yeah, it only includes the results from the first 2 rounds...

So what happens at the end of X amount of rounds? top 3 from each group join together or something?
PS: Don't tell me to look at the official thread, for I will not

Top 4 in each play in best of 7 quarter finals (in which for game 7 the player with more points during the preliminaries choses the countries and the team with fewer points choses the map)
winners play in best of 7 semis
winners play in best of 9 finals

heee fasces we said we play the same map in finals too so no chosing of the map....
always consensus!? and if no agreement GvsI...

oooh, tricky. sounds interesting. I will be watching

hope to see you in the next cup ;)

eh, maybe.
Only if its you and I in the finals... redemption...

i've won five of six i believe

ezpickens 6
langaidin 6
myrmidon 6
superflemgobuious 4
Devonian 4
gman314 2
Jimbozig 2
President Eden 2

I blame tt612's bad record!

Yeah, guys, GvI is terribly imbalanced from all appearances here. At some point soon I think work will begin to investigate GvI in the same manner Gobbledydook and I (and others) worked out FvA.

In the meantime, I highly recommend FvA be the default. It's far more balanced than GvI and unlike GvI we actually have a body of work to substantiate the balanced results with coherent reasoning. GvI is an untamed, from-all-appearances-imbalanced beast and probably not fit for this in the future.


Side note, comeback city ahoy! Got a very tough win and draw off of Jimbozig to get myself to 2-3-1. Promising starts so far against gman as well!

We said GvI is default and so it stays for this tournament... you cant just change that cause you do not like it...
And still I think it's very balanced... :)

What a straw man... I never said anything about my personal preference for GvI. I pointed out the statistical fact that it's imbalanced and has produced grossly skewed results in this tournament, and recommended a superior alternative in FvA.

I also didn't really specify a time for institution of the new default (an "in the meantime" which doesn't really mean much of anything, admittedly), so I never said it had to change mid-tournament (though I feel the tournament would be better off with a default that isn't as horribly imbalanced as GvI).

As for it being very balanced... how can you say that with the drastically skewed results? Last count showed Germany winning almost 80% of GvI games in this tournament. *Eighty percent!* And unless you're hiding a secret stash of GvI wisdom, RoxArt (which you could be, knowing how much mastery of the game your record reflects... ;) ), I'm not seeing a body of work to refute the overwhelming statistical narrative here.

Time to do GvI testing then!

We should aim to find the optimum strategies for GvI just like what we did for FvA.

I think GvI is much more balance as the stats show, but I would be an idiot to say my ideas in this ongoing tournament right?
So I will keep this for the end ;)

Further I think France has not much chances to win if Austria does no misstake... and france needs a certain amount of guessing look to get hold of munich and berlin what I really do not like ;)

However we shall see...

I will be happy to read your GvI testing and see if it matches my thoughts...

Further I never read your strategies for FvA, neither I did for any of the games I play searching the internet. I just think my strategies of my own... ;)

You have to be looking at different stats than me, plain and simple. Austria leads FvA 74-61-9. Germany leads GvI 114-67-9. Same amount of draws, Austria has a +13 margin of victory, Germany has a +47. There is no argument from stats to prove GvI's balance is better than FvA's.

France vs. Austria comes down to who picks what opening. If both open north, France wins overwhelmingly; if both open south, inconclusive, but France has the advantage. Austria succeeds when they open to opposite theaters: if it secures Germany, it outproduces France significantly, destroying build parity, and if it goes for Italy, it can put an army in Piedmont as early as S02, forcing France on the defensive.


And on a side note I would very much welcome your input in the GvI testing. Withholding it mid-tournament, I think, is a wise and fair idea, so I won't ask right away, but your thoughts would be very appreciated.

Do not forget that the amount of games in the stats is still very small and not really representative.

Further they just play italy bad! :p

And there you say it FvA comes down to who picks what opening ---> guessing luck! So we could just throw a coin following your arguments? So stop playing... ;)

GvI I think it's more strategical ;) Yes it might be harder to win as italy but there is the possibility without having to guess the right opener and beeing lucky the opponent dose the opener you want... ;)

I think 190 games is a pretty good sample. And while it's possible that they just play Italy bad there's no reason to believe that due to the lack of body of work on GvI...

You say the coin flip bit as though it's a bad thing. More to the point, in a perfectly balanced 1v1 game with evenly-skilled players... that's a GOOD thing. The argument put forth above is dependent upon two players with knowledge of FvA and sufficient and equal tactical and strategic skills to execute their strategies. Neither one *should* win in any hypothetical matchup. The reason why you *would* see wins is because one player is better than another. Austria can win when France goes to the same side it does; even a forced draw in those circumstances amounts to a superior result. Likewise France certainly can win when Austria opens to his weak side.

I don't understand how GvI is "more strategical," primarily because the defining characteristics which would make one variant more strategical than another have not been explicitly stated. Care to change that?

President Eden, RoxArt, I am very willing to playtest thoroughly the GvI matchup.

Empirical evidence points towards a significant German advantage. However, the cause is not known. Perhaps it is due to some error in strategy on Italy's part. Perhaps it is due to the inherent geographical advantage of Germany. Either way, we should find out scientifically.

when we began this tourney the stats for GvI were more balanced then AvF. However now we have so much data got GvI AvF looks like the better choice...

fasces: look at my thread. play test GvI.

As said i will point out at the end of the tourney ;)

I don't have an opinion either way, since we all get to play each side of the advantage/disadvantage.

But, where can I read about the methodology and results of the FvA play testing? That sounds interesting.

Group A
6 guaroz 83.33333333
6 RoxArt 58.33333333
6 gantz 58.33333333
4 canaduh 50
6 Hellenic Riot 50
6 Gobbledydook 33.33333333
6 fasces349 33.33333333
4 SacredDigits 25


Group B
6 langaidin 66.66666667
6 ezpickens 66.66666667
6 myrmidon 66.66666667
4 superflemgobuious 50
8 President Eden 56.25
4 Devonian 50
8 Jimbozig 31.25
6 gman314 16.66666667

I have a new way of calculating standings.
As you can see, the games played (first column) varies from 8 to 4, so those who have played 8 games have and advantage in terms of number of points from those who have played 4 simply because of the number of games. So I decided to divide each points by twice the number of games. So the new number is the percentage of possible points they could have achieved in the number of games they played.

why dont you just put wins draws and losses for each? :)

So I'm in fourth, then, since I've 56.25 to superflemgobuious's 50?

"why dont you just put wins draws and losses for each? :)"
However if for example I post it like this:
Group B GP W L D P
President Eden 8 4 3 1 9
langaidin 6 4 2 0 8
ezpickens 6 4 2 0 8
myrmidon 6 4 2 0 8
Jimbozig 8 2 5 1 5
superflemgobuious 4 2 2 0 4
Devonian 4 2 2 0 4
gman314 6 1 5 0 2
It looks kinda weird as the 4 numbers aren't lined up...

Pres should be 4th, not quite sure why he was placed behind Super