Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I didn't go so far as to say it was pointless. I am simply shouting out ideas of how to make your statistics meaningful. A good statistic is not one that is just technically correct, but one that provides a useful quantitative measure often to support or refute an otherwise qualitative observation. I understand what you are trying to do, but your statistic is not quite to that point yet so I am trying to be constructive and help it get there. Sorry, quotation wasm misattributed to Urk who is pretending to be you for halloween. My mistake. Yes, I read your criticism and I see your point. Moreover, I know CMs don't really do much inter-war but they still are part of a military, are they not? Or are you suggesting I change the method so that I make the rankings based on useful military and not just the total amount of military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Sorry, quotation wasm misattributed to Urk who is pretending to be you for halloween. My mistake. Yes, I read your criticism and I see your point. Moreover, I know CMs don't really do much inter-war but they still are part of a military, are they not? Or are you suggesting I change the method so that I make the rankings based on useful military and not just the total amount of military? No, I wasn't suggesting it needs to be based only on useful military, presumably the NS weighting already takes care of that. I was suggesting that it should be based only on military that cannot be purchased with one click. Ideally that would include some function of wonders and tech in addition to nukes and possibly navy. Edited October 22, 2009 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpol777 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Do you even know how the war system works? Nevermind. You've answered that already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 No, I wasn't suggesting it needs to be based only on useful military, presumably the NS weighting already takes care of that. I was suggesting that it should be based only on military that cannot be purchased with one click. Ideally that would include some function of wonders and tech in addition to nukes and possibly navy. Yes, the current equation includes navies, nukes, tech but not wonders. I think I will edit it sometime soon to fix it. @mpol777: My post has nothing to do with the war system itself and you are wrong. I suggest you reread and understand what my numbers actually mean. They indicate how much military weaponry an alliance has per nation or per infrastructure (which, in turn, shows how 'militarised they are, statistically). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpol777 Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Yes, the current equation includes navies, nukes, tech but not wonders. I think I will edit it sometime soon to fix it.@mpol777: My post has nothing to do with the war system itself and you are wrong. I suggest you reread and understand what my numbers actually mean. They indicate how much military weaponry an alliance has per nation or per infrastructure (which, in turn, shows how 'militarised they are, statistically). Which is about as !@#$ on a bull. But don't mind me. Count mindless numbers that have no effect on reality. Everyone needs a hobby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Which is about as !@#$ on a bull. But don't mind me. Count mindless numbers that have no effect on reality. Everyone needs a hobby. Why oh why didn't I dress up at mpol for halloween. O/ FAN EDIT: No offense to the OP, you're taking an interesting angle...FAN is just awesome Edited October 22, 2009 by Lord Fingolfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Everyone needs a hobby. I admit guns tend to be a bit more useful of a hobby than numbers, but I must waste my time on something. As for the thread, to all, it has been completely changed based on Penguin's recommendation (which I think was a good idea) of using long-term figures which aren't easy to change as the factors for militarisation. Additionally, after redoing all of the categories, I also ranked all alliances in every category and provided an estimated total ranking. I think this ranking makes much more sense than the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) The equation is getting better. I think navy is probably over emphasized. Wonders, nukes, WC and tech are the keys IMO, but you obviously can't check WC. No matter how you weigh things, it isn't going to be very predictive of performance. Stats are fun though. The CM debate is highly overrated methinks. Such a small change in NS isn't going to change who you fight. There's a debate? Buying them when you aren't using them is completely useless. The fact that the downside (bills and NS inflation) isn't that large doesn't change the fact that there's absolutely no upside. Buying and selling one infra everyday doesn't hurt that much either, but it's still a stupid thing to do. Edited October 22, 2009 by Trinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) The current formula is better, though the balance is a little off. Navies can be built up with a few days notice, and not everyone keeps them that could for the high bills. And military wonders while most important, are somewhat overbalanced in your formula. I'd use something more like this: Militarisation Sum = 3*(naval units)+15*(nuclear missiles)+0.02*(technology)+100*(military wonders) Edited October 22, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think you did a good job actually and thank you for doing this. Compared to some other stat threads made recently, this is actually legit stats and it would be interesting to track this over time and especially when a war starts. I would like to see a 'per technology' count too though. And everyone complaining about WTF, please stop. They do indeed have some scary numbers and this is about stats not who you 'think' is the best fighter in the game. Although they do not have any war experience all signs point to them being a major factor if they are ever in a war. Yes, fear WTF and their 29 MPs. 22 of those belong to nations outside the top 5%. After a week of war, WTF would be sunk. their count of nuclear capable nations would be halved and they only have 48 SDI's, yet they have 49 nations at 10k infra or higher and 66 at 8k infra or higher. For the large part, too much of WTF's strength comes from infra for them to do well at war. I would rank 67th in WTF in infra, yet 23nd in tech. I'm at 8k infra, they shouldn't have a single non-nuclear nation in my range, yet they have six. Quite frankly, WTF's military preparedness is a joke. They have more movie industries and space wonders than they have MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) I feel you weighed war wonders too heavily, and not all war wonders are equal when it comes to war benefits. The MP, WRC, SDI, and CIA should be weighted more than the others, IMO. By your calculations, 40 nukes equal one wonder, one wonder equals 80 navies, and 60,000 tech also equals one wonder. correct? Edited October 22, 2009 by Obiwan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoff Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Quite frankly, WTF's military preparedness is a joke. They have more movie industries and space wonders than they have MPs. Well, when you blow up our countries we'll be watching awesome movies in space. 0-Grav Cinema baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The current formula is better, though the balance is a little off. Navies can be built up with a few days notice, and not everyone keeps them that could for the high bills. And military wonders while most important, are somewhat overbalanced in your formula.I'd use something more like this: Militarisation Sum = 3*(naval units)+15*(nuclear missiles)+0.02*(technology)+100*(military wonders) I was also thinking that wonders are overcompensated. The naval ideam makes sense. I have input your formula into my calculations and I will post the numbers tomorrow. Without looking at them, I would estimate that alliances which are tech- or nuke-heavy will benefit the most from this change (which, to a degree, makes sense in the game). Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I feel you weighed war wonders too heavily, and not all war wonders are equal when it comes to war benefits. The MP, WRC, SDI, and CIA should be weighted more than the others, IMO. By your calculations, 40 nukes equal one wonder, one wonder equals 80 navies, and 60,000 tech also equals one wonder. correct? Yes, the problem with weighing them separate was that they'd take too long, so I took an average weight of all of them and input a total amount of military wonders. Using Azaghul's recommended changes, it would be about 9.333 nukes = 1 wonder = 33.333 navies = 5000 tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The equation is getting better. I think navy is probably over emphasized. Wonders, nukes, WC and tech are the keys IMO, but you obviously can't check WC. No matter how you weigh things, it isn't going to be very predictive of performance. Stats are fun though. There's a debate? Buying them when you aren't using them is completely useless. The fact that the downside (bills and NS inflation) isn't that large doesn't change the fact that there's absolutely no upside. Buying and selling one infra everyday doesn't hurt that much either, but it's still a stupid thing to do. i was under the impression that you HAD to buy and sell one infra everday my world has come shattering down around me also the reworked data seems to be a lot better, but you clearly rank MK 3 and they are nothing but dirty, dirty stat collectors (of nukes and casualties ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Athens is ranked 20, yet we aren't here. sadness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I too feel navy is a bit over-weighed in the formula. I feel instead of counting navy, it would be best to count navy improvements and lower the multiplier a bit. I guess if you don't want to weigh them separately a decent weighing would be 20 nukes = 1 wonder = 50 naval improvements = 15,000 tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The current formula is better, though the balance is a little off. Navies can be built up with a few days notice, and not everyone keeps them that could for the high bills. And military wonders while most important, are somewhat overbalanced in your formula.I'd use something more like this: Militarisation Sum = 3*(naval units)+15*(nuclear missiles)+0.02*(technology)+100*(military wonders) I agree with this post, hence I quote it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Good idea, just needs polished a bit. It'd serve you well to take some suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Athens is ranked 20, yet we aren't here. sadness. Reason is that Athens only just pulled into the top 20 in the last 12 hours. Will be updated next week (assuming they remain in the top 20). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eamon Valda Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I agree with this post, hence I quote it. Formula has been amended and all figures updated. Le voici. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Needs more graphs. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Why oh why didn't I dress up at mpol for halloween.O/ FAN EDIT: No offense to the OP, you're taking an interesting angle...FAN is just awesome Because I did. Sorry, but I'm not really interested in these statistics... They're not that helpful to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Kowalski Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 This doesn't account for the lack of REAL experience of the majority of alliances on that list in terms of activity, competency, and actually not sucking with war itself. The only way to really verify any of these would be to actually go to war. But you can't do that. Not unless you have confirmation of numbers. Because you're !@#$%*^. Just !@#$%*^. You're cowards even when this is only a game, you simply lack the cajonés to enter a war and attempt to win on actual competence. But then that's how most, if not all, of the leaders on that !@#$@#$ list got into power in the first place. By being cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 An interesting way to actually measure the speed and breadth of "militarization" (dirty Brits) as such, would to be measure the change of the "meaningless" stats (tanks, soldiers, CMs) from a pre-war to war timeframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.