gameID=3149
gameID=3240
gameID=3307
gameID=3308
Gobbledydook - Langaidin 6-2
langaidin you make the Frankland v Juggernaut please.

that is pretty mean, making hims play unbalanced map types cause you only need 1 more win to take the series.

Um fasces it was agreed on beforehand.

Shit...if I win, I have to defeat Guaroz next. A tall order indeed.

Well rules are rules and the 2 players can decide themselves what map is to be played. If they decided for FGvRT, it will be.
That said, Gobble you must admit that this decision advantages you a bit at this point. Only a big skills' difference can allow a player to win as RT and this does not seem the case. The match will end 8-4.
On the other hand, fasces, Langa just had his chance to win on a more balanced map and failed. So what should they play now? 2 Duos? If Gobble is able to win with a slightly disadvantaged country (France), he should be able to win both games in a perfectly balanced map.
Just my 2 cents...

I'll take my chances. I could have taken Ankara to keep us even, but guessed wrong

1. I agree I have an advantage. Of course I have an advantage leading 6-2...sure the next map enhances my advantage though. Well, I had a very tough battle in my France win, it was such an epic, unorthodox war, and I think I deserved the win.
2. Guaroz how did you obliterate myrmidon 8-0...

lan was winning by quite a bit in the game where Gobbles was France. Lan would have won if he took Ankara...

In the end it all comes down to guesses, and I had made quite a few wrong guesses before...

1. Yes that's the sense of my whole previous message. FGvRT may LOOK a choice that advantages you but, if it was made at the start of the match, it advantages whoever is leading the match at that point. You were able to take the lead, so good for you.
2. What do you mean? Can you please rephrase it?
3. I followed that game, yes it was epic and exciting. And yes it was uncertain till the end in 1911. But the other game on the same map wasn't. 1v1 games are made of mistakes: who makes less mistakes wins. If players make an equal number (or weight) of mistakes, then the unbalancing of the map decides. This was not the case, because Gobble was able to win as Austria in 1906 while Langa wasn't. Langa surely made some little mistake (let Gooble slip thru Ionian?) and so wasting the advantage Austria has.

My point is that unbalancing of the maps can let you have a measure of the players' skill difference. So (in decreasing order of imbalance):
- If a player can win both FGvRT games, he's surely much stronger than the other one
- If a player can win both GvI games, he's rather stronger than the other one
- If a player can win both FvA games, he's at least slightly stronger than the other one
- If a player can win a Duo game, well, he could be somewhat stronger or, maybe, he could just have been lucky in some guessing situation.

"In the end it all comes down to guesses"
When this become true in an unbalanced map, it means that a player lost the advantage his country (FG, G, A) had.
Or the other player (RT, I, F) was able to fill the gap.

Actually, FG v RT is not really that unbalanced...FG wins 9.54 -to 6.18. Look at GvI, where G wins 9.56 to 6.02. They are equally bad...

Good point.
But my feeling is different. Actually, I talk about "feelings" because I think I've played FGvRT only one time, maybe on the old site. But I think I have this feeling because:
1) GvI doesn't look that much more imbalanced than FvA to me. I've always seen Italies making freaky mistakes in the games I've followed. I'm not sure I could say the same for Juggernauts.
2) Stats are not that reliable. If 4 poor players played 40 games as Italy, the stats are inaccurate. Look at Lepanto: Ottoman 7.56 Holy 5.51. Is it THAT unbalanced?
So, although you made a good point, I'm still not sure you are completely right.
mmm... Would you like to play a mini-2-games-match with me on FGvRT? It would help me understand.

P.S. "They are equally bad... " I'd prefer: "They are equally unbalanced...". Unbalancing is bad only if you're playing ONE game. If you're playing 2-games-matches, countries swapped, where's the bad? The map may be unbalanced, but the Match is perfectly balanced. I see only the good. If I beat you on a Duo, maybe it's just because I was lucky with guessing something at the right time. I would not be sure I'm stronger than you. But if I beat you both times on an unbalanced map, then I'm sure I'm somewhat stronger than you. The more is unbalanced the map we played, the more I'm sure I'm stronger.

1. I'm no expert on FGvRTs, but in GvI as Italy I always lose after a mistake is made but I can afford mistakes playing Germany. My belief is even without mistakes Italy needs lucky guesses or German incompetence to win.
2. True. But stats do give some indication of the relative strength of countries and it is fair to say, from the stats, that FG and G win more than RT and I.

P.S. Unbalancing is bad even in a 2-game match...it is pretty pointless to play GvR in a 1v1 match for example, because if it is even worth a match to determine who is better, then the stronger player definitely isn't so much stronger that he can win as Germany. My belief is that for the play-off stage, FvA to GvI is around the range needed...

and Guaroz I still don't know how you could completely obliterate myrmidon 8-0. I mean, is it that hard to win one single game against you...

1. Yes. Look: we're saying the same thing in 2 different ways. Aside luck, that plays a little part in each game, you need a certain difference in players' skill to have Italy winning. No matter whether it's a good Italy or bad Germany or both things: it's the skill difference. If there's not enough difference in players' skill, you'll have Germany winning both times, since it starts advantaged.
2. Awwwww! That's not the point! How can I explain? It's quite obvious that "FG and G win more than RT and I."!!
The point is HOW MUCH maps are unbalanced. And you're pretty close to what I mean with your "P.S.", except that I'm not talking about playoffs or knock-out, but more in general.
When you say "it is pretty pointless to play GvR in a 1v1 match ... the stronger player definitely isn't so much stronger that he can win as Germany." YOU ARE RIGHT, if the stats are good, it looks impossible to win as G. This map looks TOO unbalanced for any purpose. Maybe you could use it as alchool test: if you lose as Russia then you can't drive. :)
On the other hand Duo is TOO balanced (and therefore too boring IMHO) and its purpose can only be as a tiebreaker map. You can't measure player's skill on Duo: even a little slighly difference would make win the same person most of the times.

Example. Say the scale of "unbalancing" is this (please take it as good, it's just an example, I know we could discuss forever on it) one:
- RvG - 75/25
- FGvRT - 59/41
- GvI - 57/43
- AvF - 53/47
- Duo - 50/50 (perfectly balanced)
Now we want to make a match to see NOT ONLY who's the stronger (a Duo would be enough) BUT ALSO HOW MUCH the stronger is stronger.
So, we start with RvG: nobody's drunk and we make 2-2
Then FGvRT, another 2-2 means that there's not a enormous difference between our skills. Partial 4-4
Again, we draw also GvI: 6-6 not a big difference.
Now you win both AvF: total 10-6. That's the measure of our (not big) difference.

I feel like I could have made 14-2 against some player of the first round. And 8-8 against fasces or Rox.

That's why I say UNBALANCING IS GOOD if you know how to use it.
If 2 players with a slightly difference in their skill play 8 Duos it could end 16-0 and it would be bad because they have basically the same skill.
If 2 player with a considerable difference play 4 FGvRT it could end 8-8 in spite of their big (not enormous) skills' difference.
We should play each degree/step. When do we start? :-)

After I finish my series...for all I know, langaidin could win all 3 of the remaining games and qualify.

Guaroz , I disagree with the part about DUO being too balanced and therefore too boring. I think it is an excellent map with multiple strategic options and multiple attack paths. Unlike other variants, the winner is not obvious after the first two turns, and you can come back from a deficit. I also like the fact that a simple majority does not determine the winner.

I think you should try it again with a better player. :-) (No offense intended to... umm..., whoever, you played the first time)

Duo is not perfectly balanced, the colours are different. In my culture, red is auspicious :P

@Devo.
-Yeah maybe the "therefore" is injustified and I don't like Duo just for personal taste. IDK. Maybe It's for the "fantasy" names territories have. Or maybe because territories are square or rectangles or somewhat geometric. Or both things. How would you feel playing a standard map where Paris is called Blauheim, Rome Gruenheim, Vienna Rotheim, Ankara Gelbheim...and the picture was this:
http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/regularmaps/diplomap.gif
Wouldn't it be rather sad? :-)

-"the winner is not obvious after the first two turns," Yes, true. But maybe it is just because games are LONGER in Duo. This is because of several reasons:
a) units start deployed far away from opponent's: you need two turns only to reach the front;
b) the map is a little larger and you need 19 SCs to win, instead of 18;
c) you can't take those 19 quickly, because there are several neutral armies and you waste time to kill/protect them instead of just occupy the neutral SC.
So until someone breaks down somewhere, invading the opponent's field WITHOUT being invaded somewhere else (was it skill's difference or just a lucky guess?), the game stays balanced.

-"I also like the fact that a simple majority does not determine the winner. " Sorry I didn't got it. Could you please rephrase it? (Majority of what?)

-Maybe the only thing I could use about balanced=boring is this one.
Open the Variants page. Near each variant's name there's " 'x' games played on this server".
Look at 1v1 maps: Duo and Lepanto are the less played 1v1 maps in absolute. Is it just a coincidence or people don't like balanced maps? Looks like I'm not the only one finding them boring.

-"I disagree with the part about..." Does it mean you agree with all the rest? :-)

@Gobble. Good! I'm looking forward for it! :-)

Guaroz, now that I think about it, the reason I lost in that Duo game against you is because I wasn't familiar with the geography particularly the bridges...

Guaroz,

- Yes, that would be a sad map to play on, and I am annoyed by the names.

- "was it skill's difference or just a lucky guess?" I think a more skillful player will be more likely to make lucky guesses. Or alternatively, a more skillful player will be less likely to be in pure luck situations, while forcing opponents into pure luck situations.

- By simple majority, I am referring to the SC's required to win. Duo requires 19 out of 28, instead of 15 out of 28, which would be a simple majority. I like this because it allows players to slow down and make strategic advances that do not necessarily gain SC's. Other 1v1 variants seem more like a race to18.

- Regarding your logic about "x" games played, I think the main drawback of Duo is that it is less visually exciting, and does not get a good draw. But as far as game play goes, it is very good. (I wonder what draw GvI would get if it was played on the map you listed)

- I don't have a strong disagreement with anything else.

@Devonian.

- ok

- I agree completely. My doubts about the role of luck in balanced maps are only when also the players' skills are balanced. Mm. Yeah, not a big issue.

- uh, 28? I didn't noticed it. Thank you for the tip. Why does it look so large then? are there more non-SC territories? I should count them.
However, in the Duo I played (gameID=2909), the last autumn we actually played was 1910 and the count was 14-11 for me. Then Spring 1911 was again good for me and at that point Gobble, wisely, gave up. The material and positional advantage I had was huge even for a good player like him. So I wonder how a player losing for 10 SCs to 18 could recover his situation. Or 11-17, or maybe even only 12-16. If he got to that point he shouldn't be that stronger. So, at first sight, this "19 to win" looks a pointless waste of time. Probably 16 or 17 would have been enough.

- Good points. However, something must make Duo less appealing than other maps. Probably, many little things are. I believe balancing doesn't help much.

- You make me curious. Can I know which are your "light" disagreements? :-)

@Gobble. IDK, but if you say so... Ok then, we'll add a Duo to our match. I will beat you 18-0 instead of 16-0 :P

FG vs RT is the most unbalanced map in my oppinion.

The stats are skewed because:
1) small test pool
2) incompetent players
3) The one game I played, I was killing my opponent, not because of the games imbalance, but because of the map. So we agreed to draw. RT still got 5 that game...

"@Devo.
-Yeah maybe the "therefore" is injustified and I don't like Duo just for personal taste. IDK. Maybe It's for the "fantasy" names territories have. Or maybe because territories are square or rectangles or somewhat geometric. Or both things. How would you feel playing a standard map where Paris is called Blauheim, Rome Gruenheim, Vienna Rotheim, Ankara Gelbheim...and the picture was this:
http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/regularmaps/diplomap.gif
Wouldn't it be rather sad? :-)"
That variant already exists (sorta) its called Alcavra...

"a) units start deployed far away from opponent's: you need two turns only to reach the front;
b) the map is a little larger and you need 19 SCs to win, instead of 18;"
Map has 28 sc, you need 19 to win. I had a majority in mine against Canaduh, and then lost due to a miss order.

Like dev I really like the map.

"Maybe the only thing I could use about balanced=boring is this one.
Open the Variants page. Near each variant's name there's " 'x' games played on this server".
Look at 1v1 maps: Duo and Lepanto are the less played 1v1 maps in absolute. Is it just a coincidence or people don't like balanced maps? Looks like I'm not the only one finding them boring."
Well, some people just don't like symmetrical maps.

@Guaroz
What I like about going to 19 is that it makes the game from 3 to 15 fully meaningful. I have had a lot of GvI games end suddenly, because someone picked up a SC to bring them to 18. There were gaps in the defensive line which, if allowed to play out a few more turns, might have swung the other way. But the quick pick up of the orphaned SC gave them the win.

My light disagreements are too minor. Mostly about your opinion of Duo, since I like it so much.

19 SC to win is too much I think, as Guaroz explained. By the time you get past 15 supply centres you already have an absolute majority, and if you get to 16 or 17 then you are significantly outnumbering your opponent. Do we have to get to 19-9 (a 2 to 1 ratio) in order to call it a win?

Gobble did you end your Quarterfinal? I'm waiting for someone in my Semi !! :-))