Jump to content

Question


Neo Uruk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who is worse?

SUN is right above your post, although I will give them the benefit of the doubt considering I've literally heard of them one time before and can't remember when/where from.

CRAP, while on the losing side is certainly no cakewalk, has been fairly abysmal since the start of the war, but again I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence.

NSF and Guinness (who honestly had a lot going against them as well) were both incredibly inept. NSF in particular showed signs of an alliance that was better off just merging.

TDO quite literally rolled over for DBDC and DS -- though I'm sure you'll bring out your fancy stats to prove that five upper tier nations fought back so their damage ratio was better.

That's not exactly 10, but I'd like to think that at least two of those were objectively worse.

[OOC: having a food baby atm so if this is an unclear post it's because of the goddamn ham brah] Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: SUN, they've had the NS advantage this whole war up until NSO's dec,and have consistently put out awful stats.


SUNs damage ratio: 0.62428083818
Atlas damage ratio:0.48763825325

That is as of today. I imagine SUN was doing even better prior to NSOs entrance. And SUN is on the 'losing' side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sides do not matter. As has been pointed out, SUN has had an NS advantage for almost the entire war.

We may be on the winning side but there are obvious factors that for the most part can't be helped at play. Doing a 1:1 damage ratio would be a minor miracle.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUN is right above your post, although I will give them the benefit of the doubt considering I've literally heard of them one time before and can't remember when/where from.

CRAP, while on the losing side is certainly no cakewalk, has been fairly abysmal since the start of the war, but again I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence.

NSF and Guinness (who honestly had a lot going against them as well) were both incredibly inept. NSF in particular showed signs of an alliance that was better off just merging.


SUN is doing significantly better as stated above. CRAP is at 0.35986026927. Worse, but they are on the losing side.

By TDO did you mean Pax Corvus? If so, Pax did well considering the position they were in. They did better than many predicted at least.

NSF and Guinness dont exist so I personally wouldn't vote for them for worst military (but if they were nominated I would have them on the ballot).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sides do not matter. As has been pointed out, SUN has had an NS advantage for almost the entire war.

We may be on the winning side but there are obvious factors that for the most part can't be helped at play. Doing a 1:1 damage ratio would be a minor miracle.


Sides do matter.

We would assume the losing/outgunned side is getting down declared on and (usually) would be getting stagged/kept at war/unable to restock nukes/etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NSF and Guinness existed in 2014. This is a worst military of the year award, not a worst military that exists at the end of the year vote.

And yes, SUN has a better ratio. Wanna know why? They have four more WRCs than us with less nations. Nation creation date is the most overlooked factor of how war-ready somebody can possibly be.

The question of "should Atlas have more WRCs" is obviously answered with "yes," but that's not exactly a cheap purchase and it's not easy to get to that level for the average nation.. It is an error that I'm assuming will be fixed shortly.

Come on, Smurf. You can't assume that every alliance is being down-declared on. Fronts are assigned. It is not "coalition vs coalition" in a pure sense, it is "group of alliances from coalition A fighting coalition B that overlap at alliance C" and SUN wasn't exactly well-covered from the beginning. They held an advantage. One that clearly wasn't capitalized on, but it was there.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Atlas entered the war late and had its choice of targets. Every alliance has its disadvantages, a good military could mask those via PM or something. Atlas didnt. It's as if you literally just told your membership to declare and some did and the rest got massacred.

I'm not sure why you think this is a personal assault.. it isnt. Atlas has done, imo, the worst of any alliance. Except maybe Guiness (but there was a lot of external factors there like their entire membership/MoD leaving on the eve of war).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can break down the stats a bit further. The most recent update of RI5 shows this:

 

CRAP v NPO: 114,875.86 v 122,110.46 

Atlas v Invicta: 295,396.19 v 248,478.05

 

So in wars that can be declared, Atlas does edge out CRAP in damage ratio but that is honestly to be expected since most of those wars are going to be 3v1 easily. Frankly, this is disappointing because Atlas should be able to coordinate with the numerous other alliances involved in hitting Invicta and should have a far better damage ratio. The fact that Atlas should be doing the majority of the declaring means they should be doing far better as they can pick and choose targets and down-declare as well as ensure that if a target has more tech, they can get multiple people hitting said target. CRAP is strictly involved in defensive wars at this moment which means that they don't get to pick and choose and instead have to settle with being down declared on. 

 

To further break it down; Atlas should be able to far more easily cycle their nations in and out of PM as needed or even be able to simply let them sit in WM while rebuilding nukes. Invicta should not be able to have this chance at all (which is actually a failure for all on the winning side). This should mean that despite having more tech, Atlas should be able to nuke the shit outta Invicta to make up the difference. 

 

NPO v CRAP: 71,558.41 v 423,302.14

Invicta v Atlas: 58,823.38 v 334,787

 

This is what Atlas should look like. Or even something similar. Invicta is heavily outdamaging Atlas when they are able to declare. This is a horrible showing on Atlas's part (as well as all alliances fighting Invicta honestly). It shows that Invicta, despite everything aligned against them are still able to DoW and hit soft targets. it also shows just how much of Atlas is soft. I mean 6 times the damage... Yes, by the time that Atlas hit Invicta most of the fluff was already gone but so was their nukes... None of the other alliances arrayed against Invicta is doing this horrible. 

 

Invicta v DS- 1.36 times the damage

Invicta v NPO- 1.6 times the damage

Invicta v TJL- 3.26 times the damage

Invicta v Kashmir- 1.38 times the damage

Invicta v Atlas- 5.69 times the damage

Invicta v GATO- 9.06 times the damage

 

The only alliance doing worse than Atlas in terms of Invicta being able to declare is GATO. That was in 11 wars though so it is probably a given that Invicta managed to hit inactive nations. 

 

DS v Invicta- 3.13 times the damage

NPO v Invicta- 1.46 times the damage

TJL v Invicta- .63 times the damage

Kashmir v Invicta- 3.19 times the damage

Atlas v Invicta- .84 times the damage

GATO v Invicta- 1.21 times the damage

 

So this shows that TJL is the only alliance doing worse than Atlas against Invicta and not by much and that was just 2 wars. Atlas is doing this with 74 wars showing. That is just sad that Invicta is doing better than Atlas in the area that Atlas has full control over. Declaring the actual wars. Atlas was completely unprepared for this war and has blatantly shown itself to be inept at even declaring war against Invictan nations. Though this shows a fault with every alliance against Invicta due simply to how many Invictan nations have been able to DoW on Atlas nations. 

 

Overall- compared to CRAP (both CRAP and Atlas have a lot of their upper tiers in PM); CRAP is showing a 1.06 damage ratio in declaring on NPO and a 5.92 damage ratio with NPO declaring on CRAP. So, CRAP is performing better than Atlas in declaring and only slightly worse getting declared on. And yes, sides matter since CRAP is on the losing side whereas Atlas is on the winning side with Invicta being heavily outnumbered. 

 

The stats speak for themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can break down the stats a bit further. The most recent update of RI5 shows this:

 

CRAP v NPO: 114,875.86 v 122,110.46 

Atlas v Invicta: 295,396.19 v 248,478.05

 

So in wars that can be declared, Atlas does edge out CRAP in damage ratio but that is honestly to be expected since most of those wars are going to be 3v1 easily. Frankly, this is disappointing because Atlas should be able to coordinate with the numerous other alliances involved in hitting Invicta and should have a far better damage ratio. The fact that Atlas should be doing the majority of the declaring means they should be doing far better as they can pick and choose targets and down-declare as well as ensure that if a target has more tech, they can get multiple people hitting said target. CRAP is strictly involved in defensive wars at this moment which means that they don't get to pick and choose and instead have to settle with being down declared on. 

 

To further break it down; Atlas should be able to far more easily cycle their nations in and out of PM as needed or even be able to simply let them sit in WM while rebuilding nukes. Invicta should not be able to have this chance at all (which is actually a failure for all on the winning side). This should mean that despite having more tech, Atlas should be able to nuke the !@#$ outta Invicta to make up the difference. 

 

NPO v CRAP: 71,558.41 v 423,302.14

Invicta v Atlas: 58,823.38 v 334,787

 

This is what Atlas should look like. Or even something similar. Invicta is heavily outdamaging Atlas when they are able to declare. This is a horrible showing on Atlas's part (as well as all alliances fighting Invicta honestly). It shows that Invicta, despite everything aligned against them are still able to DoW and hit soft targets. it also shows just how much of Atlas is soft. I mean 6 times the damage... Yes, by the time that Atlas hit Invicta most of the fluff was already gone but so was their nukes... None of the other alliances arrayed against Invicta is doing this horrible. 

 

Invicta v DS- 1.36 times the damage

Invicta v NPO- 1.6 times the damage

Invicta v TJL- 3.26 times the damage

Invicta v Kashmir- 1.38 times the damage

Invicta v Atlas- 5.69 times the damage

Invicta v GATO- 9.06 times the damage

 

The only alliance doing worse than Atlas in terms of Invicta being able to declare is GATO. That was in 11 wars though so it is probably a given that Invicta managed to hit inactive nations. 

 

DS v Invicta- 3.13 times the damage

NPO v Invicta- 1.46 times the damage

TJL v Invicta- .63 times the damage

Kashmir v Invicta- 3.19 times the damage

Atlas v Invicta- .84 times the damage

GATO v Invicta- 1.21 times the damage

 

So this shows that TJL is the only alliance doing worse than Atlas against Invicta and not by much and that was just 2 wars. Atlas is doing this with 74 wars showing. That is just sad that Invicta is doing better than Atlas in the area that Atlas has full control over. Declaring the actual wars. Atlas was completely unprepared for this war and has blatantly shown itself to be inept at even declaring war against Invictan nations. Though this shows a fault with every alliance against Invicta due simply to how many Invictan nations have been able to DoW on Atlas nations. 

 

Overall- compared to CRAP (both CRAP and Atlas have a lot of their upper tiers in PM); CRAP is showing a 1.06 damage ratio in declaring on NPO and a 5.92 damage ratio with NPO declaring on CRAP. So, CRAP is performing better than Atlas in declaring and only slightly worse getting declared on. And yes, sides matter since CRAP is on the losing side whereas Atlas is on the winning side with Invicta being heavily outnumbered. 

 

The stats speak for themselves. 

 

Doch as always, you've hit the nail on the head when you attempt to. We've been shitty this war, although to call us the worst military when it was already known and discussed we'd do shit this war if we didn't get our original target, we were supposed to have declared 2 weeks before we did but kept getting told to hold off then literally hours before we declared we were pulled off and watched as our original target got little coverage for the sake of "escalation" (which I do plan on bringing up to those who brought the change and to be honest, I'm don't really care what they do/say about it because they know it was bullshit to do what they did and when they did it).

 

What I'm about to say will seem like yet another excuse but look at it from the perspective that it isn't an excuse until you read it: When you tell your members to be on during this stretch and they do it but get told we aren't going to war the first time you know it's nothing really just a slight change (we were experiencing high levels of activity the first time), the second time we were going to go in we got maybe 5% less active than the first time, once again we were told not to go in due to some "recent developments" and had our target changed for the first time, going into the 3rd time (mind you it's been around 2 weeks since we were first supposed to enter at this point) we got switched off our target, Thanksgiving was coming up and the following week a lot of us had finals so we took a blow on our American membership activity (which makes up a good bit out of activity) factor that in with those who are foreign to America getting annoyed with the delays, that led to a large "we'll believe it when we see it" feeling even myself had this feeling. So we were ~72% active and had nations who were supposed to be in peace mode coming out (for whatever reason I don't know - this is where a lot of our damage comes from tbh). In all I've been saying since before the "worst military" thing started that we were performing very horribly and I'll be addressing this post-war.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying we don't have reasons to be called the worst, but there are definitely reasons as to why that we couldn't really control. Overall, I'd accept being the worst because really like you have shown up above statistically we are. The moment I found out we were going to hit Invicta I told the upper government we were fucked and would get exposed, but there wasn't much we could do at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be fair, as I was going through the stats, y'all aren't the worst military of 2014. Are you the worst on your side in this war? Yes. Undeniably yes but for all of 2014... I would honestly say that TDO was far worse imo. I feel y'all on the waiting game bro. Totally feel you on that. We waited for more than a month...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can break down the stats a bit further. The most recent update of RI5 shows this:
 
CRAP v NPO: 114,875.86 v 122,110.46 
Atlas v Invicta: 295,396.19 v 248,478.05
 
So in wars that can be declared, Atlas does edge out CRAP in damage ratio but that is honestly to be expected since most of those wars are going to be 3v1 easily. Frankly, this is disappointing because Atlas should be able to coordinate with the numerous other alliances involved in hitting Invicta and should have a far better damage ratio. The fact that Atlas should be doing the majority of the declaring means they should be doing far better as they can pick and choose targets and down-declare as well as ensure that if a target has more tech, they can get multiple people hitting said target. CRAP is strictly involved in defensive wars at this moment which means that they don't get to pick and choose and instead have to settle with being down declared on. 
 
To further break it down; Atlas should be able to far more easily cycle their nations in and out of PM as needed or even be able to simply let them sit in WM while rebuilding nukes. Invicta should not be able to have this chance at all (which is actually a failure for all on the winning side). This should mean that despite having more tech, Atlas should be able to nuke the !@#$ outta Invicta to make up the difference. 
 
NPO v CRAP: 71,558.41 v 423,302.14
Invicta v Atlas: 58,823.38 v 334,787
 
This is what Atlas should look like. Or even something similar. Invicta is heavily outdamaging Atlas when they are able to declare. This is a horrible showing on Atlas's part (as well as all alliances fighting Invicta honestly). It shows that Invicta, despite everything aligned against them are still able to DoW and hit soft targets. it also shows just how much of Atlas is soft. I mean 6 times the damage... Yes, by the time that Atlas hit Invicta most of the fluff was already gone but so was their nukes... None of the other alliances arrayed against Invicta is doing this horrible. 
 
Invicta v DS- 1.36 times the damage
Invicta v NPO- 1.6 times the damage
Invicta v TJL- 3.26 times the damage
Invicta v Kashmir- 1.38 times the damage
Invicta v Atlas- 5.69 times the damage
Invicta v GATO- 9.06 times the damage
 
The only alliance doing worse than Atlas in terms of Invicta being able to declare is GATO. That was in 11 wars though so it is probably a given that Invicta managed to hit inactive nations. 
 
DS v Invicta- 3.13 times the damage
NPO v Invicta- 1.46 times the damage
TJL v Invicta- .63 times the damage
Kashmir v Invicta- 3.19 times the damage
Atlas v Invicta- .84 times the damage
GATO v Invicta- 1.21 times the damage
 
So this shows that TJL is the only alliance doing worse than Atlas against Invicta and not by much and that was just 2 wars. Atlas is doing this with 74 wars showing. That is just sad that Invicta is doing better than Atlas in the area that Atlas has full control over. Declaring the actual wars. Atlas was completely unprepared for this war and has blatantly shown itself to be inept at even declaring war against Invictan nations. Though this shows a fault with every alliance against Invicta due simply to how many Invictan nations have been able to DoW on Atlas nations. 
 
Overall- compared to CRAP (both CRAP and Atlas have a lot of their upper tiers in PM); CRAP is showing a 1.06 damage ratio in declaring on NPO and a 5.92 damage ratio with NPO declaring on CRAP. So, CRAP is performing better than Atlas in declaring and only slightly worse getting declared on. And yes, sides matter since CRAP is on the losing side whereas Atlas is on the winning side with Invicta being heavily outnumbered. 
 
The stats speak for themselves. 


This post wins the tread. Shows how bad atlas is doing and shows how good invicta is doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually GATO is just doin quite horrible from what I have seen from the RI5 stats... And I would say they are doing the worst against Invicta (I mean Invicta has a positive 9 times damage ratio against them on the offense and GATO only has a positive 1.21 times on the offense against Invicta). Given how long GATO has been around compared to Atlas, GATO should have been prepared and ready. They have an overall negative damage ratio as well so really, I guess Atlas may not be the worst military on their side. TJL also has a negative ratio amongst others on that side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how we're winning "Worst Military" but only have 3 votes for least likely to fail in 2015.

Our FA position certainly isn't unassailable, and if that holds true then our "worst military" would certainly cause us to crumble under pressure, right?

Oh wait it's just crank Rey day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post wins the tread. Shows how bad atlas is doing and shows how good invicta is doing.

 
As much as I too like posts about Invicta (Thanks for the detailed post Dochartaigh. Both because, well, and because it's just a quality post), this almost physically hurts me.
 

Not sure how we're winning "Worst Military" but only have 3 votes for least likely to fail in 2015.

Our FA position certainly isn't unassailable, and if that holds true then our "worst military" would certainly cause us to crumble under pressure, right?

Oh wait it's just crank Rey day.


When people base their view on an alliance because of a few loud voices, they're going to remember you.

Stop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

False about Guinness and North Star Federation and you know it.

 

I'll provide a counter-point of an alliance which entered the war in a similar way to Atlas but for the other side (and are only at war with one AA). That being Coalition of Royal Allied Powers who appear to have a worse ratio than Atlas has but as they are on what people seem to call the "losing side" appears to get a bye when it comes to the statistics. So can anyone please explain how Atlas have done worse than the Coalition of Royal Allied Powers. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure what is really false. Riot didn't even nuke Guinness it was over before Nukes could even be used. They also lost half of their membership/gov a few hours before the war. Though but do you really expect someone with no nukes to do fairly well when they can't even pick, and choose their targets? Atlas has so many more positives this war than Guinness was ever able to have, but I digress. Maybe in exact pure numbers it;s skewed for Guinness, because we quaded what was left, and had peace the next day, or couldn't attack because they turtled, or were too inactive to hit back. NSF, from my two wars with them, despite nuke coverage actually tried, and were declaring on Riot the first time, and the second time they just attacked LT, and I believe they have a better damage ration than Atlas has on Invicta. But I digress, as I said in my original post you aren't the worst military, you're just doing the worst this year. The two are vastly different, but can be construed to mean the same. 

 

 


BMTH the "pure numbers" don't tell the full story and you damn well know it.


Atlas would have performed much better had they not been re-assigned targets. There was an optimum window for them to attack, and that window passed. They were tossed onto people who had melted infra off and thus had heavy tech/wonder advantages in their tiers. It is a sloppy effort, surely, but yet again it is not nearly the worst.

 

They tell a good portion of the story, it shows that you are doing vastly worse on a winning side. Doing slightly better than those on the losing side. As I said all along, you don't have the worst military of 2014, you actually had people on at update, can declare on people, do some damage, you have a half-way decent MoD etcetc It just irks me that you're using excuses to make your point. When every AA has excuses, it's easy to make excuses. Franz, and Kiloist actually tried to address problems, even Kiloist is saying they knew they were going to do horrible, and so did Franz. I just feel that you're better than excuses, and wanted to push you to see that it's not up for us to change your mind, it's up to you to change our minds, not by using excuses, and reasons why. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but every AA has excuses, when you remove said excuses, you have the pure numbers, as Doch showed. 

 

 

Not sure how we're winning "Worst Military" but only have 3 votes for least likely to fail in 2015.

Our FA position certainly isn't unassailable, and if that holds true then our "worst military" would certainly cause us to crumble under pressure, right?

Oh wait it's just crank Rey day.

 

 

First point, just look how far MHA has gone, and lasted. Having the worst military doesn't mean you'll fail.

 

Just having people on an AA performing badly in war doesn't mean you'll crumble. As long as you keep trying, there is no crumbling because people fight badly. I mean NSF lasted over a year?

 

I actually like you, and you know that. So your last point doesn't really hold water for me harping on Atlas doing the worst in 2014, not that they have the worst military. Not that people can tell the difference around here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making excuses, I'm saying that outside factors hindering Atlas' military performance means that it is not the worst military. If we were doing this bad on a much softer target, I'd eat all the criticism. However, there's no reason that we're anywhere near as bad as some AAs listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree. Atlas does not have the best military and have a lot to fix up there but they are not the worst. Lookin from a purely statistical viewpoint, PPO should be nominated since they are only fighting Legion (who is fighting 6 total alliances) and Legion has a 16 times damage ratio offensively against PPO and PPO has .89 damage ratio offensively against Legion. So, if you wish to go with pure numbers, PPO has by far the worse military seen this year. They are losing all around against Legion. 

 

yeah, looking through the stats from a pure numbers view, PPO is the only one truly doing worse than Atlas. The rest have multiple alliances hitting them, so to break it down would not only take forever but the results would be skewed since some alliances hitting would be doing heavier lifting than others and some alliances may only be doing coverage on alliances while hitting a key alliance harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

yeah, looking through the stats from a pure numbers view, PPO is the only one truly doing worse than Atlas. The rest have multiple alliances hitting them, so to break it down would not only take forever but the results would be skewed since some alliances hitting would be doing heavier lifting than others and some alliances may only be doing coverage on alliances while hitting a key alliance harder. 

 

 

Knights of the Round table 469,513.62 102,003.93

 

Alpha Wolves 174,643.64 62,256.43

 

OcUK 150,583.37 54,635.56 39

Edited by Walshington
Link to comment
Share on other sites


By TDO did you mean Pax Corvus? If so, Pax did well considering the position they were in. They did better than many predicted at least.
 

 

I don't know about others, but the three members of Pax Corvus, who I have fought, were not coordinating at all. Damage they have done to my nation was almost entirely from nukes and CMs (on last days also aircraft, when infra became cheaper then planes, so I was buying limited amount of aircraft only for attacks).

Edited by murtibing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also pretty telling that, Invicta currently has 12 declared wars on Atlas vs 6 Atlas declarations on Invicta.

 

So out of the 70 or so members in your alliance, 40 or so who are not in PM, you are currently declaring 6 offensive wars, in a battle where you should be winning.  So not only are you getting your asses kicked, you aren't even close to pulling your weight. 

 

You should be embarrassed, and you should be apologizing to NPO and DS every day for the fact that they are forced to pick up the slack that you and GATO are unable to do.

 

If you are going to complain about not being prepared for war, then you don't keep your entire top tier in PM, where it is impossible for them to send aid out to your smaller nations.  Unless you are terrified of the 4 Invicta nations above 100k coming out of PM and laying waste to your top tier.

 

You can make all the excuses in the world about why you are doing poorly, congrats those same excuses are part of what make you a terrible military.

 

Looking at your stats and reading this thread, I would have 0 issues voting Atlas as the worst military of the year.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...