The 18th War of Argent Relevancy stats (not done particularly well)

[SeaBeeGipson]

Thank you both for the stats.

Always a fun read and cool to look through.

[Tiberius]

Some econ stats for our stat junkies!

 

Top 20 Sorted By Cash Sent since the war began:

 

Top 20 Sorted By Tech Received:

[Bionic redhead]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Some econ stats for our stat junkies!

 

Top 20 Sorted By Cash Sent since the war began:

 

 

That's a lot of cash sent out by NPO and CLAWS. Almost as if they have a lot of garbage nations on their side that don't have warchests. Frankly if I was them I'd be really annoyed at being surrounded by so much dead weight.

 

Anyway, onto a different note, guys can you stop fighting @Lyanna Mormont. She's overtaking me in casualties and I don't want that to happen. So if she wars you, can you just delete your fallout shelter, not rebuy troops and just roll over and die so that she kills and loses as few troops as possible.

[Lyanna Mormont]

1 hour ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

That's a lot of cash sent out by NPO and CLAWS. Almost as if they have a lot of garbage nations on their side that don't have warchests. Frankly if I was them I'd be really annoyed at being surrounded by so much dead weight.

 

Anyway, onto a different note, guys can you stop fighting @Lyanna Mormont. She's overtaking me in casualties and I don't want that to happen. So if she wars you, can you just delete your fallout shelter, not rebuy troops and just roll over and die so that she kills and loses as few troops as possible.

 

You bastard. How dare you. 

[Bdiah]

2 hours ago, Bionic redhead said:

Anyway, onto a different note, guys can you stop fighting @Lyanna Mormont. She's overtaking me in casualties and I don't want that to happen.

You far surpass her with your warchest.  If this war extends on for another 4-6 months, I think you will be fine in securing your war score dominance. 

[Lyanna Mormont]

6 minutes ago, Bdiah said:

You far surpass her with your warchest.  If this war extends on for another 4-6 months, I think you will be fine in securing your war score dominance. 

 

#239

 

 

[Jazzy95]

2 hours ago, Bionic redhead said:

That's a lot of cash sent out by NPO and CLAWS. Almost as if they have a lot of garbage nations on their side that don't have warchests. Frankly if I was them I'd be really annoyed at being surrounded by so much dead weight.

Considering the amount of aid NG has received vs what you've sent, I wonder if your allies are thinking the same thing.

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

That's a lot of cash sent out by NPO and CLAWS. Almost as if they have a lot of garbage nations on their side that don't have warchests. Frankly if I was them I'd be really annoyed at being surrounded by so much dead weight.

 

Anyway, onto a different note, guys can you stop fighting @Lyanna Mormont. She's overtaking me in casualties and I don't want that to happen. So if she wars you, can you just delete your fallout shelter, not rebuy troops and just roll over and die so that she kills and loses as few troops as possible.

There is poor warchests on both sides of the conflict. That's always happened no matter which war. The difference in this conflict is that one side has an untouchable upper tier who can continue pumping these aid figures out and continue to grow their cash pile, while the other side depletes their own warchests while fighting. So essentially if what you state is true it isn't a burden to NPO or CLAWS, whereas the poor warchests in your coalition are a burden and the longer the war continues the more that is going to be borne out.

[Bionic redhead]

7 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

You bastard. How dare you. 

 

[kerschbs]

9 hours ago, Jazzy95 said:

Considering the amount of aid NG has received vs what you've sent, I wonder if your allies are thinking the same thing.

NG net damage: 2.44m, second highest of any alliance on Bob.

 

CLAWS net damage: -1.3m, lowest of any alliance on Bob. 
 

Which of us is dead weight?
 

Go home Jazzy, you’re drunk. 
 

edit: and you’re not even fighting DBDC or NPO’s super tier nations. You’re losing across the board in NS ranges you should be heavily favored at. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by kerschbs
You’re even worse than I thought

[Jazzy95]

7 hours ago, kerschbs said:

Which of us is dead weight?
 

Go home Jazzy, you’re drunk. 

 

I'm just drinking stats and spitting facts.

[Bdiah]

15 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

#239

 

 

Happy to be on the list and moving up.  Doubt I'll get to your level, but I can dream.

[kerschbs]

18 hours ago, Jazzy95 said:

 

I'm just drinking stats and spitting facts.

We fight considerably more wars than CLAWS does, it’s not surprising that we would lose NS faster. However we do considerably more damage than we take, compared to CLAWS who fights less wars and takes more damage than they dish out on average. We also have less members (thought it’s close,) and are fighting a lot more nations. 

 

From the start of the war until 10/13 (most recent stats I have) 

 

Claws
recieved wars - 428
declared wars - 453
Total 881

 

Non Grata
recieved wars - 508
declared wars - 667
Total 1175

[Johnny Apocalypse]

On 10/16/2022 at 6:32 AM, Tiberius said:

There is poor warchests on both sides of the conflict. That's always happened no matter which war. The difference in this conflict is that one side has an untouchable upper tier who can continue pumping these aid figures out and continue to grow their cash pile, while the other side depletes their own warchests while fighting. So essentially if what you state is true it isn't a burden to NPO or CLAWS, whereas the poor warchests in your coalition are a burden and the longer the war continues the more that is going to be borne out.

 

This has been the case before as well, you can have an untouchable upper-tier pumping aid to your cash strapped troops all you want but you still have to make sure they use the money properly, otherwise you're just making piggybanks for the opponent to smash open. 

 

Personally I think it's a bit weak that your side's idea of victory is contingent on the fact that you've got the biggest piles of gold as a result of not doing anything for years. People who have poorer warchests are better players than people who are sat on billions because they've at least been playing the game beyond back-collecting and doing tech deals.

 

It'd be interesting if there was some kind of inflation mechanic in place that depreciated the spending power of people who have absurd warchests and do nothing with it for years, or conversely increased the spending power for nations who actively use their cash. It would present a chance to meaningfully rebalance the playing field and create an incentive for people to try and catch up to the larger nations, as well as for the larger nations needing to participate more to maintain their positions.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

This has been the case before as well, you can have an untouchable upper-tier pumping aid to your cash strapped troops all you want but you still have to make sure they use the money properly, otherwise you're just making piggybanks for the opponent to smash open. 

 

Personally I think it's a bit weak that your side's idea of victory is contingent on the fact that you've got the biggest piles of gold as a result of not doing anything for years. People who have poorer warchests are better players than people who are sat on billions because they've at least been playing the game beyond back-collecting and doing tech deals.

 

It'd be interesting if there was some kind of inflation mechanic in place that depreciated the spending power of people who have absurd warchests and do nothing with it for years, or conversely increased the spending power for nations who actively use their cash. It would present a chance to meaningfully rebalance the playing field and create an incentive for people to try and catch up to the larger nations, as well as for the larger nations needing to participate more to maintain their positions.

 

 

Not to this scale. The change from 250 to 100 rank declaration range has exacerbated it further. That goes for both sides regards using cash wisely and the more dedicated player will know where to look to grab those easier cash bags. 

 

I don't think I declared what a victory looks like to us. Seems like something you've grasped from thin air to make as a point. As a coalition we have out damaged the other coalition, we have the economic supremacy and they still have an infra laden polaris which will further increase the damage difference. We will soon be at the point where its tech strength left to be destroyed. Whether the coalition against us wants to admit it or not if they want peace they will surrender to us. I'm also sure there is plenty in that coalition who are happy to fight for years, but like I have said economic supremacy means if they continue the war their own aid capacity will dwindle and they will get bill locked players which simply gives them less numbers and they become easier to stagger and control.

 

I agree, the game really should have something that encompasses technology better. There has been plenty of suggestions to see improvements here. Research trees that you invest your tech in, trees that you choose specialise in where you can only pick certain trees would be great. Brings individuality and strategy to the table in regards to tech. Pacifica is always open to work with others on game improvement suggestions.

[Lyanna Mormont]

7 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

This has been the case before as well, you can have an untouchable upper-tier pumping aid to your cash strapped troops all you want but you still have to make sure they use the money properly, otherwise you're just making piggybanks for the opponent to smash open. 

 

Personally I think it's a bit weak that your side's idea of victory is contingent on the fact that you've got the biggest piles of gold as a result of not doing anything for years. People who have poorer warchests are better players than people who are sat on billions because they've at least been playing the game beyond back-collecting and doing tech deals.

 

It'd be interesting if there was some kind of inflation mechanic in place that depreciated the spending power of people who have absurd warchests and do nothing with it for years, or conversely increased the spending power for nations who actively use their cash. It would present a chance to meaningfully rebalance the playing field and create an incentive for people to try and catch up to the larger nations, as well as for the larger nations needing to participate more to maintain their positions.

 

 

 

CN as a game rewards you for not playing. 

[Johnny Apocalypse]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Not to this scale. The change from 250 to 100 rank declaration range has exacerbated it further. That goes for both sides regards using cash wisely and the more dedicated player will know where to look to grab those easier cash bags. 

 

I don't think I declared what a victory looks like to us. Seems like something you've grasped from thin air to make as a point. As a coalition we have out damaged the other coalition, we have the economic supremacy and they still have an infra laden polaris which will further increase the damage difference. We will soon be at the point where its tech strength left to be destroyed. Whether the coalition against us wants to admit it or not if they want peace they will surrender to us. I'm also sure there is plenty in that coalition who are happy to fight for years, but like I have said economic supremacy means if they continue the war their own aid capacity will dwindle and they will get bill locked players which simply gives them less numbers and they become easier to stagger and control.

 

I agree, the game really should have something that encompasses technology better. There has been plenty of suggestions to see improvements here. Research trees that you invest your tech in, trees that you choose specialise in where you can only pick certain trees would be great. Brings individuality and strategy to the table in regards to tech. Pacifica is always open to work with others on game improvement suggestions.

 

My point was based on reading between the (limited) lines provided and your coalition seems to be relatively complacent in the belief they will achieve victory simply knowing they have greater spending power. Also it was made out of curiousity to coax a more detailed response delineating what a victory would look like like for your coalition. I'm equally curious what victory would be defined as by the other coalition. 

 

I think a significant portion of your opposition are unlikely to surrender and will continue to ankle bite until the cows come home, I'd even go as far to suggest they don't expect to win on a statistical level (Having your enemies forever beyond reach means the only war they can wage is a proxy war utilising aid slots, DBDC know this pretty well) The simple fact that they've launched the war in the first place is what they may consider the victory- but I'm not them or you so this is pure speculation on my part. The question for your coalition is whether or not your ankles are capable of biting back for however long it takes to deplete their warchests; the question for theirs is how long they can maintain the morale to keep fighting against a considerable statistical disadvantage. When a war grinds on for an indefinite period of time; the rank and file will become fatigued and get tired of logging in to perpetuate the same grind day in and out. Even if they are constantly being funded eventually it ceases to be fun when no clear objective is presented or there is no visible evidence of progress- wars of attrition require something more than the mere capacity to bankroll fighters indefinitely.

 

Unfortunately I think we're well past the point of any meaningful changes made to the mechanics, I've seen countless suggestions come and go which could have improved things for the better.  It's very much a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, the dwindling pool of remaining players makes any major shift in game mechanics a risky venture (especially if you consider people who have spent RL money on donations to get a bit further ahead). I do like the idea of tech trees which encourage people to specialise in different areas but I don't know how that could be implemented in such a late-game circumstance that we find ourselves in- especially when the planet is currently in the middle of a global war.

 

 

Just now, Lyanna Mormont said:

 

CN as a game rewards you for not playing. 

 

True. If there was a reliable metric for self-loathing this would come pretty close.

[Tevron]

On 10/17/2022 at 3:26 PM, kerschbs said:

We fight considerably more wars than CLAWS does, it’s not surprising that we would lose NS faster. However we do considerably more damage than we take, compared to CLAWS who fights less wars and takes more damage than they dish out on average. We also have less members (thought it’s close,) and are fighting a lot more nations. 

 

From the start of the war until 10/13 (most recent stats I have) 

 

Claws
recieved wars - 428
declared wars - 453
Total 881

 

Non Grata
recieved wars - 508
declared wars - 667
Total 1175

This is like the classic narrative where we have to reject your own premises in order for your conclusion to work. What if we accept the premise that your side has better equipped nations for doing damage, is more active, etc? Then obviously NG would do more damage to the inactive and incompetent nations you're allegedly fighting. So, which is it? Are NG's opponents active and good fighters or inactive? Are FTW's nations active and good fighters or are they the same in quality as the ones NG faces?

Having assigned the majority of targets for CLAWS, a large number of our offensive wars have been at tech disadvantages. We don't have the strategy of just hitting inactives from 10 different AAs to pad our stats (though I am not accusing you of that -- just there are certainly alliances represented that DO). And the majority of nations that have taken disproportionate damage are simply dead weight, which is also the case for most AAs outside of Non Grata. I am in no way ashamed to admit that our damage stats will continue to reflect poorly until we reach a tipping point where our active members who dish out damage manage to supplant large losses that happened in the conflict which are difficult to outdo, considering some of our worst nations have been consistently staggered or quit the game as a result of being leveled out. This same effect is happening in most alliances, although they often have nations in PM that are exiting the game rather than warred nations.

If the least competent nations in FTW and NATO hadn't spent the entire war in peace mode, unlike our incompetent nations who were in war mode, the stats would be closer to parity. However, since we rushed to the defense of our ally rather than initiate peace mode orders half a week before the conflict as several alliances did, we suffer the consequence. I am of the mind that it was and remains better to have acted swiftly. Maybe next time I'll focus on the damage output for the AA, but honestly we needed a culling experience, as the AA never has faced one historically and keeping nations that do not participate in warfare makes for poor decision-making.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Tevron
typo

[HeroofTime55]

On 10/16/2022 at 12:24 AM, Jazzy95 said:

Considering the amount of aid NG has received vs what you've sent, I wonder if your allies are thinking the same thing.

It's a jab by CLAWS who are also net negative by a few billion.  How cute.

[Hob Dobson]

On 10/17/2022 at 9:30 AM, Johnny Apocalypse said:

People who have poorer warchests are better players than people who are sat on billions because they've at least been playing the game beyond back-collecting and doing tech deals.

 

I thought I was doing okay.

[dev0win]

5 hours ago, Tevron said:

This is like the classic narrative where we have to reject your own premises in order for your conclusion to work. What if we accept the premise that your side has better equipped nations for doing damage, is more active, etc? Then obviously NG would do more damage to the inactive and incompetent nations you're allegedly fighting. So, which is it? Are NG's opponents active and good fighters or inactive? Are FTW's nations active and good fighters or are they the same in quality as the ones NG faces?

Having assigned the majority of targets for CLAWS, a large number of our offensive wars have been at tech disadvantages. We don't have the strategy of just hitting inactives from 10 different AAs to pad our stats (though I am not accusing you of that -- just there are certainly alliances represented that DO). And the majority of nations that have taken disproportionate damage are simply dead weight, which is also the case for most AAs outside of Non Grata. I am in no way ashamed to admit that our damage stats will continue to reflect poorly until we reach a tipping point where our active members who dish out damage manage to supplant large losses that happened in the conflict which are difficult to outdo, considering some of our worst nations have been consistently staggered or quit the game as a result of being leveled out. This same effect is happening in most alliances, although they often have nations in PM that are exiting the game rather than warred nations.

If the least competent nations in FTW and NATO hadn't spent the entire war in peace mode, unlike our incompetent nations who were in war mode, the stats would be closer to parity. However, since we rushed to the defense of our ally rather than initiate peace mode orders half a week before the conflict as several alliances did, we suffer the consequence. I am of the mind that it was and remains better to have acted swiftly. Maybe next time I'll focus on the damage output for the AA, but honestly we needed a culling experience, as the AA never has faced one historically and keeping nations that do not participate in warfare makes for poor decision-making.

NATO/FTW updeclared for the first month of our war. My first war I was down declared with a 220% tech disparity. And meanwhile you are complaining about not having time to prepare "incompetent members" and then suggesting you need to cull your own alliance?

 

This folks is leadership at it's finest. 

[lilweirdward]

44 minutes ago, dev0win said:

And meanwhile you are complaining about not having time to prepare "incompetent members" and then suggesting you need to cull your own alliance?

[Samwise]

On 10/15/2022 at 8:38 AM, Piejonk said:

Posting after a few days because I changed (corrected) a few things:

 

1) Weight averages - so for example the averages at the bottom of the dumpster list are more representative of the coalition as a whole

2) This also applies for alliance stats in terms of Nukes per Nation, Involvement Score, War Score (active members)

3) Changed Active Strength -> Nation Strength, there was simply too much jumping around especially for the bigger alliances

4) For individual stats, gave a slight bonus (maybe 5-10% max to score) to nations with many more defensive wars than offensive. This is to reflect the difficulties of "doing well" when you keep getting staggered vs. when can declare, restock and do it again. As you can see, the people at the top are lopsided towards having many more offensive wars anyways, so this hasn't affected much.

 

Individual stats:

 

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/9YIkMvb.png

 

 

 

 

I have to say, being in the 69th spot almost feels as good as being in the #1 spot :v

[Bdiah]

6 hours ago, Samwise said:

 

I have to say, being in the 69th spot almost feels as good as being in the #1 spot :v

Nice.

[DavidMustaine]

9 hours ago, dev0win said:

NATO/FTW updeclared for the first month of our war. My first war I was down declared with a 220% tech disparity. And meanwhile you are complaining about not having time to prepare "incompetent members" and then suggesting you need to cull your own alliance?

 

This folks is leadership at it's finest. 

Meh.  I've seen worse.