Lie, lie and more lie

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I keep a file with all the online game I play, opponents, era, fl spent, map, etc...

There a few interesting lies that with times you can learn from such a file;

Such as ; most played faction per era;

In Viking; 1/ Pict, 2/ Welsh, 3/ Vikings. Well Picts win cause I take them all the time (ride the fast ponies&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, if I don't count my choice; Pict goes off the list, and Mercians go third. Mercians are also the most effecitve, then Pict http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif and then Welsh... Vikings are often picked but do not win much... Bad luck? Do not suit well in team game (I play mostly 4v4 or 3v3...Vikings might be better for 1v1...)? Beside those 4 factions, other are marginals, a Scot fan screw the stats, and some marginals Irish. Northumbrians have never been chosen in any games I have played in...

In Early; 1/ Italian, 2/ Russian, 3/ Almo. Spread very evenly with very different factions. Very close are Hungary, Turks, Byz and HRE... Different factions and different styles. Effectiveness is also not that different... All those factions scored 40 to 60% of victory. Early might be the most underestimated era in terms of balance... ?

In High; 1/ England, 2/ Turks, 3/ Hungary. OK, I play turk quite often, so without me, Turks go third, pretty far beyond Hungary. There is also a large gap between England and Hungary. England is chosen 20% of the time.
Oddly enough, neither England, nor Hungary got a high% of victory (40%...), some other countries (non turk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) score much better Also Byz got a very low % of victory. Are those factions overated? Or are beginners (hum... look who is talking...) going with those factions because common sense see them as stronger, but they still lose anyway?
High is the most played era.

In Late; I don't have many games available... Most chosen factions; 1/ Turks and 2/ HRE, Golden Horde and Swiss Again, blame me for overepresenting the Turks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif... They would be lower than that without my dedication to their cause...
Of the top chosen factions, the Swiss seems to have the highest rate of defeat. Possibly again because they attract beginners with their reputation of solidity. I also had Elmo as a swiss player, and Elmo tends to bias the stats a little http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

On 128 games with 265 players.

Louis the Simurgh,

[Alrowan]

most interesting, but its hard to start talking stats, you know as well as anyone a lot of the more experienced gens dont play byz, perhaps thats why they register more losses, like i said, in the wins, you must look at the generals experience as well.. its all nice know how may times factions are picked, but then to look and see which ones win is useless unless you have a standard enemy you fight all the time

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Completly agree Alrowan,

For sure, in this file, I can see who is playing what very easily... And yes, I don't remember / know most of the name for Byz ans swiss for example.

But English and Hungary have been played by some good players... And still victory rate of the faction is not that great.

Actually, victory rate of each faction is not the most interesting part.
For example, I think that the very even split in early game is interesting, and I look forward to more early games to see if a faction emerges as more popular (which might not be the same as stronger).

Faction choice and the style that it suggests ofr the Early period makes it more appealing to me now that I have compiled those...

Louis the Simurgh,

[Cheetah]

The problem with this is that most of the vets have their favourite faction. For example yours is the Turks, mine is Hungary (what a surprise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif). This can bias your stats considerably. "Easy" factions might be played mostly by noobs and "hard" factions mostly by vets, as a result, "hard" factions might get a better rating. But anyway it is interesting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif keep posting your stats http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

BTW, no saxons in viking era?

[Shahed]

Very nice. I had a similar file, between September and December 2002. I stopped logging since December.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I am completly aware of those bias.... See the title of the topic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Another bias is playing with fellow FFers who are not really catholic armies fans (but for Manti and Heart)... England are most of the times our opponents...

Another lie we can found in the my logs of game;

most played maps;

1/ flatinland 20... Well the funny thing is I am not even sure I can describe it I was the first surprised WTH is flat20?

2/ Carcano and steppeinland03 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif and I hate those maps with a passion...

So in my 3 tops of map; there is one I don't know and 2 I dislike, it's time I host games instead of joining all those crappy maps

42 % of all the game I played were on flatmaps. And 8% only on mappack 2 maps http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif I want more of those

Hills, steppes, plains and historical fields split evenly the rest of the 50% (ok historical leads slightly with the dreaded carcano and horrendous agincourt).

Louis the Simurgh,

[Vanya]

GAH

It matters not which one you pick... all numbers prove a point and lie in the process.

GAH