Is this the trend now? Efec win, JSF win? Cause i tihnk its a little odd that sgb territories fall like dominos to europe. Granted the west has been training vs Russia most of their life, but wow.

NO, I just haven't gototn arroudn ot winnign for russian yet


But really I ope it changes when I'm trying for a win as russia.

LOL well maybe Russia will win when every map vs Europe is Assault?

An interesting fact I noticed within SGB players (since last war at least) is that we mainly focus on defending instead of attacking territories. Since you can conquer territories, let alone win a war, just by defending, I don't see how we are going to get out of that. And I think it's a reasonable explanation of the trend that Storm observed.

Quick examples to illustrate (numbers are wins for Russia):
Turn 3 (of the current war):
SGB attacking Pascagoula: 575 (out of 1430 battles)
SGB attacking Ft Levski: 540 (1452)
SGB defending Rondane: 1136 (2010)

Turn 4:
SGB defending Grissom: 1414 (3323)
SGB attacking Carpathia: 682 (1460)
SGB attacking Ft Levski (Raid): 750 (1084)*
*We won the Raid on Ft Levski but we don't get a territory for that, so it doesn't "matter". Assuming 200 of the 750 won battles were on Carpathia, we could have taken Carpathia and still win on Ft Levski. It's not a perfect example but you can get the idea ...

Turn 5 (current percentages)
SGB defending Rondane: 61%
SGB attacking Sevastopol: 42%

The percentages on Rondane and Sevastopol haven't changed too much for the past 2 or 3 hours (as far as I remember) and I am pretty sure they will be close to the same at the end of the turn.

Don't think the stats support your thesis (that Russians are concentrating on defending more than attacking, than they did in the last war) ... You are counting wins, not games played. Perhaps other factions have improved at defending? Perhaps Russians have overall got worse? Etc..

BTW, successful defense often gives the defender the attacker's terrority (PF rule, and local map connectivity, permitting). Hence it is possible to gain more territories by playing defending maps ...

quote:

Originally posted by avoiderman:
Don't think the stats support your thesis (that Russians are concentrating on defending more than attacking, than they did in the last war) ...You are counting wins, not games played

I did count games played. I may not have explained myself well. When I say on Turn 3
SGB defending Rondane: 1136 (2010)
the first number represents SGB wins (1136) and the second the total of battles or games played if you want (2010; so we lost 2010-1136 = 874 battles); idem for the others. You will see that on the 3 turns (update for turn 5 below), the highest number of battles for SGB (hence our primary frontline) happen on the map where SGB is defending instead of attacking.
Turn 5:
SGB defending Rondane: 2622 (4705)
SGB attacking Sevastopol: 1157 (2733)

quote:

Perhaps other factions have improved at defending? Perhaps Russians have overall got worse? Etc..

Those are totally legitimate assumptions, and I am not arguing about that.

quote:

BTW, successful defense often gives the defender the attacker's terrority (PF rule, and local map connectivity, permitting). Hence it is possible to gain more territories by playing defending maps ...

Thanks for reminding me this . Unfortunately, it hasn't work well for us; most of the time this rule will help us win a territory, but it's usually canceled by a loss on another territory we were attacking during the same turn. (Turn 5, we won Grissom but lost Dukovany for example).

To sum up my ideas/findings:
1. SGB players focus on territories they defend most of the time; it seems to stand for the past 2 war as well, from what I could see on the h0b0 stats website (data are available for only 6 turns now, for both wars )
2. Successfully defend territories can make SGB progress (thanks avoiderman for reminder of the Primary Frontline Rule), but they have failed to do so a few times, hence giving territories away to other factions.
3. Argument 1 and 2 seem to be a reasonable explanation of what is going on in ToW for SGB
4. Other factors such as "noobs vs good players vs cheaters" in each faction are not relevant to me, since they are based on assumptions, not actual facts; by facts I mean numbers from Ubi. The XML feed is the only trustworthy data source available at the moment. The leaderboard is broken, both for not counting win/loss , and for only showing the initial faction of the players (no update when switching faction)

Sorry for being too long. Just wanted to share some info I found interesting and thought were relevant to Storm's topic.

either way I may pull out my second account and lend russia a hand, but you guys were doing well on dukovany today last i checked.

Yeah, we actually did well on Dukovany.
On a side note, my "theory" stood true again on Turn 6 :
SGB defending Grissom: 1916 (4521)
SGB attacking Dukovany: 1237 (2235)
SGB attacking Sevastopol (Raid): 1110 (1809)

I couldn't help ... I love numbers

ok, unless other jsf players learn how to play pamlico, the cycle of pamlico to the valley/Chattanooga will not stop. it's also bull**** how we cant attack from Copenhagen but all other factions are able to easily attack us once they make an entry point in america...wtf.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm2678:
ok, unless other jsf players learn how to play pamlico, the cycle of pamlico to the valley/Chattanooga will not stop. it's also bull**** how we cant attack from Copenhagen but all other factions are able to easily attack us once they make an entry point in america...wtf.

Only EFEC is attacking you, you are attacking the russians but can't beat them at rondane.

correction to my analysis then. but either way this is the current cycle, though i say coppenhagen is bull****.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm2678:
correction to my analysis then. but either way this is the current cycle, though i say coppenhagen is bull****.

How? On the turn you were fighting on copenhagen and grissom you had more battles played at grissom, so your frontline continued that way.

ok B let me put it this way, JSf's current battle situation is ****, but we're not the only one. In total the whole system needs to be tweaked...wheres that damn patch? I don't see a break in this trend.

JSF has a perfectly good base there in Denmark. Why can't we use Copenhagen as a staging point and move onto Rozenberg and Wilstermarsch?

Another good example is, we defended Pascagoula against the Russians but didn't get the territory they were attacking from (Carpathia). However whenever we win @ Okefenokee we have to defend Arrabida?

I'm confused.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm2678:
ok B let me put it this way, JSf's current battle situation is ****, but we're not the only one. In total the whole system needs to be tweaked...wheres that damn patch? I don't see a break in this trend.

I know very well how messed up it is, what I don't get it why you are making a deal out of it now, after we've been exposed to problems exactly like this for months.

I guess because it didn't really bother me til recently, but it doesn't matter now. I'll just sit being one of the few players to win at pamlico, and rank up with the majority at chatonogga and the valley.

i do remember on turn 2 for jsf we fought at JFK, pamlico, and maxwell(was a conquest), although they won pamlico we won both JFK and cambell and had more wins on those to then on pamlico and we were defending shouldnt we have taken back okefenokee but we didnt they took over pamlico and started this whole cycle that storm is refering to but them again we would only be a turn difference and would still get back to where we are now a turn from now and i agree we win copenhagen but what do we get from it nothin and when we first started the war and fought at reagan that was a colliding front line why didnt we get a shot at glen albyn given that we wouldnt win anyway a shot is a shot wether or not we might have pulled a win out of our asses

That's a double edged sword, if you were able to attack form copenhagen then EFEC could attack you at a weaker point then Shenandoah.

the euros are the fastest so its kinda unfair advantage to them cus by the time we get 1 uplink they have like 2 or 3 wait till it hits assault russian v euros you will see the difference cus all we have been playing is conquest maps

we actually do pretty well at Copenhagen, if it needed to be defended. I don't think Copenhagen would be a issue, however if Springfield came under attack thats a question of how it would work out.