Syndicate Press Release: Kangaroo's meat sales increase by 200%!

[Greatnate]

I could understand around $3bil or lower damage, but $7bil just seemed way too big of a number.  Especially considering that we're all running in the black and still growing.

 

Even if we just assume that each nuke averaged out on a 2k city (I know we nuked some lowbies, but we also got plenty of 3K and 2.7K cities). It's still in the $6B range, the numbers might be off, but they are still large. And that would neglect all other damage sources.

[James II]

I find that doubtful. How many nukes have you used?

353 when I checked a couple days ago.

[LordRahl2]

353 nukes? K. That cost your alliance right around 2 billion to execute.

 

You have, I assume, calculated your costs in lost tanks/planes/ships as well?

 

I also assume you are tracking your unrealized income as a loss correct?

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

Considering that, as you said, they refused plain white peace multiples times two days ago ( we had another "talk" ), who knows, that might very well happen.

 

Anything entertaining in the log you'd like to share?

[Placentica]

I find that doubtful. How many nukes have you used?

You are welcome to look into the facts yourself instead of relying on your opinion.

But looking at the daily stats along with the actual battle reports and nukes dropped, it's in line.

[LordRahl2]

You are welcome to look into the facts yourself instead of relying on your opinion.

 

But looking at the daily stats along with the actual battle reports and nukes dropped, it's in line.

I asked so I could finish up the math. Check my reply. I also had some follow ups for you.

[Ole]

353 when I checked a couple days ago.

 

Then asuming all your nukes have been at 2k and up cities you should have done somewhere around 7b dmg, so that checks out. (all based on estimates and asumptions.) 

 

 

Edit: But that is a very selective result to use and dosent give a very good picture of the overall conflict. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Ole

[Memph]

Seems like the April 24 damage results aren't available. A good chunk of Syndicate's damage was probably dealt on that day. Also April 23's stats say Alpha lost 723,000 aluminum which is absurd and definitely wrong, so I'm not sure how good the rest of the stats are.

[Prefonteen]

Then asuming all your nukes have been at 2k and up cities you should have done somewhere around 7b dmg, so that checks out. (all based on estimates and asumptions.) 

 

 

Edit: But that is a very selective result to use and dosent give a very good picture of the overall conflict. 

 

Not all nukes have been at 2k and up cities, as can be attested by our lower tier.

[James II]

Seems like the April 24 damage results aren't available. A good chunk of Syndicate's damage was probably dealt on that day. Also April 23's stats say Alpha lost 723,000 aluminum which is absurd and definitely wrong, so I'm not sure how good the rest of the stats are.

The resource stats are not accurate, about the only thing that is is the infra.

 

April 24th and April 23rd are recored as april 23rd because of the mechanics mishap. Orbis never had an April 24th. All damage under that day are combined with April 23rd.

[Greatnate]

353 nukes? K. That cost your alliance right around 2 billion to execute.

 

You have, I assume, calculated your costs in lost tanks/planes/ships as well?

 

I also assume you are tracking your unrealized income as a loss correct?

 

As of last pull 367 nukes for a cost of $1.7B. We do not have the unit losses, I was too busy to set up a statistics snapshot at the time, hence the over-reliance on the stat tracker. We do have those numbers for consumable and unit resource losses. Unrealized income is untracked.

 

Seems like the April 24 damage results aren't available. A good chunk of Syndicate's damage was probably dealt on that day. Also April 23's stats say Alpha lost 723,000 aluminum which is absurd and definitely wrong, so I'm not sure how good the rest of the stats are.

 

A good chuck of Alpha's too, since we switched to nuke turrets on the highest nations, but I'm pretty sure the data is rolled into the 23th as part of the lack of military reset on the 24th. Alpha's aluminum stats are definitely broken, the other resource numbers seem plausible, but who can say.

[Ivan the Red]

We present you with facts and you won't even check them, but yet you think we are wrong? I guess that is one way to "win" an argument.

 

You did not present fact. You presented opinion. The fact that you can't sort between the two and thus find offense on anyone not sharing your oppinion is one of your main problems.

[James II]

You did not present fact. You presented opinion. The fact that you can't sort between the two and thus find offense on anyone not sharing your oppinion is one of your main problems.

We posted stats....gathered by you and your allies. How is that opinion?

[Ivan the Red]

We posted stats....gathered by you and your allies. How is that opinion?

 

You have not posted stats gathered from our archives, or our allies, as we haven't gathered stats from material losses in this war yet. We do so once the war is over. While the war is on, we focus on winning it, no matter the cost. Which is why we win our wars, and we have won this one.

 

Your "stats" about damage inflicted this war, are opinion. At most, you have shown links to an innacurate in-game tool (as many others have already pointed). And even that data shows that your alliance has been damaged more than ours, overall. Which isn't suprising as you had so many infra-chubby nations before the war. About 9-10B in infra damage, plus about 1.5-2B invested in nukes, plus the steel and alum lost in destroyed tanks, sunken ships and downed aircraft... that's going to be an interesting figure.

 

Regarding stats from last war, as I already said net damage received by t$ is still greater than your claimed damage inflicted this war. This is mostly because Rose actually cared to fight, as opposite to deleting your own armies.

 

It's also interesting that your leader claims that you have been "preparing for a nuclear defensive war for months" or whatever. Truth is, as our diplomatic corps have shown Steve has been preparing for an offensive war on us, not defensive. He expected his allies to come to his aid, instead of leaving him in the mud. When his plans failed and he was forced to face the consequences of his actions, Steve's strategy at the beggining of the war was to command his strongest subjects to suicide their armies on his attackers, order the rest to delete their armies (why build them in the first place if you "have been preparing for a nuclear defensive war for months"?), expend most of Alpha's bank to increase his city count by two, and expect to stay untouchable over the ashes. That tactic worked for fifteen minutes into round two. Then he reverted to his current strategy.

 

So, please, don't pretend us to believe you have been planning from advance, when you have been improvising the whole time, jumping from one failed tactic to another.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[TellUrGrlThx]

Ya those numbers are so absurdly off I did a "Are you !@#$ing kidding me?" face.

 

Also I think it's hilarious you guys have wasted 1.7b+ in nukes (doesn't account for all the nukes you lost in spy hits) to drop when you could have spent that money on anything else and it would have been worth it more than a nuke.

[LordRahl2]

Actually, at current prices the cost of their nukes exceeds 2.1b.

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

As of last pull 367 nukes for a cost of $1.7B. We do not have the unit losses, I was too busy to set up a statistics snapshot at the time, hence the over-reliance on the stat tracker. We do have those numbers for consumable and unit resource losses. Unrealized income is untracked.

 

 

A good chuck of Alpha's too, since we switched to nuke turrets on the highest nations, but I'm pretty sure the data is rolled into the 23th as part of the lack of military reset on the 24th. Alpha's aluminum stats are definitely broken, the other resource numbers seem plausible, but who can say.

 

Just wanted to say thanks for answering LordRahl's follow-up questions.

 

I'm not an economics egghead myself, but I seem to recall that t$ members were saying much of Alpha's losses are in unrealized income, so the fact that y'all haven't crunched those numbers probably means you're losing more than you think you're losing by continuing this war.

[Sisyphus]

Kind of impressed we can lose 7 bil in assets and barely feel it.

 

Thanks for sharing, Alpha. Gonna have to buy more stock in the Syndicate now.

[Greatnate]

Just wanted to say thanks for answering LordRahl's follow-up questions.

 

I'm not an economics egghead myself, but I seem to recall that t$ members were saying much of Alpha's losses are in unrealized income, so the fact that y'all haven't crunched those numbers probably means you're losing more than you think you're losing by continuing this war.

 

It's not untracked out of disinterest, it is a difficult thing to estimate and track.

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

It's not untracked out of disinterest, it is a difficult thing to estimate and track.

 

Good point. Maybe someone else knows a way.

[LordRahl2]

To estimate take total prewar income (daily alliance tax should help) and subtract the delta per day. Multiply times length of war.

 

Just an estimate admittedly.

[Greatnate]

To estimate take total prewar income (daily alliance tax should help) and subtract the delta per day. Multiply times length of war.

 

Just an estimate admittedly.

 

For the same reason I can't get the full unit stats anymore (month expiry) I don't believe I can pull direct tax documents. However, what I can do is do ideal income - military upkeep = theoretical income. This of course assumes Alpha doesn't get rolled and both t$ and Alpha keep no military (very optimistic, I know).

 

If we value infra at 350/unit and slots at 9450/slot (full econ build averaged between 1,500 infra/city and 2,000 infra/city) and compare the 4/21/16 stat tracker snapshots (god help me) to today's snapshot, we get:

Alpha has lost $5.3B in revennue.

t$ has lost 7.2B in revenue.

 

Of course this assumes nations existed as they do today for the past 33 days, which is obviously not true, but if we want a back of the envelope calculation, this is it.

[Beowulf the Second]

Noticed none of the Alpha members had anything to say about my 2k+ infra city remark. ;D Also noticing that Steve keeps giving us war stats from around now, when we're not targeting their infra because its too low lmao--if we're going to actually crunch the numbers its more important to talk about when this was an actual war, fam

 

Addendum to your back-of-the-envelope calculation, Greatnate. Addressing: which alliance can afford those losses?

• Dividing $7.2B among 100ish members and 30ish days gives us 2.40M per member per day lost for t$.
• Dividing $5.3B among 30ish members and the same amount of days gives us 5.89M per member per day lost for Alpha.

It's harder to avoid raw damage when you're a big alliance, but I can tell you it's a helluva lot easier to absorb it. I won't lie and say that y'all haven't caused us trouble, but you guys are definitely going to feel the aftermath of this war harder than us.

[Greatnate]

Noticed none of the Alpha members had anything to say about my 2k+ infra city remark. ;D Also noticing that Steve keeps giving us war stats from around now, when we're not targeting their infra because its too low lmao--if we're going to actually crunch the numbers its more important to talk about when this was an actual war, fam

 

Addendum to your back-of-the-envelope calculation, Greatnate. Addressing: which alliance can afford those losses?

• Dividing $7.2B among 100ish members and 30ish days gives us 2.40M per member per day lost for t$.
• Dividing $5.3B among 30ish members and the same amount of days gives us 5.89M per member per day lost for Alpha.

It's harder to avoid raw damage when you're a big alliance, but I can tell you it's a helluva lot easier to absorb it. I won't lie and say that y'all haven't caused us trouble, but you guys are definitely going to feel the aftermath of this war harder than us.

 

No shit, you hit an alliance with 1/3rd the membership and 1/10th the rank. We're supposed to go toe-to-toe? Give me a time machine and a 1v1.

 

Edit: Ranks not score, you're not making me look up historical stats more than I have to.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Greatnate

[Beowulf the Second]

No shit, you hit an alliance with 1/3rd the membership and 1/10th the score. We're supposed to go toe-to-toe? Give me a time machine and a 1v1.

 

Thanks for the change in frame of reference, bud: some of your friends here were crowing (read: chest-thumping?) like they won the conflict. I've maintained throughout that Alpha can't afford to continue these losses, maybe you can help me convince them since you agree with me? Kappa

 

EDIT: 1/10th the rank?? When has that been a metric for anything hahaha

DOUBLE EDIT: technically I guess you guys actually had 10x the rank

Edited May 25, 2016 by Beowulf the Second