two nations a day, he can nuke four. Whichever side has more nations fighting is going to eat more nukes, at least this early before they've started running out.

I suspect NpO's side has a higher nation count engaged in the war and is being nuked more times per day, but that this is offset by stronger nukes, better conventional damage (again, from more fighters) and more favorable match ups from the initial declarations.

It also means that while there isn't a huge difference in total damage, the damage on NpO's side is more spread out while that on NSO's side is more concentrated.

 

Yea, obviously if the nations involved are dramatically skewed you will get that effect.  On the otherhand, most alliances don't have their attackers just take 1 target as you are eating a nuke anyway.  So, if it is 2 slots per attacker, and on average 2 of 3 slots covered per defender, then you get back to an even number of nations actively involved.  (Obviously damage is concentrated still).

 

It would be nice if someone had nations involved in war or barring that nukes eaten per alliance/side.  

[Gopherbashi]

As of last night, Polar's side has 779 nations at war, while Sith's had 516.  That won't include nations that used to be at war, but currently aren't.

[hartfw]

As of last night, Polar's side has 779 nations at war, while Sith's had 516.  That won't include nations that used to be at war, but currently aren't.

 

Thanks!  Any chance you handy dandy have nukes per side?

 

(Given that ratio, looks like Polar's side is doing well)

[Delta1212]

As of last night, Polar's side has 779 nations at war, while Sith's had 516.  That won't include nations that used to be at war, but currently aren't.

Assuming that distribution holds in the nuclear ranges at least roughly, Polar's side is then eating 3 nukes for every 2 that NSO's side eats.

Makes the damage ratio easier to understand. Edited November 11, 2013 by Delta1212

[IYIyTh]

So, MI6, LoSS, MW, and Invicta are the only AA's on that side unable to do more damage than they take (excluding the small guys).  No shock there. 

 

Yes, that is clearly the takeaway.

 

Moron.

[Gopherbashi]

Thanks!  Any chance you handy dandy have nukes per side?

 

(Given that ratio, looks like Polar's side is doing well)

 

Polar's has 26k nukes to Sith's 17k.  As for actual strikes, I don't have that data.

[berbers]

Assuming that distribution holds in the nuclear ranges at least roughly, Polar's side is then eating 3 nukes for every 2 that NSO's side eats.

Makes the damage ratio easier to understand.

 

The tech differentials across the nations that can take the most damage are skewed way more heavily in the Polar's side though.  I.E, Polar's side has the "biggest" nukes, which should reduce the impact of 3:2.

 

If I ever had the time, it would be interesting to try and reduce all the variables to a point where "skill" was the only one left and see who did better!  Unfortunately (fortunately) I will never have that much free time :P

[bcortell]

No shock that you can't read a spreadsheet either. Since all four of those alliances are dishing out more damage than their opponents based on the very spreadsheets in this thread.

Alright, time to do some teaching. 

 

A couple things we need to know.  

 

Damage taken is damage done to their AA.  Damage inflicted is damage that they're doing to other AA's.  Both are displayed at the top of the data with damage taken on the left, damage inflicted on the right. 

 

">" This symbol- the greater than symbol.  For our purposes, it means the number on the left is larger than the number on the right. (Alternatively, "<" this would tell us that the number on the right is larger than the number on the left.)

 

Finally, we need to know how to count.  We need to be to be able to figure out what number is actually bigger than the next.  I'm going to assume to are able to do this.

 

Now, I have boxed the four AA's I mentioned in my post. And, I've done the work for you. I've figured out which number is greater and put the corresponding symbol next to it. If a ">" appears, we can say that the AA has taken more damage than it has inflicted.  If a "<" appears, we can say the AA has inflicted more damage than it has taken. 

 

Hope this pictures clears it up for you. 

 

[IYIyTh]

From your brilliant analysis we can also infer that Non Grata,  NPO, Umbrella, TOP, MI6 are very close are already close to being considered "bad," alliances at war.

 

We can also infer from your wonderfully elementary analysis that the Mostly Harmless Alliance, The International and House Baratheon, Anarchy Inc, Kashmir, Screaming Red Asses, LSF, UCR are all fantastic at war. Additionally, Mogar's alliance could single handedly defeat any of the aforementioned alliances above,

 

Well done sir

[renegade4box]

DBDC wins the damage ratio challenge. 

[Walshington]

From your brilliant analysis we can also infer that Non Grata,  NPO, Umbrella, TOP, MI6 are very close are already close to being considered "bad," alliances at war.

 

We can also infer from your wonderfully elementary analysis that the Mostly Harmless Alliance, The International and House Baratheon, Anarchy Inc, Kashmir, Screaming Red Asses, LSF, UCR are all fantastic at war. Additionally, Mogar's alliance could single handedly defeat any of the aforementioned alliances above,

 

Well done sir

 

Well, it is well done.  But it is not "analysis" by any means -- it is simply data, and data that measures only variable:  damage inflicted and taken.  While not without use -- and I think this may be your point -- too many conclusions should not be drawn from this one data point.  This data set is very accurate in presenting the one thing it does measure, but there are external factors influencing the numbers.

 

The Red Ass numbers, as an example, are what they are.  External factors not taken into account: Kashmir is fighting Kaskus and TOP as well, so their slots are full while SRA  nations generally have one or two nations to concentrate on.  The match-ups between individual nations is also more pronounced when dealing with two micros -- that unprepared, inactive nation at the wrong NS is going to have a greater affect on an alliance of 10 or 30 members than one of 100 or 200. The more you drill down, the more such external factors affect the data.

 

I would suggest that the data set becomes more useful in analysis when not looking at the micro (individual alliances) but the macro (coalitions).  This provides a reasonable barometer for how the coalitions are performing up to this point in their respective wars.  Of course, the only point that matters is the end -- and there is no guarantee that the coalition that has caused more damage will win the war, much as scoring high on an IQ test in no guarantee of a successful life.

 

Either way, the data is what it is, and nothing more.  Still glad to have it -- thanks for putting the work in, Ogaden.

[bcortell]

From your brilliant analysis we can also infer that Non Grata,  NPO, Umbrella, TOP, MI6 are very close are already close to being considered "bad," alliances at war.

 

We can also infer from your wonderfully elementary analysis that the Mostly Harmless Alliance, The International and House Baratheon, Anarchy Inc, Kashmir, Screaming Red Asses, LSF, UCR are all fantastic at war. Additionally, Mogar's alliance could single handedly defeat any of the aforementioned alliances above,

 

Well done sir

You seem mad.  Look at what I said- MI6, Loss, MW, and Invicta are the only AA's on that side (excluding the small guys) that are unable to do more damage than they take. 

 

If you want to go on and on about why you're unable to do more damage than you take, feel free. It won't bother me, but don't assume I'm included or care about that. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said (backed up by the stats). Your inability to understand that does you no good. 

[Delta1212]

 
Well, it is well done.  But it is not "analysis" by any means -- it is simply data, and data that measures only variable:  damage inflicted and taken.  While not without use -- and I think this may be your point -- too many conclusions should not be drawn from this one data point.  This data set is very accurate in presenting the one thing it does measure, but there are external factors influencing the numbers.
 
The Red Ass numbers, as an example, are what they are.  External factors not taken into account: Kashmir is fighting Kaskus and TOP as well, so their slots are full while SRA  nations generally have one or two nations to concentrate on.  The match-ups between individual nations is also more pronounced when dealing with two micros -- that unprepared, inactive nation at the wrong NS is going to have a greater affect on an alliance of 10 or 30 members than one of 100 or 200. The more you drill down, the more such external factors affect the data.
 
I would suggest that the data set becomes more useful in analysis when not looking at the micro (individual alliances) but the macro (coalitions).  This provides a reasonable barometer for how the coalitions are performing up to this point in their respective wars.  Of course, the only point that matters is the end -- and there is no guarantee that the coalition that has caused more damage will win the war, much as scoring high on an IQ test in no guarantee of a successful life.
 
Either way, the data is what it is, and nothing more.  Still glad to have it -- thanks for putting the work in, Ogaden.

Nobody looks at these things to figure out who is going to win. Anyone paying attention can tell you which side is going to win a global conflict within hours (days at the most) of the war starting.

People look at the stats to see who is most effective, who is taking the brunt of it, things like that. If you're using it as a barometer for who is going to win, you're probably on the losing side.

So while the alliance level is certainly more prone to variable circumstances, I'm not really sure how the data is more "useful" on the coalition level since there's not much you can use it for.

[Walshington]

Nobody looks at these things to figure out who is going to win. Anyone paying attention can tell you which side is going to win a global conflict within hours (days at the most) of the war starting.

People look at the stats to see who is most effective, who is taking the brunt of it, things like that. If you're using it as a barometer for who is going to win, you're probably on the losing side.

So while the alliance level is certainly more prone to variable circumstances, I'm not really sure how the data is more "useful" on the coalition level since there's not much you can use it for.

Pretty sure we're on the same side here.  That is almost exactly what I meant when I said RE: Myth's post:

 

This provides a reasonable barometer for how the coalitions are performing up to this point in their respective wars.  Of course, the only point that matters is the end -- and there is no guarantee that the coalition that has caused more damage will win the war, much as scoring high on an IQ test in no guarantee of a successful life.

 

Not a barometer of who will win.  "More useful", not the be all/end all of predictors.  The Twain statement oft-quoted remains valid.

 

That said, I am almost certainly on the losing side. C'est la guerre.

[IYIyTh]

 

You seem mad.  Look at what I said- MI6, Loss, MW, and Invicta are the only AA's on that side (excluding the small guys) that are unable to do more damage than they take. 

 

If you want to go on and on about why you're unable to do more damage than you take, feel free. It won't bother me, but don't assume I'm included or care about that. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said (backed up by the stats). Your inability to understand that does you no good. 

 

I'm certainly upset that anything but utter basic elementary analysis is outside of your comprehension.

 

Also, when playing the role of a smug prick -- try not to backpedal. You also added "No shock there," to your little meaningless quip.

 

As for going on and on, please do not be offended when someone calls you on the carpet for being stupid. Because you're being stupid.

 

The only thing I'm unable to do is surmise why you are so insistent on being an ignoramus.

Edited November 11, 2013 by IYIyTh

[IYIyTh]

Well, it is well done.  But it is not "analysis" by any means -- it is simply data, and data that measures only variable:  damage inflicted and taken.  While not without use -- and I think this may be your point -- too many conclusions should not be drawn from this one data point.  This data set is very accurate in presenting the one thing it does measure, but there are external factors influencing the numbers.

 

The Red Ass numbers, as an example, are what they are.  External factors not taken into account: Kashmir is fighting Kaskus and TOP as well, so their slots are full while SRA  nations generally have one or two nations to concentrate on.  The match-ups between individual nations is also more pronounced when dealing with two micros -- that unprepared, inactive nation at the wrong NS is going to have a greater affect on an alliance of 10 or 30 members than one of 100 or 200. The more you drill down, the more such external factors affect the data.

 

I would suggest that the data set becomes more useful in analysis when not looking at the micro (individual alliances) but the macro (coalitions).  This provides a reasonable barometer for how the coalitions are performing up to this point in their respective wars.  Of course, the only point that matters is the end -- and there is no guarantee that the coalition that has caused more damage will win the war, much as scoring high on an IQ test in no guarantee of a successful life.

 

Either way, the data is what it is, and nothing more.  Still glad to have it -- thanks for putting the work in, Ogaden.

 

 

Based on the data would you conclusively say that SRA is doing better in their war effort than the NPO?

[bcortell]

 

 

 

I'm certainly upset that anything but utter basic elementary analysis is outside of your comprehension.

 

Also, when playing the role of a smug prick -- try not to backpedal. You also added "No shock there," to your little meaningless quip.

 

As for going on and on, please do not be offended when someone calls you on the carpet for being stupid. Because you're being stupid.

 

The only thing I'm unable to do is surmise why you are so insistent on being an ignoramus.

Not at all. I take it you are shocked that your AA has been left out in the cold? You really thought you guys were a core piece that needed to be protected? I mean, come on now..  That isn't shocking to me nor others. 

 

I'm not sure which post you are referring to- the one where the guy couldn't interpret the data correctly or yours, where you do the same thing. No one is saying any AA is bad or good with the previous posts.  

 

I'm just glad that I'm not in the channels where you guys are bitching.  Your faux bragging on here doesn't help either. 

[Blue Lightning]

Oh, common man dont be that lazy. :D

 

Indeed Ogaden, stats are great and beautifully laid out. Thank you.

 

Why nobody did this for previous wars? :mad:  ;D

 

I don't think it's that much to ask for, it would only take 2 minutes and would be better to look at. I get your point though and agree that these stats are sweet.

 

You would know as you are the king of disreputable actions inflicted from one alliance to another, or coalition for that matter.  :ehm:

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by Blue Lightning

[IYIyTh]

Not at all. I take it you are shocked that your AA has been left out in the cold? You really thought you guys were a core piece that needed to be protected? I mean, come on now..  That isn't shocking to me nor others. 

 

I'm not sure which post you are referring to- the one where the guy couldn't interpret the data correctly or yours, where you do the same thing. No one is saying any AA is bad or good with the previous posts.  

 

I'm just glad that I'm not in the channels where you guys are bitching.  Your faux bragging on here doesn't help either. 

 

 

Again , you're confusing IC/OOC

 

I'm talking about your intentionally dense analysis where you believe an alliance's worth is based on simply whether they deal more damage than they receive. Go play politics in the Alliance Politics forum.

[bcortell]

Again , you're confusing IC/OOC

 

I'm talking about your intentionally dense analysis where you believe an alliance's worth is based on simply whether they deal more damage than they receive. Go play politics in the Alliance Politics forum.

Alright, I'll ask this since you're not getting it.  Why do you think your AA isn't dealing more damage than it's taking?

[JoshuaR]

This is interesting so far though. It illustrates how in limited wars, damage will be roughly equal. CN truly is a numbers game. Having the numbers means you can spread out roughly equal damage. And in the longer term, it also means more nukes and an expected continued output of damage probably higher than the other side's.

[Shimmer]

Alright, I'll ask this since you're not getting it.  Why do you think your AA isn't dealing more damage than it's taking?

In the simplest of examples.

 

Suppose two MI6 nations hit one NPO nation.

 

The NPO nation can nuke both MI6 nations. However, only one MI6 nation can nuke the NPO nation. Who did more damage? The NPO nation.

 

Is that the case here I don't know, but you asked how it was possible. 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

In theory, over a long enough time the NPO nation will run out of nuclear weapons and MI6 will then continue to do more damage as they are more double-upped.

Edited November 11, 2013 by TimLee

[berbers]

Edit:  Oops not the propaganda thread, mod please delete

Edited November 11, 2013 by berbers

[IYIyTh]

Alright, I'll ask this since you're not getting it.  Why do you think your AA isn't dealing more damage than it's taking?

 

You mean ignoring your elementary statistical analysis?

 

It's very simple. The New Pacific Order focused a bulk of their attacks (over half of their offensive declarations,) on MI6. As you will note, MI6 is approximately 81 nations large. There are about 128 New Pacific Order declarations on MI6 nations, and 81 declarations on New Pacific Order nations by MI6. However, there are also 760 wars on the New Pacific Order acrossed the entire coalition. As you may or may not be able to comprehend, a nation can only be nuked once per day -- providing for the bulk of damage being done in such an affair. Due to game mechanics, the NPO can give more than it may receive and there is your disparity at a simple glance. Nevermind tier disadvantages, down declares or any number of factors.

 

But maybe you should just listen to Tim.

 

Never mind putting up pound for pound more output than just about everyone.

 

What was it you said, "No shock there."

Edited November 11, 2013 by IYIyTh