I hope that there is some data on the first round and subsequent rounds.
In general I am curious if the results show that the teams with the USA are less likely to win>?
Additionally I would like to get some data on the number of players that went inactive in the first 5 days not so much as were made inactive by the computer, but those players that had problems and had a few days of down/dead time. And how that related to results.
Also are there three major countries that appear repeatedly in the winning column such as Russia, Turkey and France?
or who ever.
My feeling is that a more balanced event scenario would be a 4x4 on the 10 player map where the USA is made not available for players to take.
What do you all think>? 
Please log in to post a reply.
If you are talking about the 39 historical map, in my first two games there inexperienced US players got whipped by Canada early in the game. In my third game I took the US and won in coalition with two other nations. In my current game (#4), an experienced US player whipped Canada. I have Japan (allied with Tibet) and asked him to join our coalition. Hope he/she does! ... 
Wrong map.
The Alliance World Cup is played on a 10 player 1932 map the country choices are
USA
UK
Sweden
Germany
France
Spain
Italy
Yugoslavia
Soviet Union
Turkey
Have not played in that 32 map yet, but hope to do that after I play a few more games in the 39 map ...
Same. How many games are you playing right now?gusv wrote:
Have not played in that 32 map yet, but hope to do that after I play a few more games in the 39 map ...
Without going through the data, USA was on the winning team in quite a few important games.
The peace period of 3 days was specifically designed so that American forces could reach Europe before the war started.
I am not aware of any teams that aspires to compete on the AWC and then went inactive. The play is very competitive.
I am very interested in the data results of the country match up.
We had an inactive player due to military duty.
Currently am in one game
USA Sweden Yugoslavia Spain Soviet Union
vs
UK France Germany Italy Turkey
This was quite a shock in that on one side you have 4 powers adjacent and thus total internal lines vs a set up where none of the countries were adjacent and only the closest was Sweden and the Soviets.
Currently playing one as Japan in 39 map ... Never played more than two at a time (takes a lot of time investment to play this game and I suspect most of us have a life outside of CoW) ...Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Same. How many games are you playing right now?
EZ, you are in the discord for the AWC. I believe you have access to all the data from last year in the archive as well as the current data. If you take the time to analyze it, I am sure everyone will be interested
Yeah, never played more than ONE. I can only focus on it. I once played 2 and I just cannot do it.gusv wrote:
Currently playing one as Japan in 39 map ... Never played more than two at a time (takes a lot of time investment to play this game and I suspect most of us have a life outside of CoW) ...Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Same. How many games are you playing right now?
I will try research when I figure out the whole discord thing.
Would the following be more representative and/or balanced ('Europe- Road to War Map') ...
Alliance of Totalitarian States:
Soviet Union
Germany
Italy
Spain
Yugoslavia
vs. Alliance of Free Republics:
USA
UK
France
Turkey
Sweden
Looks like France is in a world of hurt.
That is a possibility, but it depends on how the team plays it.EZ Dolittle wrote:
Looks like France is in a world of hurt.
For example you could have all the starting troops of Usa, UK, and Sweden come to France for the end of peace. That would give two armies to take on either Germany or Spain, while 2 defended.
Naturally this would give the opposing side a chance to put the pressure of 3 countries on the German/France border as well. So results are not guaranteed, It would depend on the maneuvering and combat skills within the low countries.
Turkey would be isolated, which would make it hard tor Turkey to break out, but properly played it would force Yugo and Soviet Union to use their forces to contain Turkey, so that in itself could be enough to tip the balance at the other front.
Personally I find it more fun to have France and UK on opposite sides, as it puts a lot of maneuvering into trying to invade across the channel.
Agree ...EZ Dolittle wrote:
Looks like France is in a world of hurt.
Here is another shot at trying to get a more representative and/or balanced ('Europe- Road to War Map')- just using geography, not politics ...
Western bloc:
USA
UK
France
Spain
Sweden
Eastern bloc:
Soviet Union
Germany
Italy
Turkey
Yugoslavia
That is interesting.
What do other people think>
With this map 3 days of peace is too long in my opinion. It will lead to a trench war with a line of forts and a lot of "shoot and scoot" by artillery at each other's fort. Slow, painful, annoying game that would be with 3 days peace.gusv wrote:
Here is another shot at trying to get a more representative and/or balanced ('Europe- Road to War Map')- just using geography, not politics ...Western bloc:
USA
UK
France
Spain
Sweden
Eastern bloc:
Soviet Union
Germany
Italy
Turkey
Yugoslavia
Now with 2 days for AI or human, that layout could be more interesting.
2 days of peace will be fine with me. It seems to be adequate to build own's production, create additional military units, and enough time for each coalition to come up with plans of battle ...VorlonFCW wrote:
Now with 2 days for AI or human, that layout could be more interesting.
Please log in to post a reply.
