I had decided to research all games that were in Autumn 2009 and later. There were only fourteen (14) games in the sample (only about three that had finished), so it wasn’t a very reliable study. You can see it here: http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=545607 There seemed to be a few countries that did significantly well, but overall it would be better to have a larger sample size. It was also unreliable because some of the games I looked at had some players who didn’t put in their orders.

So I came back about three months later and tried again. This time I again researched all games in autumn 2009 and later, but this time excluding any games that had more than one player who did not enter orders in the game. This time I had a much larger sample of fifty (50) games, thirty two (32) of which were finished or drawn.

I took down all the same statistics and organized them here. The first statistic I took was adding up how many times each country was one of the top five countries in terms of SCs. (If there were only four countries or fewer remaining, I only counted that many). These were the results:

(22) – Kenya

(17) – Brazil
(17) – Europe
(17) – Pacific-Russia

(15) – Near East
(15) – Frozen-Antarctica
(15) – Oz

(14) – Argentina
(14) – India

(13) – Russia
(13) – Western-Canada
(13) – Ghana

(10) – China (seven first’s)
(10) – Quebec

(8) – USA

(6) – Libya

(5) – South Africa

Hypothetically, if each country had an equal chance of winning, then the average number of times they would be in the top five would be fifteen (15) times.

Next, I decided to give values to these numbers. So every time a country was in first, I would give them five poinst. If they were in second, I’d give them four. Third, three. Fourth, two. And fifth, one point. This is how it ended up:

(86) – Kenya

(60) – Pacific-Russia

(58) – Europe

(52) – Oz

(47) – Brazil

(46) – Frozen-Antarctica

(45) – Argentina
(45) – India

(42) – China
(42) – Ghana

(41) – Near East

(40) – Western-Canada

(33) – Russia

(32) – Quebec

(30) – USA

(18) – South Africa

(16) – Libya

If each country had an equal chance of winning, then the average number of poinst would be forty-five (45).

Finally, I decided to add the total percentages of SCs each country had (again, I only the top five countries.) For example, if in one game Europe had 18.5% of the SCs, I would add 0.185 to Europe. If the second game he had 24.4%, I would add 0.244, for a total of 0.429, and so on. Here are the results of this:

(5.395) – Kenya

(3.801) – Europe

(3.710) – Pacific-Russia

(3.487) – Frozen-Antarctica

(3.175) – Oz

(3.035) – Brazil

(2.955) – India

(2.860) – Western-Canada

(2.858) – China

(2.816) – Argentina

(2.687) – Near East

(2.640) – Ghana

(2.185) – Russia

(2.068) – Quebec

(1.616) – USA

(1.104) – South Africa

(0.930) – Libya

There’s no specific average for this statistic.

So anyway, those were my final results. It was very interesting comparing them to my original study. The five best countries in my original study were: Kenya, Europe, China, Near East, and Brazil. In this study, Kenya and Europe were still in the top five, but the other three were Oz, F-Antarctica, and Pacific-Russia. In my original study, the five worst countries were: USA, Libya, South Africa, India, and Ghana. In this study, USA, Libya, and South Africa were again the worst, but the other two were Russia and Quebec. So the studies seemed to have some correlation but some countries surprised me.

As for the similarities in the studies, the biggest one was Kenya. In the original study, Kenya was a significant leader. In this study Kenya was even more ahead of all the other countries. In almost HALF of the fifty games, Kenya was in the top five. I analyzed this last time, and my conclusion was that Kenya just has very good position on the map. It borders four neutral territories. And its neighbors are South Africa and Libya, who are both weak countries. If Kenya can negotiate well, he can definitely become a powerhouse.

The other successful country (though not near as successful as Kenya) in both studies was Europe. I have a harder time understanding why Europe is so successful. The only neutral territory that he’s guaranteed is Great Britain. Otherwise he has Libya and Russia right on his tail. So that was interesting.

Libya, South Africa, and the USA were all countries that struggled in both studies. I don’t think any of these are a surprise. South Africa is the most retarded country, being split on two different continents, and neighboring the best country in the game. After gaining a couple neutral territories, it really has nowhere to go. I played South Africa once, and I actually ended up finishing in third, but it was only because Kenya was an inexperienced player, and I had a really strong alliance with Libya (the winner of that game).

USA is also a struggling country in this game. This is also no surprise since it has to deal with Canada and Quebec. Both of the neutral territories to the north are contested, and it’s squished right in the middle of four countries. I played USA once and failed miserably. I think I was out by 2004.

The final country that is pretty terrible in both studies is Libya. It is the only country that actually borders another. It is also surrounded by four fairly powerful countries. You definitely don’t want to be stuck as Libya.

The only big surprises for me between the two studies was Ghana and China. In my original study of fourteen games, Ghana was never once in the top five. But in this study Ghana ended up being in the middle of the pack. I think with Ghana, it depends on the situation. It’s pretty distant from other countries, but still close enough to do some damage if he’s teamed up with another country.

As for China, it was very successful in the first study. But it was only average in this one. However, even though China was in the top five only ten times in this study, it was in first place SEVEN times. I believe it had the second-most first place’s, behind Kenya. In the percentages, China had a higher sum then countries like Argentina and Near East who had fourteen and fifteen top five’s, respectively. China looks like another situational country. If it can make good decisions early, it can be incredibly successful.

So yeah, that was my study. I know it was long and involved, but hopefully it was useful/helpful to those of you interested. Please respond if you have any thoughts!