Ekejen Luish Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) OrbDex: 29/8/17 Here's the formula y'all want: (soldiers*1.75+tanks*40+aircraft*66+ships*85+missile*90+nukes*200)/100+((members-avgmembers)*1000) Hopefully it's more balanced. I know some of you will complain about the formula because y'all won't ever be satisfied with anything I do, which is probably justified AVERAGE MEMBERS (Top 10 Alliances): 74.4 ALLIANCES RANKED BY POWER ACCORDING TO THE CARROT GENERAL POWER RANKING: The Knights Radiant (388,062.263) Pantheon (342,569.492) The Commonwealth (230,963.217) Knights Templar (205,472.37) Black Knights (175,261.033) The Syndicate (164,734.205) Nuclear Knights (158,208.96) New Pacific Order (151,852.375) Rose (134,883.71) Guardian (93,370.3825) Edited August 29, 2017 by Ekejen Luish Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) From my many battles over many years, you are underrating planes by about a factor of 10. My own formula I would have two different calculations, one for control of conventional wars, and a second for damage output potential. These two things are kind of unrelated, you can win a war by taking control of the battlefield and still take more damage due to nukes and missiles. For control of the battlefield there are three key factors, tier consolidation, relative alliance size and overall militarization, with correct weighting of units. Your weighting is whack. For the battlefield control index you have three key variables, one is tier consolidation, the second is relative size and activity and the third is military per city. For tier consolidation, get the average city count of the alliance (not score but city count, this is important) this is calculated by dividing the total cities by the total members. The closer a nation is to this value, the more tier consolidation bonus they get, the further away, the less. Max modifier of maybe 2x for nations exactly in the average min 0.5x for nations furthest from the average on the top and bottom of the alliance city counts, they are the most exposed to being teamed up on. For the relative size of an alliance, select the smallest and largest member counts of the top 20 alliances. This will be the relative size modifier between 0.5x and 2x between those. Active members (logged in that day) count for 1 point, logged in last 3 days count for 0.75 points, last 7 days (reds) count for 0.5 points and purples (7+ days) count 0.25 points. So tons of inactive members doesn't count as tons of members. For military per city, this is the actual value multiplied by the two bonuses. Soldiers are worth 0.05 points, tanks are worth 2 points, planes are worth 40 points and ships are worth 50 points. So the maximum possible for a fully militarized, completely consolidated and largest alliance (which would be completely unbeatable and could destroy every alliance in the world) would be 30400 points. A fully militarized alliance which is spread evenly across tiers with no consolidation and the smallest alliance in the top 20 would be 1900 points. The infra damage output calculation would be completely different, and would favour for instance ships and nukes over ground and ground is really bad at doing infra damage. The calculation would basically be 66 MAPs worth of damage from all their units on a nationwide basis added together for the whole alliance (so max of 5 nuke strikes would be calculated for instance, you can't launch 150 nukes in one war). NK for instance has oodles of damage output but would lose control of a conventional war quite quickly. Edited August 29, 2017 by Ogaden 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 Thank you, I will keep this in mind. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I'd argue the current troops of an alliance doesn't really reflect anything. Potential strength and tier dominance are what matters. How many troops you have only becomes a metric once the war is already started and you want to gauge who is winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Sketchy said: I'd argue the current troops of an alliance doesn't really reflect anything. Potential strength and tier dominance are what matters. How many troops you have only becomes a metric once the war is already started and you want to gauge who is winning. And activity Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Keegoz said: And activity True, but once you start getting into human elements it becomes far more complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 16 hours ago, Sketchy said: True, but once you start getting into human elements it becomes far more complicated. Which is why this rating is ridiculous to even attempt. The human element is what makes or breaks strength. A well prepared and ready strike is better than a huge alliance figure any day. 3 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Ogaden said: From my many battles over many years, you are underrating planes by about a factor of 10. My own formula I would have two different calculations, one for control of conventional wars, and a second for damage output potential. These two things are kind of unrelated, you can win a war by taking control of the battlefield and still take more damage due to nukes and missiles. For control of the battlefield there are three key factors, tier consolidation, relative alliance size and overall militarization, with correct weighting of units. Your weighting is whack. For the battlefield control index you have three key variables, one is tier consolidation, the second is relative size and activity and the third is military per city. For tier consolidation, get the average city count of the alliance (not score but city count, this is important) this is calculated by dividing the total cities by the total members. The closer a nation is to this value, the more tier consolidation bonus they get, the further away, the less. Max modifier of maybe 2x for nations exactly in the average min 0.5x for nations furthest from the average on the top and bottom of the alliance city counts, they are the most exposed to being teamed up on. For the relative size of an alliance, select the smallest and largest member counts of the top 20 alliances. This will be the relative size modifier between 0.5x and 2x between those. Active members (logged in that day) count for 1 point, logged in last 3 days count for 0.75 points, last 7 days (reds) count for 0.5 points and purples (7+ days) count 0.25 points. So tons of inactive members doesn't count as tons of members. For military per city, this is the actual value multiplied by the two bonuses. Soldiers are worth 0.05 points, tanks are worth 2 points, planes are worth 40 points and ships are worth 50 points. So the maximum possible for a fully militarized, completely consolidated and largest alliance (which would be completely unbeatable and could destroy every alliance in the world) would be 30400 points. A fully militarized alliance which is spread evenly across tiers with no consolidation and the smallest alliance in the top 20 would be 1900 points. The infra damage output calculation would be completely different, and would favour for instance ships and nukes over ground and ground is really bad at doing infra damage. The calculation would basically be 66 MAPs worth of damage from all their units on a nationwide basis added together for the whole alliance (so max of 5 nuke strikes would be calculated for instance, you can't launch 150 nukes in one war). NK for instance has oodles of damage output but would lose control of a conventional war quite quickly. You are correct. Wish I had a few allies who would help....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 18 hours ago, Sketchy said: True, but once you start getting into human elements it becomes far more complicated. 2 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: Which is why this rating is ridiculous to even attempt. The human element is what makes or breaks strength. A well prepared and ready strike is better than a huge alliance figure any day. That's probably the only part that matters. An active AA will always have a prominent community and an easier time making up for mechanical shortcomings by attracting good allies. Stats are trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 5 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: Which is why this rating is ridiculous to even attempt. The human element is what makes or breaks strength. A well prepared and ready strike is better than a huge alliance figure any day. While your right, ratings serve as sort of a baseline. If two alliances are equal in size the human element decides the winner. But if they aren't, it depends how much of a difference the skill level and size is. Hell if some cases better skilled alliances and larger alliances can still lose since tiering plays a huge factor in war. That being said this is a terrible metric and shouldn't be used. 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.