Grand Strategy Victory Stats and Summary

[rkr1958]

Added and sorted by win percentage. Draws are counted as 1/2 of a win.

[rkr1958]

Added Bob.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[schwerpunkt]

Interesting that the allied wins are tending to be "Ultimate"s which I think is a fair indication of how hard it is to hold things together as the axis....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's the same with the Axis. I think that one reason is that if the difference of quality of players are quite big then it's not that hard to get an ultimate victory with either side. E. g. a 2800 player in chess will regularly beat a 2400 player in chess regardless of playing white or black.

If the victory results had been like the Allies getting ultimate and strategic victories and the Axis minor or major then it could indicate a balance issue.

I think that what we see is that playing the Axis is more challenging than the Allies. If you're not careful your front line can collapse on all fronts and then the Allies will be in Berlin in no time. I'm playing as the Axis against Joe and we're in February 1944 and still neither of us can predict who will win the game. I had a very good position as the Axis, but it's not possible to stop the Allied offensives in Russia, Italy and France. So the big question is if I can manage to delay the inevitable long enough to hold Berlin at the end. So the German player has to be VERY creative and smart while defending. If you counter attack just to kill some units then you're actually helping the Allies to deplete as many German units per turn as possible. So a player who likes to be on the offensive can easily make mistakes that will doom his German defense. I have been very careful to maintain my oil level (500) and manpower (above 50) so I have a chance to make the critical attacks that I need to. Still the pressure from the Allies is so big that I can't stop the tide. I think that our game will last to the end or almost to the end, thus giving one of us a minor victory.

Both Joe and I are experienced players and if our game can be this even then it means the game balance can't be that bad. Neither of us have made any significant mistakes. So I think the true test of the GS game balance is between players of almost equal strength. If he had beaten me with an ultimate or srategic victory then something would have to be looked at unless I had made a serious mistake that could explain the result

[schwerpunkt]

I'm playing as the Axis against Joe and we're in February 1944 and still neither of us can predict who will win the game. I had a very good position as the Axis, but it's not possible to stop the Allied offensives in Russia, Italy and France. So the big question is if I can manage to delay the inevitable long enough to hold Berlin at the end. So the German player has to be VERY creative and smart while defending. If you counter attack just to kill some units then you're actually helping the Allies to deplete as many German units per turn as possible. So a player who likes to be on the offensive can easily make mistakes that will doom his German defense. I have been very careful to maintain my oil level (500) and manpower (above 50) so I have a chance to make the critical attacks that I need to. Still the pressure from the Allies is so big that I can't stop the tide. I think that our game will last to the end or almost to the end, thus giving one of us a minor victory.

Both Joe and I are experienced players and if our game can be this even then it means the game balance can't be that bad. Neither of us have made any significant mistakes. So I think the true test of the GS game balance is between players of almost equal strength. If he had beaten me with an ultimate or srategic victory then something would have to be looked at unless I had made a serious mistake that could explain the result

Any chance of an AAR for your game? Sounds a bit like my one against Ronnie, although oil and not manpower was my concern.

[rkr1958]

Stats updated.

[MrLongleg]

Looking at the data it seems pretty obvious that there is a balance issue in favor of the Allies. 19 Ultimate victories for the Allies and only 4 for the Axis says it all. I don't say you cannot win as the Axis, but given equally skilled players you would see the Allied player win more often than the Axis player and the victory levels would be higher for the Allies.

But anyway, a great game and a great mod. Thanks to the guys who spend so much time to create it.

[joerock22]

Looking at the data it seems pretty obvious that there is a balance issue in favor of the Allies. 19 Ultimate victories for the Allies and only 4 for the Axis says it all. I don't say you cannot win as the Axis, but given equally skilled players you would see the Allied player win more often than the Axis player and the victory levels would be higher for the Allies.

But anyway, a great game and a great mod. Thanks to the guys who spend so much time to create it.

I disagree. Look at the players listed Borger through Ronnie. This group of players has won almost every time they've played as the Axis. It's only the bottom half of the list that has trouble winning as the Axis. This means the Axis is harder to play, and that it takes an experienced player to win as the Axis. But it does not mean there's a game balance issue.

[rkr1958]

Looking at the data it seems pretty obvious that there is a balance issue in favor of the Allies. 19 Ultimate victories for the Allies and only 4 for the Axis says it all. I don't say you cannot win as the Axis, but given equally skilled players you would see the Allied player win more often than the Axis player and the victory levels would be higher for the Allies.

But anyway, a great game and a great mod. Thanks to the guys who spend so much time to create it.

I disagree. Look at the players listed Borger through Ronnie. This group of players has won almost every time they've played as the Axis. It's only the bottom half of the list that has trouble winning as the Axis. This means the Axis is harder to play, and that it takes an experienced player to win as the Axis. But it does not mean there's a game balance issue.

My two losses came as the allied player against two of the elites (Borger and Neil). Not to offend anyone and only based on direct personal game experience I would also include Joe and Max (supermax) in that group too. Currently, I have four games going with two as the axis versus Jim and Borger and two as the allies versus Joe and Max.

Jim and I are evenly matched players and so is our game, which is at April 1943 and could go either way. It's playing out remarkably historically, which is different than how our AAR played (i.e., Close the Med). But, like our AAR, I believe it's going to go down to the wire..

Against, Borger and given the current game situation (which is also April 1943), I'll be lucky to make it to 1945. While I'm not in apparent trouble now I've played enough games against Borger, who just doesn't make mistakes and who wears you down like water running over rock for millions of years, I know I'm in deep trouble.

My two games as the allies against Joe and Max are in the early stages before the fall of France. While I'll do my best against both I do know that I have to play me best just to keep from getting blownout.

So with all that said my BEST case is that I'll go 1-3; but 0-4 is a real and distinct possibility. What does all this mean? Well the axis player will either be 2-2 or 3-1 in these four games. I'd say it's 50/50 which one it is.

[MrLongleg]

Looking at the data it seems pretty obvious that there is a balance issue in favor of the Allies. 19 Ultimate victories for the Allies and only 4 for the Axis says it all. I don't say you cannot win as the Axis, but given equally skilled players you would see the Allied player win more often than the Axis player and the victory levels would be higher for the Allies.

But anyway, a great game and a great mod. Thanks to the guys who spend so much time to create it.

I disagree. Look at the players listed Borger through Ronnie. This group of players has won almost every time they've played as the Axis. It's only the bottom half of the list that has trouble winning as the Axis. This means the Axis is harder to play, and that it takes an experienced player to win as the Axis. But it does not mean there's a game balance issue.

That is exactly my point - and you admit it. It is harder to play the Axis and this is what I call a balance issue. Even the best players usually are not able to get an ultimate victory most of the time. In a balanced game chances to win should be 50-50 on either side for equally skilled players. Here it is more like 60-40. You could only argue against the balance issue if you assume that the less experienced players usually played the Axis and therefor lost more often. But I cannot see that in the data.

But don't get me wrong - I am not complaining. To compare to players they would need to play two games, one on each side.

If you wanted to implement a ladder system you would need to give more victory points for an Axis victory.

[joerock22]

In a balanced game chances to win should be 50-50 on either side for equally skilled players.

This is exactly what I've seen in my games and the games people have told me about. I don't think it's 60-40. If anything, it might be 52-48, or 55-45 at worst. Also, I'd wager that many of those Allied Ultimate victories were people surrendering instead of continuing until the end. Some of them would probably only have ended up being strategic or major victories.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's impossible to make a game completely balanced when you have so many variables to think about. Even chess with completely equal start up positions is not completely balanced. Every chess player knows that if you play with white you have a slight edge. But that doesn't mean you have a big disadvantage with black. A 2800 chess player will often beat a 2700 chess player with black. The 2700 player will often beat with black a 2600 player and so on. So the difference is player skill will mean more than the difference between white and black.

In GS I think we can say that playing the Allies is like playing white and playing the Axis is like playing black. This means that if I e. g. any elite player as the Axis I will have to be 110% focused all the time to win. With the Allies I can maybe get away with a minor mistake, but if I make a too big one and I will lose for sure. Joe and I have almost the same strength and it's very interesting to see that in April 1944 neither of us can predict who will win the game. We both believe that one of us will get a minor victory. The game deserves to end in a draw because both of us have played really well.

I would say that GS is balanced enough for both players to have a fair chance to win. GS is definitely better balanced than most WW2 games.

[ncali]

I continue to think the game favours the Allies. That said, I understand the points made by the modders. Still, I think the number of ultimate victories suggests a need to adjust the victory conditions (as I'm assuming there is no change to the fundamentals of the game). It is far easier to get an ultimate Allied victory than an Axis one. I don't think this should be the case. You should have to really fight for it against an opponent of equal or even somewhat lesser skill, as you would have to similarly struggle to get an ultimate Axis victory. I'd suggest changing it so that an ultimate Allied victory only occurs if the Allies conquer the Axis by the end of '43. I would also suggest modifying allied strategic and major victory conditions.