Cyber Nations Alliance Statistics Depot

[HordeOfDoom]

I love nukes long time

And if that many hit, imagine how many were killed by SDIs/destroyed by spies.

That's a lot of nukes.

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-19.

Number of nukes that hit yesterday: 1,129.

Edit:

And if that many hit, imagine how many were killed by SDIs/destroyed by spies.

Not nearly as many as you'd expect -- there simply aren't enough folks who got their SDI while the getting was good (and now likely dearly regret it). Using the sum of all team nukes (should be all nukes in the game), we're only down a net 786 nukes from yesterday to today.

Date		  Nukes	Change in Nukes
2008-08-12	44,124		69
2008-08-13	44,208		84
2008-08-14	44,176	   -32
2008-08-15	43,548	  -628
2008-08-16	42,491	-1,057
2008-08-17	41,379	-1,112
2008-08-18	40,516	  -863
2008-08-19	39,730	  -786

There seems to be a new 'Total Nukes' field on the World Statistics screen as well, and it says we're only down 642 nukes (I guess the aggregation for that versus the Teams page happens at different times).

Edited August 19, 2008 by Unspeakable Evil

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-20.

Number of nukes that hit yesterday: 1,207.

Net change in number of nukes: 937 (folks were re-buying their nukes with gusto yesterday).

It's a good thing all the children of Unspeakable Evil are already dead from being used to clear minefields, or they'd be suffering terribly from he insanity that is 3,000+ nukes in 3 days. Plus, all those nukes that were destroyed by the SDI in the atmosphere have to drift down somewhere, and it can't be as much fun of an inhalant as Pine Sol.

It won't leave your floors with a pine-fresh scent, either. Though you can see them glow in the dark, which is useful if you're so drunk that you can't find it otherwise.

[alpreb]

I love you UE

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-20.

Number of nukes that hit yesterday: 1,255.

Net change in number of nukes: 522 (folks were re-buying their nukes with gusto again).

----

It also looks like NpO collected or something, 'cause they lost only 2 members since yesterday, but 1.7M NS. That is kind of insane. But you have to admire the dedication of a membership that has only lost 25 members since the festivities began.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Unspeakable Evil

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Damn NpO is falling fast.

[Scalare]

Can you plot various graphs about the war, more specifically the stats of polaris, in 1 picture?

[HordeOfDoom]

This seemed like an appropriate place to raise the point that, whereas in previous wars (ex. GW III Legion) large losses were generated mostly by swathes of members leaving, and somewhat by actual material losses. We see now that, with all the new additions and greater destruction of warfare, losses have reached the point where simple defeats on the battlefield can equal the losses suffered during a run by the alliance's membership (As can be seen by Polars large losses while membership remains stable, as no individual surrender terms have been offered).

[Overlord Shinnra]

This seemed like an appropriate place to raise the point that, whereas in previous wars (ex. GW III Legion) large losses were generated mostly by swathes of members leaving, and somewhat by actual material losses. We see now that, with all the new additions and greater destruction of warfare, losses have reached the point where simple defeats on the battlefield can equal the losses suffered during a run by the alliance's membership (As can be seen by Polars large losses while membership remains stable, as no individual surrender terms have been offered).

On the flip side wars will last a lot shorter now

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-22.

So, it turns out I was misinformed about the GRL formula. After re-reading the description of the formula, I don't think you can actually solve for 'number of nukes that hit yesterday'. What I've actually been solving for is 'Number of nations that have been hit by a nuclear weapon in the last 30 days'. That actually explains the curve a whole hell of a lot better than the previous conception, since relatively few people are eating their first nuke in the war at this late of a date.

So when you scroll back and look upon the shamefully incorrect Nukes that Hit graphs, try to mentally subsittute 'number of nuke victims in the last 30 days'.

Can you plot various graphs about the war, more specifically the stats of polaris, in 1 picture?

Maybe, depends on the free time I have from my other weekend projects.

This seemed like an appropriate place to raise the point that, whereas in previous wars (ex. GW III Legion) large losses were generated mostly by swathes of members leaving, and somewhat by actual material losses. We see now that, with all the new additions and greater destruction of warfare, losses have reached the point where simple defeats on the battlefield can equal the losses suffered during a run by the alliance's membership (As can be seen by Polars large losses while membership remains stable, as no individual surrender terms have been offered).

Very true. It's really hit me these last few days how nasty modern war is. In a situation where you're outnumbered, you will lose quickly; in no more than 3 full 7-day wars (losing 4k infra a week seems at the low end of the spectrum, and there are precious few 12k+ infra nations out there anyway) you'll be reduced to nothing no matter how good you are or how much money you had. The best you can hope for is to make your enemies pay (by having a proper war chest and all the good military improvements and wonders). With parity of numbers and preparedness, then both sides are going to dismantle each other.

I hate to think the monetary losses of a hundred 8k infra nations dropping to 4k infra. Tack on tech losses, and it can drop a nation back a year... or an alliance.

[Julius-Kaiser]

A graph showing the 5% line would be interesting I know I myself have been able to reach nuke level because of this conflict.

[Syzygy]

Very true. It's really hit me these last few days how nasty modern war is. In a situation where you're outnumbered, you will lose quickly; in no more than 3 full 7-day wars (losing 4k infra a week seems at the low end of the spectrum, and there are precious few 12k+ infra nations out there anyway) you'll be reduced to nothing no matter how good you are or how much money you had. The best you can hope for is to make your enemies pay (by having a proper war chest and all the good military improvements and wonders). With parity of numbers and preparedness, then both sides are going to dismantle each other.

That is why it has been suggested to lower the declaration range from 50-200 to 66-150 or even 75-133 - to make sure the higher level nations with their increased destruction potential cannot unleash that upon the smaller nations. Overall this new concept of warfar will *greatly* benefit the game, because with higher-damages in the upper tiers and lower damages (because of almost non-existant tech boni) at the bottom, you get some good results:

1. wars over political conflicts can NOT any longer be a political AND an economical victory at the same time, means: you cannot simply loot out your opponent AND get all the political benefits of having him removed. If you beat someone down and he decides to fire back hard, you will also lose LOTS of expensive stuff. It will remove him, but weaken yourself, as it should be.

2. newer nations can catch up the very very big time-difference much easier. Given the old war and damage system, basically a new nation had almost no chance to come into the 5% range any more - because thousands of other nations simply play years longer. Now during war (especially nuclear war), many highlevel nations on all sides get devastated, so the overall difference between newer and older nations is somewhat leveled. The crushed highlevel nations can of course rebuild a lot faster because they still have their wonders and good improvements - but afterall the position for new nations has been strengthened, a lot.

3. because of 2., it finally makes sense again for new players of communities to 'invade' CN and found new alliances and nations here. They can, with good politics and growth, benefit from the wars of the others, until they are strong enough to fight wars themselves.

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-23.

Nations that were hit by at least one nuke in the last 30 days: 1,380.

A graph showing the 5% line would be interesting I know I myself have been able to reach nuke level because of this conflict.

Not easy to track where 5% is in terms of NS, so I can't do that. But that is why Admin gave us Manhattan Projects.

That is why it has been suggested to lower the declaration range from 50-200 to 66-150 or even 75-133 - to make sure the higher level nations with their increased destruction potential cannot unleash that upon the smaller nations. Overall this new concept of warfar will *greatly* benefit the game, because with higher-damages in the upper tiers and lower damages (because of almost non-existant tech boni) at the bottom, you get some good results:

1. wars over political conflicts can NOT any longer be a political AND an economical victory at the same time, means: you cannot simply loot out your opponent AND get all the political benefits of having him removed. If you beat someone down and he decides to fire back hard, you will also lose LOTS of expensive stuff. It will remove him, but weaken yourself, as it should be.

2. newer nations can catch up the very very big time-difference much easier. Given the old war and damage system, basically a new nation had almost no chance to come into the 5% range any more - because thousands of other nations simply play years longer. Now during war (especially nuclear war), many highlevel nations on all sides get devastated, so the overall difference between newer and older nations is somewhat leveled. The crushed highlevel nations can of course rebuild a lot faster because they still have their wonders and good improvements - but afterall the position for new nations has been strengthened, a lot.

3. because of 2., it finally makes sense again for new players of communities to 'invade' CN and found new alliances and nations here. They can, with good politics and growth, benefit from the wars of the others, until they are strong enough to fight wars themselves.

Quoted for emphasis. This could form the center of an interesting debate about the security of the large, established alliances in this new-war system era. A large, established alliance with steady membership can now lose half of its infra within 10 days -- and it would take you six months to a year under optimal circumstances to regain it. Whoever takes them down is going to fall with them, but that's precious little solace from a security standpoint.

At first blush, it seems to me that the best way to "win" in the new-war system era is to do your utmost to not piss all over the alliances with nations in your strength range who could take your down with them, or the groups of alliances with nations in your strength range who could collectively take you down with them.

Might we be witnessing the birth pangs of a new and more civilized international arena? I for one hope not -- that'd make things boring.

[alpreb]

1. wars over political conflicts can NOT any longer be a political AND an economical victory at the same time, means: you cannot simply loot out your opponent AND get all the political benefits of having him removed. If you beat someone down and he decides to fire back hard, you will also lose LOTS of expensive stuff. It will remove him, but weaken yourself, as it should be.

I have yet to participate in any war (ie all of TOPs war) that didn't produce an economical deficit for my nation, even when they didn't make much of a fight.

The only reason of lowering the range in which you can declare war on should be discussed in light of the NS nerf of both tech and military, since the destructive wars isn't new. If the today NS calculation and tech destructability was used during GWIII Legion would have lost a lot more relative NS than they did. The ZI list (ie people reaching the cool club) was pretty large by the end of it.

Fun fact : Hat Creek was ZI'ied by me in GWIII and well, he isn't all that tiny despite it. There is just a lot (including me ) that don't play the game optimally and good players will always come on top.

3. because of 2., it finally makes sense again for new players of communities to 'invade' CN and found new alliances and nations here. They can, with good politics and growth, benefit from the wars of the others, until they are strong enough to fight wars themselves.

FOK came a year ago as an invasion alliance and are doing pretty well imo. Edited August 24, 2008 by alpreb

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-23.

Nations that were hit by at least one nuke in the last 30 days: 1,440.

Also, look at FARK go. 110k NS, 65 nukes, and it looks like no members came or left (since the ANSGPN and delta-AANS are identical). Happy hunting.

[Scalare]

Wow, if this nuking lasts a little longer MK will blast NPO right under IRON. That'll be an unique sight

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-25.

Nations that were hit by at least one nuke in the last 30 days: 1,465.

Wow, if this nuking lasts a little longer MK will blast NPO right under IRON. That'll be an unique sight

MK was the only alliance on that side of the fence that was prepared and ready to put up a fight. But for NPO to dip under IRON, they'd have to keep up the fight for another month or month and a half. I dunno if that'll be possible, but we'll find out.

[JoshuaR]

Wow, if this nuking lasts a little longer MK will blast NPO right under IRON. That'll be an unique sight

That would be quite a feat! Only FAN has managed to thwart the NPO's number one position in the past. (Not counting GPA)

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-26.

Nations that were hit by at least one nuke in the last 30 days: 1,495.

That would be quite a feat! Only FAN has managed to thwart the NPO's number one position in the past. (Not counting GPA)

Although this time the preponderance of NPO's losses are in core infra, tech and land rather than in losing fair-weather alliance members. So long as the members remain, rebuilding will happen more quickly than last time.

MK is certainly giving a hell of a fight.

Edit: And admin is using Fusion Charts on the World Statistics page now.

Edit2: And on my nation's page! I love you admin! You'd be my hero to do it to alliances, too.

Edit3: Charts! Charts everywhere! I almost can close this thread now.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Unspeakable Evil

[Julius-Kaiser]

Not easy to track where 5% is in terms of NS, so I can't do that. But that is why Admin gave us Manhattan Projects.

I disagree, having a precise exact NS point would not be easy, but what I do to figure it out is to find out how many nations are in the 5% of all of the CN nations by *.05 then go to display all nations, sort by NS, go to the nation that is the number that appears by *.05 with total CN nations and that is the NS spot near where you can be in the top 5%.

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-27.

Nations that were hit by at least one nuke in the last 30 days: 1,497.

I probably won't do the special nukes chart every day now that MK is out of the running, I don't expect any more major increases. Thanks a lot, guys, for failing to peak a GRL of 15. That makes me sad.

----

What makes me glad are the new graphs Admin has seen fit to add to the game. Check them out:

http://www.cybernations.net/stats_demographics.asp

http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance...+of+the+Paradox

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=44035

Be sure to click on the pie charts, the slices slide around. If you right-click you can make them 2-D or switch them to rotate when you click and drag. This is why I like Fusion Charts so much.

I disagree, having a precise exact NS point would not be easy, but what I do to figure it out is to find out how many nations are in the 5% of all of the CN nations by *.05 then go to display all nations, sort by NS, go to the nation that is the number that appears by *.05 with total CN nations and that is the NS spot near where you can be in the top 5%.

I collect my data by logging in and clicking around the pages with the data I want. Whipping out the calculator, multiplying total nations by 0.05, then skipping to that page, finding the dividing nation, and noting that is certainly much harder than what I'm doing now. My process is streamlined to the sort of data you can glean from a quick pass of a great number of pages. Adding manual steps slows it down well past what I'm willing to do anymore.

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-28.

[Unspeakable Evil]

Updated 2008-08-29.

[Azaghul]

Man, I just discovered this thread and how awesome it is.

[alpreb]

Man, I just discovered this thread and how awesome it is.

Best thread in CN since early 2007