Sugar Rush War - Damage Tally

[Walshington]

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

 

Heavens no.  That would fly in the face of everything I said in my post.

[bcortell]

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.

 

Wrong. I did not ask how it was possible. I asked him why he thought his AA wasn't doing more damage than it was 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."

So you're saying you have 81 out of 760 decs on NPO. And they have 126 out of 285 wars (just checked; that's not over half, by the way) on you guys.  And you're saying that that, 81 out of 760 and 126 out of 285 wars, is what is causing you guys to not be able to deal more damage than you take.  Got it, thanks. 

 

Yep, no shock there. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by bcortell

[Dochartaigh]

All I am gonna say to bcortell is much what I have said to many others who are trying to gauge shit at 1 round into a global war. It is one round into a global war. How about y'all wait until round 3 or 4 before deciding to dish out any real, or elementary level, commentary. Fact is, for 3 or 4 days of round 1, MI6 was dishing out more than we took. MI6 got hit by TPF and TPF dished out more damage than they took. Thus, MI6 started taking more damage than dealt. 

 

Now we are entering round 2 of the war. 

[IYIyTh]

Wrong. I did not ask how it was possible. I asked him why he thought his AA wasn't doing more damage than it was taking.  

So you're saying you have 81 out of 760 decs on NPO. And they have 126 out of 285 wars (just checked; that's not over half, by the way) on you guys.  And you're saying that that, 81 out of 760 and 126 out of 285 wars, is what is causing you guys to not be able to deal more damage than you take.  Got it, thanks. 

 

Yep, no shock there. 

 

And you got your answer but decided it wasn't satisfactory enough for your brilliant interpretive skills which boil down to "herp, if only they did 30k more damage they would be a good alliance as opposed to not."

[Goldie]

This "analysis" after a week and a half of war just doesn't seem very smart. Once alliances start running out of nukes while still facing a consistent 3 targets per nation, many of whom have no defensive wars and can focus on their offense, you'll see the damage swing more. It won't change much though, I mean hell, we dished out more damage than we took in last war, and we got body-rocked. No one will pretend that we won the war or anything, but the mechanics of the game meant there was a point to where you do more damage to the three guys attacking you combined than they can combine to do to you.

[Commander shepard]

Not all fronts are going to have 3 nations per a target.

Overall the numbers give the polar coalition a margin of less than twice the Sith nations and I imagine on average there will be less than 2 Polar coalition nations per 1 Sith coalition nation.

And I think the ratio will decrease for the Sith coalition even more as the war goes on.

In EQ the losing coalition was outnumbered by 2 and half nations for every 1 nation they had.

[KenoCore]

I think around round five we can see who the real fighters are.

Also, we need an update ;o.

[bcortell]

And you got your answer but decided it wasn't satisfactory enough for your brilliant interpretive skills which boil down to "herp, if only they did 30k more damage they would be a good alliance as opposed to not."

Well, let's not make jumps like that. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by bcortell

[Hob Dobson]

Not all fronts are going to have 3 nations per a target.

Overall the numbers give the polar coalition a margin of less than twice the Sith nations and I imagine on average there will be less than 2 Polar coalition nations per 1 Sith coalition nation.

And I think the ratio will decrease for the Sith coalition even more as the war goes on.

In EQ the losing coalition was outnumbered by 2 and half nations for every 1 nation they had.

 

If anything, that war demonstrated that the ability to soundly outnumber an opponent can be as much, if not more, important than bulk NS or tech totals. Having that advantage affords the numerically superior side an opportunity to isolate individual opponents that pose much of a threat, and prevent them from declaring on "softer" targets or coming to the aid of other nations on their side. In such a situation, a lower ratio than 2:1, of attacking nations to target nations, seems likely.

 

How that can be achieved and exploited is something that I am fully confident that IRON is well aware of.

[Gibsonator21]

And you got your answer but decided it wasn't satisfactory enough for your brilliant interpretive skills which boil down to "herp, if only they did 30k more damage they would be a good alliance as opposed to not."

shut up mi6 is awful and should strive to be more like senpiccolo

Edited November 13, 2013 by Gibsonator21

[Ogaden]

Sorry about this guys I've been sick the last couple days

[Gibsonator21]

no excuses boy

[KenoCore]

It's all good RL > CN, no need to rush things. Clearly from my professional medical experience you mr are not eating enough honey.

[Dochartaigh]

What you should do is give someone else access to the docs so that either one of you can update it. RL over CN mate but I needs my stats.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Stats > RL

[IYIyTh]

Stats > RL

 

Came here to post this

[berbers]

No excuses, back to the stat cave and I will have Alfred bring you a bowl of soup.

[Prodigal Moon]

When do we start getting the nation by nation count of who's left in the upper tier? :ehm:

[kerschbs]

Update? This is the best war thread on the OWF so far, don't do this to us Ogaden!!

[Commander shepard]

The percentages of what alliances lost is probably a better thread.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

Update? This is the best war thread on the OWF so far, don't do this to us Ogaden!!

I was thinking the same thing, therefore I echo this man's sentiments.

[berbers]

I check here multiple times a day and leave disappointed :(

 

Ogaden, please think about me and my disappointment :P

[Gopherbashi]

Update? This is the best war thread on the OWF so far, don't do this to us Ogaden!!

 

NOT SO EASY, IS IT OGADEN?

[Delta1212]

 
NOT SO EASY, IS IT OGADEN?

I remember what it was like running the Sanction Race for a little while and honestly have no idea how you're still doing it.

[IYIyTh]

he subcontracts his stat collection to migrant workers