Jump to content
Erland

War Stats 3.0

Recommended Posts

Great work Erland, those looks perfect

 

384B total damage

So it's official, most destructive war ever (but only if you combine the two wars)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What after this?  Support Anti-IQ Coups in Micros? This us getting far too real 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't trust these stats, they've been rigged by Russian hackers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Radiant Order propaganda is shown to be just that, propaganda. Sad!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erland said:

Here is my version of the complete war stats, including the final war stats for Nuke bloc vs. TKR/Guardian/TC/GoB.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CUQB4ffrWnCEQWcKz5lewRzsRK4HRfFwyjkt_eTfh9U/edit?usp=sharing

The market prices used are: food=110, coal=3638, oil=3328, uranium=2995, lead=3641, iron=3765, bauxite=3075, gasoline=3720, munitions=2125, steel=4598, aluminium=2943 based on average market prices for the past 45 days.

Infrastructure damage value is calculated similar to Frawley's but should take into account the rebuying of infrastructure as well. The way it works is like this: for each attack in each war, the time is recorded, as well as who the attacker and defender are for that particular attack. According to the score graph breakdown on the defender's nation page, the infrastructure level for the latest date and time before the attack is calculated, and divided by the amount of cities at that time (also from the score chart) to find the average infrastructure per city.
The cost of the infrastructure is calculated using the same method as in the infrastructure cost calculator with the starting infrastructure given as the maximum of (average infra per city - infrastructure destroyed in the attack) or 0, and the ending infrastructure as the maximum of either infrastructure destroyed, or the average infra per city. Military unit values are calculated at cost, including missile and nuclear weapon costs. Loot values include victory and alliance bank loots.

I haven't organised the data for each individual nation like Leo did in his thread, but the sheet with all the raw data is available so you can filter by your nation ID to find that out. The alliance ID of alliances not listed on the final page (that go in the 'other' category) is also available in the raw data. It includes references to each war by the war ID so you can also check to make sure it's correct. I've done some random manual checks to make sure all the data is valid for each war, but if you find any errors please let me know, or let me know if some wars are missing. The only wars that shouldn't have been included are ones against nations that have deleted, the alliance no longer exists or against someone not in an alliance.

these are terrible, because its spelled Grumpy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for making accurate stats man. I can approve that the Nuke Bloc war side of things is pretty damn accurate. One thing it doesn't show though were the nukes spied which equated to 788 nukes and  $4,657,474,000 (4.6bil) in nuke costs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Radoje said:

Hey thanks for making accurate stats man. I can approve that the Nuke Bloc war side of things is pretty damn accurate. One thing it doesn't show though were the nukes spied which equated to 788 nukes and  $4,657,474,000 (4.6bil) in nuke costs.

I don't think that can be recorded easily, honestly.  Because in TGH, we also spied a lot of nukes away from the start of the war (As well as several other things, like Ships/Planes/Spies/etc).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

I don't think that can be recorded easily, honestly.  Because in TGH, we also spied a lot of nukes away from the start of the war (As well as several other things, like Ships/Planes/Spies/etc).

It doesn't show nukes I destroyed by eating them, oh wait, nwm it does. It should be included in my damage done, not damage taken tough :P

Edited by DragonK
Misspelled nukes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I don't think that can be recorded easily, honestly.  Because in TGH, we also spied a lot of nukes away from the start of the war (As well as several other things, like Ships/Planes/Spies/etc).

I can't say for sure at the moment whether it was really 788 but we kept track of almost all of our espionage operations and we did spy over 700 nukes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only I'd had a few more days to hit the big billion in total damage dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your data is way off.  Heavily skewwed to your favor.  Alpha did like $15b in dmg and SA $14b and you have us both listed at $9b, lol.

1) You take into account nuke buying costs but you don't take into account the cost to destroy infra conventionally.  Then you use war-time resources for the cost of nukes bought in peacetime.  Include your GA/Air/Ship attack gas/munition costs or remove nuke buying costs.  Both have costs used to destroy infra, not just nukes.  Your lot spent many many billions destroying our low-level infra that costs little.  Yet, you only include nuke buying costs.

2) For some reason your infra destroyed/taken numbers are really off.  You have us listed at net negative, when we were several billion net positive.  SA's are also off in your favor.  Because you don't list ind. nation data there is no way to know what you are doing wrong.  What's strange is that when you did GOB's infra numbers they are off in the opposite direction.  They took way more infra dmg than you have listed.  If your methodology is off, then they'd be off the same ways for both GOB and SA.  It's like you just subtracted from  Alpha/SA's net dmg and added all of it to GOB's net damage so they didn't look so awful.

3) Did you take into account that Alpha and SA decommissions enmasse to protect resources?

If you want to be honest, be honest, but don't use shitty war stats that ignore all your own costs, and highlight those of your enemy.  GOB isn't $4b in the positive, they are like $6-8b NEGATIVE.  That was several days before the war ended.

LOL at GOB at $4b net positive and not net negative. That's the main reason I investigated your data.  Doing stats like this would be like me doing war stats and only including nuke damage and nothing else.

So here is from 4/8, so for the next few days until peace, the numbers would get a little bit better for NB, as we had no infra left.  These include your loot numbers:

unknown.png&key=84942213129d738a06d72885

How does GOB go from -6b to +4b? LOL  And SA goes from +3b to -2B.  GOB didn't destroy much of SA's units, as SA decommed most of it.  You have some serious problems with your data in your attempt to make everyone on your side net negative and everyone on NB net negative.

Edited by Placentica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in the rest of world, nukes are free to attack with unlike conventional methods, but cost money and resources to build, just like conventional weapons. Seems fair to me.

I also believe the part about 'Resources lost' includes used in attacks, as i somehow have trouble believing NPO lost 500k munitions solely to looting.

Last point, the poster of this thread is in The Fighting Pacifists. Now, your memory may be off from the concussion TKR gave you, but TFP was infact fighting IQ and not nuke bloc, so we're quite curious how the stats for nuke bloc are skewed in his favor when he was uninvoled, as that doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Erland said:

Infrastructure damage value is calculated similar to Frawley's but should take into account the rebuying of infrastructure as well. The way it works is like this: for each attack in each war, the time is recorded, as well as who the attacker and defender are for that particular attack. According to the score graph breakdown on the defender's nation page, the infrastructure level for the latest date and time before the attack is calculated, and divided by the amount of cities at that time (also from the score chart) to find the average infrastructure per city.
The cost of the infrastructure is calculated using the same method as in the infrastructure cost calculator with the starting infrastructure given as the maximum of (average infra per city - infrastructure destroyed in the attack) or 0, and the ending infrastructure as the maximum of either infrastructure destroyed, or the average infra per city. Military unit values are calculated at cost, including missile and nuclear weapon costs. Loot values include victory and alliance bank loots.

Resource prices are always up for debate, but at least unit costs and loot are consistent now. As for infra damage, the sheet jumps through way too many hoops, while being prone to similar errors as the Stat-Tracker. As far as I can tell, the nation score is only logged twice per day (once at update, and once at noon),

4yFeUgz.png

as opposed to Frawley's sheet, which logged infra levels for individual nations at every turn flip. As a result, damage done gradually—as through IQ's 'attrition' tactics—would be fairly accurate, whereas the damage sustained by nations quickly brought down would be heavily inflated, due the destruction of the higher infra levels potentially counted multiple times. While the stats collected are certainly not as blatantly inaccurate as those provided by the Stat-Tracker (likely due to a lack of individual stats and lol Sheepy) the infra damage portion certainly leaves more room for error than Frawley's sheet did. In addition, as the Kangaroo pointed out, averaging infra levels across cities heavily disadvantages nuke bloc. Since large portions of infra in individual cities are destroyed in single nuclear attacks, average infra levels do not accurately model the actual infra levels in the cities being nuked. All in all, I'm not saying that these stats are overtly wrong or attributing any dishonesty to Erland, but you should take these stats with the same grain of salt as you did Leo's (actually Pablo's).

Nice likes on OP, though. Seems like anyone will support stats that show their side to be winning. Didn't know we had so many revisionists here. :P

36 minutes ago, Lairah said:

I also believe the part about 'Resources lost' includes used in attacks, as i somehow have trouble believing NPO lost 500k munitions solely to looting.

50k munitions, not 500k. Resources expended are not counted.

Edited by Them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Them said:

Resource prices are always up for debate, but at least unit costs and loot are consistent now. As for infra damage, the sheet jumps through way too many hoops, while being prone to similar errors as the Stat-Tracker. As far as I can tell, the nation score is only logged twice per day (once at update, and once at noon),

4yFeUgz.png

as opposed to Frawley's sheet, which logged infra levels for individual nations at every turn flip. As a result, damage done gradually—as through IQ's 'attrition' tactics—would be fairly accurate, whereas the damage sustained by nations quickly brought down would be heavily inflated, due the destruction of the higher infra levels potentially counted multiple times. While the stats collected are certainly not as blatantly inaccurate as those provided by the Stat-Tracker (likely due to a lack of individual stats and lol Sheepy) the infra damage portion certainly leaves more room for error than Frawley's sheet did. In addition, as the Kangaroo pointed out, averaging infra levels across cities heavily disadvantages nuke bloc. Since large portions of infra in individual cities are destroyed in single nuclear attacks, average infra levels do not accurately model the actual infra levels in the cities being nuked. All in all, I'm not saying that these stats are overtly wrong or attributing any dishonesty to Erland, but you should take these stats with the same grain of salt as you did Leo's (actually Pablo's).

Nice likes on OP, though. Seems like anyone will support stats that show their side to be winning. Didn't know we had so many revisionists here. :P

50k munitions, not 500k. Resources expended are not counted.

Aww... Well, at least the accuracy for non-infra stuff's pretty there. If Frawley posted his stats, we could probably get a fairly accurate measure of damages via combining Frawley's infra and military damage and Johan's loot damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Placentica said:

when you did GOB's infra numbers

the same ways for both GOB and SA

and added all of it to GOB's net damage

GOB isn't $4b in the positive

LOL at GOB at $4b net positive

How does GOB go from -6b to +4b?

GOB didn't destroy much of SA's units

Grumpy, not GOB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Placentica said:

1) You take into account nuke buying costs but you don't take into account the cost to destroy infra conventionally.  Then you use war-time resources for the cost of nukes bought in peacetime.  Include your GA/Air/Ship attack gas/munition costs or remove nuke buying costs.  Both have costs used to destroy infra, not just nukes.  Your lot spent many many billions destroying our low-level infra that costs little.  Yet, you only include nuke buying costs.

2) For some reason your infra destroyed/taken numbers are really off.  You have us listed at net negative, when we were several billion net positive.  SA's are also off in your favor.  Because you don't list ind. nation data there is no way to know what you are doing wrong.  What's strange is that when you did GOB's infra numbers they are off in the opposite direction.  They took way more infra dmg than you have listed.  If your methodology is off, then they'd be off the same ways for both GOB and SA.  It's like you just subtracted from  Alpha/SA's net dmg and added all of it to GOB's net damage so they didn't look so awful.

3) Did you take into account that Alpha and SA decommissions enmasse to protect resources?

 

7 hours ago, Them said:

As a result, damage done gradually—as through IQ's 'attrition' tactics—would be fairly accurate, whereas the damage sustained by nations quickly brought down would be heavily inflated, due the destruction of the higher infra levels potentially counted multiple times. While the stats collected are certainly not as blatantly inaccurate as those provided by the Stat-Tracker (likely due to a lack of individual stats and lol Sheepy) the infra damage portion certainly leaves more room for error than Frawley's sheet did. In addition, as the Kangaroo pointed out, averaging infra levels across cities heavily disadvantages nuke bloc. Since large portions of infra in individual cities are destroyed in single nuclear attacks, average infra levels do not accurately model the actual infra levels in the cities being nuked.

I have to agree with these points. Initially I couldn't find a way to include gasoline and munitions from each attack since the units used aren't listed, but then I realised that the stat tracker records this, so I'll work on including it. As for the infrastructure damage, I'm thinking of a better way of calculating it that should remove those inaccuracies. It'll work like this: average infrastructure per city will only be calculated once at the beginning and stored for each city. For each subsequent attack, the amount of the damage will be reduced on the city with the highest infrastructure. If at the end of each twelve hour period there is a mismatch between the damage done and the reduced total infrastructure in the nation score chart, then the value is added progressively to lower infrastructure cities until it's balanced (re-bought infrastructure), or if the difference is negative, then it's progressively reduced from higher infrastructure cities (unaccounted attacks).

For #3, decommissioning doesn't affect the numbers because it only counts units lost in wars. I also didn't count the money and 25% resources lost for decommissioned units since it would be pretty hard to track. The same goes for spy actions, the loss of spied away nukes (according to Radoje's value) plus decommissioning losses probably offsets most if not all of the cost of resources used in each attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erland said:

I have to agree with these points. Initially I couldn't find a way to include gasoline and munitions from each attack since the units used aren't listed, but then I realised that the stat tracker records this, so I'll work on including it. As for the infrastructure damage, I'm thinking of a better way of calculating it that should remove those inaccuracies. It'll work like this: average infrastructure per city will only be calculated once at the beginning and stored for each city. For each subsequent attack, the amount of the damage will be reduced on the city with the highest infrastructure. If at the end of each twelve hour period there is a mismatch between the damage done and the reduced total infrastructure in the nation score chart, then the value is added progressively to lower infrastructure cities until it's balanced (re-bought infrastructure), or if the difference is negative, then it's progressively reduced from higher infrastructure cities (unaccounted attacks).

Mhmm. Looking at the totals given by the last update of Frawley's sheet and this one shows a few discrepancies. Seems like the new method should work better.

LbAWLp9.png 

Also, don't use the stat-tracker for resources. It's broken for that as well.

Edited by Them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Them said:

Resource prices are always up for debate, but at least unit costs and loot are consistent now. As for infra damage, the sheet jumps through way too many hoops, while being prone to similar errors as the Stat-Tracker. As far as I can tell, the nation score is only logged twice per day (once at update, and once at noon),

4yFeUgz.png

as opposed to Frawley's sheet, which logged infra levels for individual nations at every turn flip. As a result, damage done gradually—as through IQ's 'attrition' tactics—would be fairly accurate, whereas the damage sustained by nations quickly brought down would be heavily inflated, due the destruction of the higher infra levels potentially counted multiple times. While the stats collected are certainly not as blatantly inaccurate as those provided by the Stat-Tracker (likely due to a lack of individual stats and lol Sheepy) the infra damage portion certainly leaves more room for error than Frawley's sheet did. In addition, as the Kangaroo pointed out, averaging infra levels across cities heavily disadvantages nuke bloc. Since large portions of infra in individual cities are destroyed in single nuclear attacks, average infra levels do not accurately model the actual infra levels in the cities being nuked. All in all, I'm not saying that these stats are overtly wrong or attributing any dishonesty to Erland, but you should take these stats with the same grain of salt as you did Leo's (actually Pablo's).

Nice likes on OP, though. Seems like anyone will support stats that show their side to be winning. Didn't know we had so many revisionists here. :P

50k munitions, not 500k. Resources expended are not counted.

Read again. There are 2 resource measurements, one says loot, that's the first one from the left. The second says lost. Under the second, NPO shows 530,453. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lairah said:

Read again. There are 2 resource measurements, one says loot, that's the first one from the left. The second says lost. Under the second, NPO shows 530,453. 

Yeah, I can't read too. Loot is resources gained from looting, lost is resources lost from looting. That's a lot of munitions.

You also don't need to quote the whole post :P

Edited by Them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hashtagsharethedata

17 hours ago, Placentica said:

Heavily skewwed to your favor. 

1

johan isnt even in ur war.... in fact the stats show their own alliance in the negative soooo...

calmate its the most overall accurate with publicly available info

if @Frawley wants to provide the infra at every turn change

or if u want to hand it over it then it can be included

rawr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.