Aderan's Alliances - balance, strategies etc...

Hey guys.

Figured it would be nice to have a active topic which isn't a war topic, update topic or a "hello" topic on this forum So... i figured what better way than to (where possible) keep an active track of the main alliance's progress on Aderan Wars - and use a couple of different way's to measure them against one another, and to illustrate/ draw out patterns between the different alliances and what they seem to focus on doing

The Imperium

The Imperium Total Army size: 126,197,194
Number of Members: 50.
Total Power: 151,175,932,869
Member War Experience: 754,053,716

Average Army Size per member: 2,523,943
Average Power Per Member: 3,023,518,657
Average Experience Per Member: 15,081,074

Average Power Per Army Size: 1197.9

Mujengan (FIRE)

Mujengan Total Army Size: 31,395,344
Number of Members: 26
Total Power: 44,122,138,781
Member War Experience: 359,485,552

Average Army Size per member: 1,207,513
Average Power Per Member: 1,697,005,337
Average Experience Per Member: 13,826,367

Average Power Per Army Size: 1405.3

World Republic (O):

World Republic Total Army Size: 40,363,408
Number of Members: 82
Total Power: 62,709,893,162
Member War Experience: 445,138,829

Average Army Size per member: 492,236
Average Power Per Member: 764,754,794
Average Experience Per Member: 5,428,522

Average Power Per Army Size: 1553.6

Pohida

Pohida Total Army Size: 18,645,368
Number of Members: 9
Total Power: 23,424,159,869
Member War Experience: 41,803,152

Average Army Size per member: 2,071,707
Average Power Per Member: 2,602,684,429
Average Experience Per Member: 4,644,794

Average Power Per Army Size: 1256

Emperors:

Emperors Total Army Size: 18,002,690
Number of Members: 6
Total Power: 22,483,110,215
Member War Experience: 10,041,798

Average Army Size per member: 3,000,448
Average Power Per Member: 3,747,185,035
Average Experience Per Member: 1,673,633

Average Power Per Army Size: 1248.8

Total Members in the top 5 alliances: 173
Total Army Size in the top 5 alliances: 234,604,004
Total Power of The top 5 alliances: 303,915,234,896
Total War Experience between the top 5 alliances: 1,610,523,047

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of my particular favourite ways of measuring an alliance is the average power per army size indictator. Thats basically total power/ total army size - it gives a indication of the sort of militarisation each alliance has compared to its size.

From the above, we can therefore conclude that currently World Republic is the most militarised, followed by Mujengan, Pohida, Emperors and lastly The Imperium being the most de-militarised of the main 5 alliances.

Keeping a record of the above helps also to illustrate each alliance's particular focus and strategy.. with gradual changes in the above figures giving an indication into changing focus/ strategies. To give everyone a rough breakdown:

- World Republic's focus at the moment (and has been for a while now) is military investment at the expense of economic growth. Hence the low average army size, but very high power per army size indicator.

- Mujengan's focus up untill recently has been military investment - accounting for a gradual climb in the power per army size indictator. A drop in the indictator will illustrate a reshift back to economic growth, which coupled with the ever growing experience per member indicator, illustates high activity (most likely farming/ raiding/ massing inactives) - likely helping bolster economic growth.

- Emperor & Pohida's power indicator's are relatively high... which if you then look at their average experience per member gives an indication that they are both following the "fortress" approach - bottling themselves up with a considerable military capacity to avoid getting farmed, while doing virtually no farming/ raiding themselves.

- The Imperium's low average power indictor illustrates The Imperium proportionately (to its size) spends the least amount of resources on its military upkeep and capabilities out of the 5 main alliances, which coupled with high experience per member and the acceptable average army size per member helps illustrate reasonable activity ingame focused on economic growth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's everyone's take on the above? How else can alliance's be measured against one another? What sort of strategy/ focus is your alliance currently concentrating on/ using?

Will update this semi-reguarly

Interesting. I think are you are wrong about Muj though. They were eco based and switched over to military recently i think.

GD would be interesting on this list i think. They are eco based but use a mix of the fortress style you mentioned for POHIDA and Emperors.

Don't really know about the rest of the World Republic(o); but I have tried to maintain even growth between my military & my economy. may be a mistake on my part but seemed like the right thing to do...

Uhm i worked out a guesstimate on Incomes for each alliance. This should be in the ballpark of what their actual income is. I copy pasted the entire alliances current kuwal out. waited for turn tick the recorded again.

TIE
2,847,705,322 kuwal per turn (58,116,435 per member average)

Mujengan
857,790,057 kuwal per turn (32,991,925 per member average)

WR
1,180,049,582 kuwal per turn (14,512,799 per member average)

POHIDA
579,504,973 kuwal per turn (64,389,441 per member average)

Spoiler:

Wow that would have been tedious! Nice work. I notice PHOIDA have a high income per member, but I guess that is because they only hae a few members that are all relatively 'big'.

As for the rest of the topic, atm primarily ian's original post, I think it is very interesting, thanks.

-Alex

It would be interesting to see how many members from each alliance took part in the various wars that have occurred during the game's time line. I would guess that TIE, among the big alliances, has the best ratio and higher power. GD is also a good example of a good ratio but not as powerful.
Reading the alliance stats can lead to wrong conclusions. From what I read on the forums in the latest war which was TIE vs Fire, about 1/3 of Fire left their alliance and during the previous war between TIE and WR, a lot of WR members and allies jumped ship.
A true measure of an alliance power is how many accounts you can count on to participate on an attack you plan, either with armies or resources and not how much power you have on paper.
Also for me strong defense is not militarization but a counter measure to a perceived threat (meaning that you believe you will be a target in case your alliance goes to war). I believe this is the case with WR which is made up of smaller players than TIE.

Also for me strong defense is not militarization but a counter measure to a perceived threat (meaning that you believe you will be a target in case your alliance goes to war). I believe this is the case with WR which is made up of smaller players than TIE

Would I be out of line by agreeing with this statement???

Yeah, you prolly would be LOL

J/K

Well there are two different ways to look at defense. Having a big one can be a bad thing. It can make you more of a target as well as make you less of one, and a smaller defense cost lest and is easier to replace, so like everything else its all about balance.

dont trouble yourself with arming a massive defense unless you can support it.

To protect your account you need defense to protect the assassins. Assassins to protect the spies. Spies to protect the defense. If your weak in one of those then you are vulnerable in the others.

*sniff* *sniff*

Do I smell weakness? mmm, yummy.

Lol, i m sorry guys - but those of you who said arming a strong defence is the means to counter a threat just made me almost wet myself with laughter. You guys *really* don't know how to play the game, or are hopelessly naive

Here's something for you to consider to illustrate: As The Imperium leader when The Imperium goes to war - which targets do you think i deliberately select to be killed - those with nice defences with lots and lots of juicy resources to be wiped out - setting the player back by ideally week's on end... permanently crippling their growth and damaging their alliance's future prospects by causing as much death and destruction as possible - thus ensuring the next war TIE find's it even easier against the opposition..... or those who make nice farms, but don't have anything "outstanding" to kill?

Any half-decent alliance/ enemy will seek to rip your guts out and to inflict as much damage as possible. By building large defences, your not only painting a "kill me" sign on your account, your also ensuring when your brought down you ll be massively set-back and struggle to recover... all the while your enemy grows ahead of you and is in a better position for the next war.

Maxium death and destruction is the means to victory.... not huge "KILL ME!!!" defences..... there are still some World Republic members who haven't recovered from the losses of *first* TIE war (i.e. Lord Pegasus).... let alone the second.

If you want to survive and prevail on Aderan Wars - build only what you can afford to loose.

I agree with Ian that someone would be hopelessly naive if he can think he would be able to survive a determined attack by TIE no matter how high his defense is. But you can still protect yourself from everyone else who doesn't have the firepower or the resources of TIE.
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

doxakk wrote:I agree with Ian that someone would be hopelessly naive if he can think he would be able to survive a determined attack by TIE no matter how high his defense is. But you can still protect yourself from everyone else who doesn't have the firepower or the resources of TIE.
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

lol, sorry buddy i have to disagree with you there.

Any alliance or group of players can bring a well-equiped and well developed account down. Just because The Imperium doesn't hesistate to use its military strength when we have to doesn't mean the other alliances on Aderan War's also can't when they choose to.

The Imperium's main advantage is its member's do work together, and we can normally field a strike team of about 8 - 10 member's on short notice at any-time off day. While that represents less than 1/4 of our memberbase... the strike team itself often contains more army size and firepower than entire alliance's (20 - 30+ members) can field if they got *all* their member's online. This means we can often hit 6 - 8 account's per attack wave (probably 12+ if we really push ourselves) before we run out of supply turns and need to replace the strike group/ recharge.

Other alliance's will probably manage 3 - 4 account's killed per strike by comparison.... but while all of this add's up meaning The Imperium does have a advantage in alliance-warfare, on a individual player for player scale each individual can *still* be brought down by the enemy strike team.... it just happens if your against The Imperium the risks of your being targetted is higher than if you were fighting someone else - simply due to our higher sortie-rate. BUT - the actual ability/ ease with which your defence will be brought down isn't much different between any alliance's strike group... all of the top 5 alliance's have the ability to bring any player on AW crashing to the ground if they choose to do so.

I agree that any account can be brought down, I just want to add that having the power to do it and the will to do it and face the consequences of your actions are different things. There lies the true strength of an alliance.

Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves? In contrast members of other alliances would jump at this offer. I find this fact more important than any alliance stat or calculation to measure one alliance versus another, combined of course with the war record of each alliance.

doxakk wrote:I agree that any account can be brought down, I just want to add that having the power to do it and the will to do it and face the consequences of your actions are different things. There lies the true strength of an alliance.

Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves? In contrast members of other alliances would jump at this offer. I find this fact more important than any alliance stat or calculation to measure one alliance versus another, combined of course with the war record of each alliance.

lol, victory on the battlefield is all about pre-planning and preparation in peace-time.

An alliance which is poorly prepared and led in peacetime will suffer heavier losses and come off worse than it should in war-time. Its member's will suffer unnecessarily and that in turn will increase the likelyhood of their leaving during war-time.

In contrast - a well led and well prepared alliance in peace-time will find war-time a lot easier. They ll likely smash the enemy apart and come off better in every engagement than a poorer prepared enemy - and this in turn will make it less likely for your member's to leave, while increasing the likelyhood of the enemy leaving.

A alliance which is well-run and led in peace-time is more likely to build a bond of friendship and companionship, sharing a set of ideal's, principles and strategies in common - which will then help them stick together in war-time. The more progress a alliance makes in peacetime, the greater sense of achievement they ll feel - something which will also way heavily on their choice to stick together, or abondon one another.

War isn't about who had the best military, or who has the biggest strike - its about organisation and coordination, and about making use of what you have.

The above stats helps at least provide a small measure of how successfull a alliance's growth/ activity is - which in turn gives a little insight into just whether that alliance is likely to be effective on the battlefield. I.e. a alliance making strong economic progress is most likely following a set-economic policy across its rank's - implying working together and cooperating... something which will be essential in war-time. A less active alliance (indictated by military record's) is a lot less likely to offer any serious resistance/ ability during war-time.

All of the above is something i ve gradually neglected in my 3years as alliance-leader of The Commonwealth and The Imperium. I ve become more and more relaxed when it comes to preparation and policies, instead becoming more focused on external event's and not focused enough on internal running, progress and maintainence of The Imperium. That's one of the thing's which happens when you ve been doing the same thing for close to 3 year's - you start to overlook the less rewarding and less interesting aspects and instead focus on the more interesting - even if the dull-mundane task's are essential to success with the more interesting challenges/ aspects. Thats going to change.

doxakk wrote:Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves? In contrast members of other alliances would jump at this offer. I find this fact more important than any alliance stat or calculation to measure one alliance versus another, combined of course with the war record of each alliance.

LOL - i think once they offered this to us on Dune ( against TOIF i believe). I dont think anyone took it even though we were so badly out-gunned Ian wrote his surrender topic ( And yes that post was the size of a whale, think how i felt when he made me check through it!!!) BEFORE actually declaring war.

*Shrugs* I dunno, we just always seem to pull through. Although it was very nearly the end when we called upon a kamikaze squad of the most devout and sacrificed out accounts against BW in a final gesture of defiance Now THAT was fun

Back on point - I think you are right: the true strength of an alliance is how they behave AFTER the shit hits the fans and you've got a complete wall paper redecoration in your hands from the living room right through to the bedrooms.

My advice is - if you want to take on TIE make sure you bring toilet paper. We dont mind losing, its just we like to make a mess before we exit

Hai-Shulud wrote:

doxakk wrote:Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves? In contrast members of other alliances would jump at this offer. I find this fact more important than any alliance stat or calculation to measure one alliance versus another, combined of course with the war record of each alliance.

LOL - i think once they offered this to us on Dune ( against TOIF i believe). I dont think anyone took it even though we were so badly out-gunned Ian wrote his surrender topic ( And yes that post was the size of a whale, think how i felt when he made me check through it!!!) BEFORE actually declaring war.

*Shrugs* I dunno, we just always seem to pull through. Although it was very nearly the end when we called upon a kamikaze squad of the most devout and sacrificed out accounts against BW in a final gesture of defiance Now THAT was fun

Back on point - I think you are right: the true strength of an alliance is how they behave AFTER the shit hits the fans and you've got a complete wall paper redecoration in your hands from the living room right through to the bedrooms.

My advice is - if you want to take on TIE make sure you bring toilet paper. We dont mind losing, its just we like to make a mess before we exit

LOL, our suicide squad against Black Watch failed epically... the whole point was we d burn up our entire account killing them off... but it turned out they ran out of killable units before we d even used up our existing trained units, let alone reassigning other part's of our account

As for The Order of The Iron Fist war - this is the dune forum topic: http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2055&start=0&mforum=dunewars - page 18 is where things start to get interesting with both sides declaring unending war

I went hunting through The Commonwealth's archives and found a somewhat educational topic i think anyone who believes they can use force against The Imperium (which contains many past Commonwealth members) to force us into a corner should see. Suffice it to say... we will fight whoever whenever for however long is needed:


https://2img.net/h/i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd103/ianjones1246/TOIFdecision.jpg

That was after 2months+ of all out war and still not managing to bring Sinath's near-unkillable defence down

Definately good times.... and lots of even better times to come with The Imperium. I just miss there being no equivilant to Dynasty, Nexus or The Order of The Iron Fist on Aderan Wars

I tell you what aggravates me to no end. Meeting someone new from another alliance, and just in casual talking find out they know nothing about basic account building fundamentals. Even worse they often barely even know their alliance leadership, or have never even heard from them. Some have told me they don't even know their squad leader, or even what a squad was. Often my very short tutorials on best growth tactics have never been heard of by the people I speak to. That should be the #1 thing preached to every player in the game.

In other words their is a very low level of commitment to some alliances from their leadership. This is not the case in TIE. Ian is constantly on us, and in turn squad leader are on their squads. TIE forums are active, and information passed quickly between members. Inactivity just is not allowed for long before you are removed from the alliance.

I know not everyone is as "hardcore" as others are, but without leadership and commitment alliances don't stand a chance. I am sure that even a part time player could do better then some of what I have seen recently.

@ doxakk

You know what separates TIE from the "groups of independent players" you mentioned? We agree to follow the same path, and agree on the path to follow. We have probably 6 to 8 members who have leadership potential. Meaning they could more then likely successfully lead their own alliance. Even with so many leader we still follow set protocol, procedures, and policies. Even if one of us leaves for some reason, there is another ready to take his place, and all of us are up to date on how things work,

We talk about everything, and everyone is equal, and everyone is heard when it comes to any ideas they have about alliance protocol or policies. Point being we are active and we discuss things. We may not always get along or see eye to eye but we know each other and have some sense of trust and commitment to each other because of that.

doxakk wrote:

Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves?

ROFL I feel this is sorta directed at me regarding that last war. This was done because logically in a war you want to fight as few people as possible. Why would you fight somebody that has no problem with you or your alliance? I offered a way out to multiple people in WR and everyone I spoke to accepted. Reason i contacted people in WR was mainly because most people had no idea what was happening. If a war kicked off and people in TIE didnt like the terms it was under they would leave. You wouldn't need to offer them the option. So why did WR members not just leave when they saw their accounts falling? Some could argue they are loyal to kenzu (load of crap being everyone took the way out the second i contacted them), some could argue they had no where to go (FIRE was more then happy to offer a safe house for the scrambling members, I would say that people didnt leave WR until contacted because they had no idea that they were at war. And if they did they had no idea why.

I agree 100% with SA. TIE has multiple leaders all capable of leading their own alliance. TIE would be many alliances but it is much easier to communicate and things under 1 umbrella. Maybe if admin creates a way for empires to communicate within empires and not just within alliance TIE will break into many sections. We have enough people that have been schooled and understand the game that we discuss the best way to do something. When you have 8 to 10 people discussing one topic there is a very good chance that you have the "best" method. When you rely on 1 or even just 2 people to decide how to run the alliance you will get a "okay" method as a result.

When you invent something you want as many brainstorm and ideas as possible, then you discuss with as many people as possible and get as much input as possible. The more people you get input from the better the invention will be.

This is a game of numbers. Quantity over quality here. One person can not battle many. (that's the way the game was designed)

Vesper wrote:

doxakk wrote:

Wouldn't you get a good laugh if during the last war of TIE vs WR or TIE vs Fire or any war TIE gets involved in the near future, TIE members were offered a chance to leave TIE to save themselves?

ROFL I feel this is sorta directed at me regarding that last war. This was done because logically in a war you want to fight as few people as possible. Why would you fight somebody that has no problem with you or your alliance? I offered a way out to multiple people in WR and everyone I spoke to accepted. Reason i contacted people in WR was mainly because most people had no idea what was happening. If a war kicked off and people in TIE didnt like the terms it was under they would leave. You wouldn't need to offer them the option. So why did WR members not just leave when they saw their accounts falling? Some could argue they are loyal to kenzu (load of crap being everyone took the way out the second i contacted them), some could argue they had no where to go (FIRE was more then happy to offer a safe house for the scrambling members, I would say that people didnt leave WR until contacted because they had no idea that they were at war. And if they did they had no idea why.

I agree 100% with SA. TIE has multiple leaders all capable of leading their own alliance. TIE would be many alliances but it is much easier to communicate and things under 1 umbrella. Maybe if admin creates a way for empires to communicate within empires and not just within alliance TIE will break into many sections. We have enough people that have been schooled and understand the game that we discuss the best way to do something. When you have 8 to 10 people discussing one topic there is a very good chance that you have the "best" method. When you rely on 1 or even just 2 people to decide how to run the alliance you will get a "okay" method as a result.

When you invent something you want as many brainstorm and ideas as possible, then you discuss with as many people as possible and get as much input as possible. The more people you get input from the better the invention will be.

There's also one final factor which gives TIE a advantage - thats that while its leadership is fully involved and does discuss practically everything, it also retains sufficient ability to make a quick decision when necessary via retaining a sufficient command chain - eithier myself making the snap immediate needed decisions (though i do that very very very rarely now ) or someone else doing it (i.e. Vesper) - i.e. we don't get ever get stuck by indecisiveness due to differences of opinion in the leadership (mainly because we all think alike and have similar goals) - but in the event there is ever a sufficient difference of opinion its likely one "path" will be chosen and followed with minimal delays.

O another advantage.

Activity, it is very rare that some form of leadership is not online in TIE since we literally have someone in nearly every timezone. We cover the entire world An example of where active leaders come into play is that FIRE took out 1 account before the attack was recognized and dealt with it

Vesper wrote:

ROFL I feel this is sorta directed at me regarding that last war.

It wasn't directed at anyone and I agree with what you wrote, I was just making a point on how to judge the strength of an alliance which has to do with loyalty and moral. I pointed to the strength of TIE as an alliance in the fact that their members did not or would not in a near future war run away like members of other alliances did.
SA47 wrote:

You know what separates TIE from the "groups of independent players"

By 'groups of independent players' I meaned disorganised/chaotic alliances who do not have the structure or do the things you mention in your post with which I totally agree. I suppose that 'independent players' as I wrote it could have another meaning. English is not my first language

My posts are trying to show that TIE is in top position because they are better organised and have a core of players that have a history from other games. Have this in mind when reading them

doxakk you should join TIE

get a inside view point of how we run the business

Lots of people assume its just a core group of people that are friends. That isn't entirely true. We have crazy fun in TIE. Our forums get some of the craziest posts and spam i have ever read. New players and old players work together towards a common goal. We all just want to have fun so we joke around and have a good time.

Curumo wrote: "I don't know you personally yet but from what I can tell TIE is a family and even if a child does something bad, he's still part of the family."

Pulled from TIE forums, slightly paraphrased. Curumo is pretty new to TIE.
First thing i ever said to curumo

Vesper wrote:Welcome to the alliance curumo. Only half the people in here are crazy. Rest are at least somewhat sane. That SA47 guy lights kittens tails on fire so steer clear of him. He is a bad influence. :'(

We have an 8 page thread of welcoming a new member to the alliance. Several threads of just welcoming new members and spamming them with threats. We do haze new members sometimes

You guys just dont know how crazy we all are.

I would definetely join with you guys in another game you might play and with other friends like Ishurue

Dibs on the next guy that joins tie. My squad is the smallest ... you ... bastards!