[tBRE] Alliances of the eWorld - Day 1998
Day 1,999, 13:16
•
Published in Belgium 
•
by
•
by Tony Clifford
"the Big Red Express. One of my favourite newspapers
aVie
"I think your newspaper is one of the most innovative ones in the game.
Your schemes and graphics should be included ingame and your copyright paid by the admins!
Thanks for such magic!"
Lorcema
___________________________________________________________________________
shout:
[tBRE] Alliances of the eWorld - Day 1998
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2259509/1/20
MPP graphs and figures
___________________________________________________________________________
Dear Belgians and others, this week, a really very interesting update on MPP situation
Last article: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2255785/1/20
MPPs graphs
In day 1998 is even lower than in 1991: 267 MPPs, 13 MPPs less than in day 1991.
The low number of MPPs is due not only to the economic crisis, but also to the recent re-arrangement of global alliances: countries, fearful to lose MPPs because of wars between their new friends vs their old friends, prefer simply not to sign too many MPPs.
On the left there are CoT (light blue), TWO (violet) countries and ex-CTRL (red) countries, with some other countries.
On the right we have EDEN (dark green) and Asgard (yellow) countries, and some others.
Ex-TERRA countries (light green) and ex-EDEN (orange) are on both sides.
The Non-Aligned Nations in brown.
7 small nations are without MPPs: United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, North Korea, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Denmark (which is in union with Germany).
Last week, CoT and TWO were easily distinguishable in the left cluster.
This week, they clearly constitute two different clusters of nations, even if with many shared MPPs.
This is also due to the CoT policy to do not sign MPPs with countries allied with Romania.
Lithuania exited CoT just yesterday and became an associate country of TWO, that's why it is currently in the CoT cluster.
Interestingly, during the peak of the CoTWO vs. EDEN war, it was CoT that was looking towards EDEN nations (because of the USA-Albianan MPP and the Russian-Asgard MPPs), but now, after the defeat of EDEN, mainly the TWO countries are benefitting from the damage of ex-EDEN countries.
In fact, there are 5 signifcant MPPs between TWO and the ex-EDEN side: 4 countries have MPPs with Romania and Hungary has a MPP with Argentina
To counterbalance there are only 2 significant MPPs linking CoT/pro-CoT to ex-EDEN: the MPPs that Croatia shares with USA and with Brazil.
Other 2 less significant (in terms of damage, not politically!) MPPs between the two sides are the US-Albanian MPP and the Irish-Russian MPP.
On the other side, the ex-EDEN cluster is even more confused after other 2 countries left EDEN (Greece and Turkey).
Three subclusters are clearly present: the Asgard cluster on the top and the NaN cluster on the bottom are now clearly separated from the center of the ex-EDEN cluster.
The ex-EDEN countries continue to share the old MPPs, but in confusion, with the CUA countries now scattered after Argentina signed MPP with Hungary and Colombia was rejected from being an associate country of TWO.
Day 1991 MPPs situation
_________________________________________________________________________
by Tony Clifford
________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
[tBRE] Alliances of the eWorld - Day 1998
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2259509/1/20
MPP graphs and figures
🙂"
aVie
"I think your newspaper is one of the most innovative ones in the game.
Your schemes and graphics should be included ingame and your copyright paid by the admins!
Thanks for such magic!"
Lorcema
___________________________________________________________________________
shout:
[tBRE] Alliances of the eWorld - Day 1998
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2259509/1/20
MPP graphs and figures
___________________________________________________________________________
Dear Belgians and others, this week, a really very interesting update on MPP situation
Last article: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2255785/1/20
MPPs graphs
In day 1998 is even lower than in 1991: 267 MPPs, 13 MPPs less than in day 1991.
The low number of MPPs is due not only to the economic crisis, but also to the recent re-arrangement of global alliances: countries, fearful to lose MPPs because of wars between their new friends vs their old friends, prefer simply not to sign too many MPPs.
On the left there are CoT (light blue), TWO (violet) countries and ex-CTRL (red) countries, with some other countries.
On the right we have EDEN (dark green) and Asgard (yellow) countries, and some others.
Ex-TERRA countries (light green) and ex-EDEN (orange) are on both sides.
The Non-Aligned Nations in brown.
7 small nations are without MPPs: United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, North Korea, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Denmark (which is in union with Germany).
Last week, CoT and TWO were easily distinguishable in the left cluster.
This week, they clearly constitute two different clusters of nations, even if with many shared MPPs.
This is also due to the CoT policy to do not sign MPPs with countries allied with Romania.
Lithuania exited CoT just yesterday and became an associate country of TWO, that's why it is currently in the CoT cluster.
Interestingly, during the peak of the CoTWO vs. EDEN war, it was CoT that was looking towards EDEN nations (because of the USA-Albianan MPP and the Russian-Asgard MPPs), but now, after the defeat of EDEN, mainly the TWO countries are benefitting from the damage of ex-EDEN countries.
In fact, there are 5 signifcant MPPs between TWO and the ex-EDEN side: 4 countries have MPPs with Romania and Hungary has a MPP with Argentina
To counterbalance there are only 2 significant MPPs linking CoT/pro-CoT to ex-EDEN: the MPPs that Croatia shares with USA and with Brazil.
Other 2 less significant (in terms of damage, not politically!) MPPs between the two sides are the US-Albanian MPP and the Irish-Russian MPP.
On the other side, the ex-EDEN cluster is even more confused after other 2 countries left EDEN (Greece and Turkey).
Three subclusters are clearly present: the Asgard cluster on the top and the NaN cluster on the bottom are now clearly separated from the center of the ex-EDEN cluster.
The ex-EDEN countries continue to share the old MPPs, but in confusion, with the CUA countries now scattered after Argentina signed MPP with Hungary and Colombia was rejected from being an associate country of TWO.
Day 1991 MPPs situation
_________________________________________________________________________
by Tony Clifford
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[tBRE] Alliances of the eWorld - Day 1998
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2259509/1/20
MPP graphs and figures
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
о/
Your articles are priceless!
By the way, mind if I ask what kind of apps you use to classify those and generate the graphs?
You say there is an algorithm involved, is it possible to measure the effect of hypothetical situations easily? Perhaps see what would happen if certain MPPs are triggered to be lost or gained in certain scenarios?
i download the MPP from erep, the damage from egov4you and then i do the graph
Tony, he means 'how do you do the graph?', not where you get the data. (:
these articles are great
voted, the best article always.
V+S!
great as always 🙂
votato
Very informative as always.
little note: the shout is still day 1991. Should be day 1998
"This is also due to the CoT policy to do not sign MPPs with countries allied with Romania."
http://www.erepublik.com/en/main/law/Republic-of-Macedonia-FYROM/126917
http://www.erepublik.com/en/country/military/Finland
Great article btw : )
I guess Finland will not renew its MPP with Romania, that's why.
And btw, my article is about day 1998, not 1999 😛
Still eFinland renewed MPP with eCroatia and they are considered enemy of CoT (for occupying eIndia regions) so yeah....
Also 1998 or 1999 it really doesn't matter that much : P
India is not a CoT country, strictly speaking.
And Croatia, well... Croatia signed MPP with USA and Brazil, the MPP with Finland is the less problematic 🙂
Great, as always!! Are you using processing to do that? : D
What if you add the dmg of each country represented in proportional large or small circles?
running...
It seems that I can't do that.
In these pictures each MPP is weighted not the countries (you may see the "strenght" of a MPP looking at the thickness of the line).
I don't know how to do what you request.
I see, i used processing to do similar graphics for image arts, and it was possible to manage the size of each node with a new var matrix. I will think about it and let you know 😉
There is a way to do it for sure. Maybe I've only to study a little bit more
I found a way to do something similar: each country represented proportional to their own damage AND the damage of their MPP-allies.
I think it is sufficient.
wow!! I want to see that!!! Good job!!!
Great report, thanks red dog
...you're deserve vote and sub...
V!
v+s
Voted
Great as usual!
Shouted btw.
these kinds of articlees r much better, tc, seriously
all my articles tell the truth of the numbers
might be, but some of them just don't look like it.
you are enough intelligent to know that most of the accounts in your party & MU are active only 2-3 days every month...
and you are lazy enough to publish an incomplete article with poor evidence.
Wow, cool pics! Votesub 😃
voted!
o7 🙂
Another nice article by Mister Clifford !
I am always looking forward to seeing these graph. Next weeks one will be as interesting as this!
Much appreciated! o/
Greetings and luck.
These articles are helpful, but I don't get why they're such a big deal.
Two details to improve your paper.
1. Having the "today" graph at first, then having the "past" graph at the end (here : day 1991) is not logical at first sight. Scrolling at reverse (from the bottom of the article to the top) to have a time-comparison of the two situations, starting with the old one, is not natural at all.
My solution : I would place the old graph right before the new one (here, in between the lines "MPPs graphs" and "In day 1998 is even lower...").
If you're afraid that people might get confused and think the first graph is the new one, then searching a visual solution for it (improving the "titles" of the graphs, having the first graph slightly smaller than the second graph, ...).
2. The text part explaining the colors ("On the left there are CoT (light blue), ...") should be included into the graph. Simply placing a legend color under the graph (example : http://www.sas.com/resources/screenshot/sas-graph-1-full.jpg ). It would make it much better, making both your graph and your text clearer.