DeletedUser17561
Guest
Data from Grepostats Sept 2
Not all conquers are equal, especially in war.
Conquers have been taken and scored according to the following schedule:
> 2000 pt city conquer from declared enemy = 2 pts
>2000 pt city loss to anyone = -2 pts
>2000 pt city conquer from entity not declared for specific war = 1 pt
swaps (intra allinace and within allied war coaltion) AND all city transactions < 2000 pts = 0
city transactions of any kind that are less than 2000 pts have been dropped
In addition, data sets have been analyzed and the following reported
Total pts conquered
Total pts lost
Analysis
Day 1 was predominated by SS and CT engaging in military and city exchanges. SS took 8 cities of > 2000 pts. They also had no conquers that were not of a declared enemy, demonstrating tight focus on warfare goals. CT took 1 > 2000 pt city from SS on day 1 and had one off-war conquer of a city > 2000 pts. This indicates some level of resource appropriation to activities other than the war. Given the difference in conquer score and the operational tempo and density of Day 1, this is at best a questionable tactical decision
The Black Dolphins spent Day 1 primarily engaged in off-war city transactions. BD lost no cities to enemies and took 1 > 2000 pt city.
BORG/NanjistanShadow/Dogs - currently are considered non-combatants. No relevant city transactions occurred on Day 1. This is in contrast to the diplomatic stances of some of these alliances, and the probability that some of them will register relevant city transactions in the near term is considered high - although in some cases it might be difficult to distinguish opportunistic conquers from a concerted war effort
Summary/Interpretation
Day 1 was primarily SS and CT interacting. Despite the conquer scores, the day did not have an offense-defense feel to it. I had a city under revolt and I got to see a lot of CT battle reports. CT was organized in attacking and demonstrated above average attack sequencing and timing between multiple players. As the day progressed, CS attack sequences showed a decreased level of constitution (ie - the number and type of troops). There was also at a least one member who immediately switch to a different alliance at the outbreak of hostilities. This should not be over-interpreted, but is notable. CT also had 2 players who lost multiple cities, which I think is overall more demoralizing than 2 players losing 1 city each
The Black Dolphins are notable in that they were the only other alliance to become actively engaged on Day 1 - with one conquer. BD could very quickly ramp up activity and they have an interesting position on the map.
My personal feeling is Nanjistan is simply not geographically situated for this fight. I have tried to cross a long distance to get engaged in a large conflict and it takes longer than you think and you are at a significant disadvantage because you are displaced from your core.
Not all conquers are equal, especially in war.
Conquers have been taken and scored according to the following schedule:
> 2000 pt city conquer from declared enemy = 2 pts
>2000 pt city loss to anyone = -2 pts
>2000 pt city conquer from entity not declared for specific war = 1 pt
swaps (intra allinace and within allied war coaltion) AND all city transactions < 2000 pts = 0
city transactions of any kind that are less than 2000 pts have been dropped
In addition, data sets have been analyzed and the following reported
Total pts conquered
Total pts lost
| allinace | conquer score | pts gained | pts lost |
| Sesame Street | 12 | 24,343 | 5,230 |
| Creepy Turtles | -11 | 7,699 | 24,343 |
| Black Dolphins | 5 | 21,047 | 8,834 |
Analysis
Day 1 was predominated by SS and CT engaging in military and city exchanges. SS took 8 cities of > 2000 pts. They also had no conquers that were not of a declared enemy, demonstrating tight focus on warfare goals. CT took 1 > 2000 pt city from SS on day 1 and had one off-war conquer of a city > 2000 pts. This indicates some level of resource appropriation to activities other than the war. Given the difference in conquer score and the operational tempo and density of Day 1, this is at best a questionable tactical decision
The Black Dolphins spent Day 1 primarily engaged in off-war city transactions. BD lost no cities to enemies and took 1 > 2000 pt city.
BORG/NanjistanShadow/Dogs - currently are considered non-combatants. No relevant city transactions occurred on Day 1. This is in contrast to the diplomatic stances of some of these alliances, and the probability that some of them will register relevant city transactions in the near term is considered high - although in some cases it might be difficult to distinguish opportunistic conquers from a concerted war effort
Summary/Interpretation
Day 1 was primarily SS and CT interacting. Despite the conquer scores, the day did not have an offense-defense feel to it. I had a city under revolt and I got to see a lot of CT battle reports. CT was organized in attacking and demonstrated above average attack sequencing and timing between multiple players. As the day progressed, CS attack sequences showed a decreased level of constitution (ie - the number and type of troops). There was also at a least one member who immediately switch to a different alliance at the outbreak of hostilities. This should not be over-interpreted, but is notable. CT also had 2 players who lost multiple cities, which I think is overall more demoralizing than 2 players losing 1 city each
The Black Dolphins are notable in that they were the only other alliance to become actively engaged on Day 1 - with one conquer. BD could very quickly ramp up activity and they have an interesting position on the map.
My personal feeling is Nanjistan is simply not geographically situated for this fight. I have tried to cross a long distance to get engaged in a large conflict and it takes longer than you think and you are at a significant disadvantage because you are displaced from your core.
