Yeah, maybe an addition to this already great site would be a statistics page.. :) It would certainly benefit in trying to understand the game. A wealth of knowledge can be drawn from such a page I guess, recorded openings etc etc.

I am playing a couple of World Dips currently, which of course I cant discuss. But from playing these I feel that WorldDip is more balanced than classic if it comes down to handicapped starting conditions.. I think the victory statistics for classic are pretty much in favor of Germany, Russia and France, I believe.

Maybe this is because classic tries to recreate 1901 Europe geopolitically, two constraints, and worldip has dropped the politcial constraint. Its just made up out of starting postions that are given an appropriate name on a predetermined map.

Its an interesting point. I wonder what the more experienced players have to say?

Cheers!

South Africa seems weakest to me.

I dont agree with your suggestion Frozen is weak though. I have seen some pretty impressive frozens..

To add just one more thing: What I feel that makes WorldDip more equal in starting conditions is also that you diplome in so many directions, as its a round globe. In classic, at the start at least, talking to a country behind your direct neighbur is a good idea to build relations, but not yet of immediate practical importance, maybe except russia I guess. While in World Dip you can talk to people behind your neighbour and behind him again, in a lot of directions.

I believe its more fair, because the map and diplomacy directions are more isotropic.
For the scientist in the other thread thats going on ;)

I'm not playing in any game that considers Holland and Germany to be the same country. Especially when called Germany.
Mucho love from the scientist in the other thread

;)

The issue with statistics is the influences of the game. If argentina is a newbie and kenya CD's... south africa can dominate the game. If you want statistics of like players all playing I don't think you'd find much.

Exactly i agree with you fortnox, you probably wont find much, whereas in classic you do!

Statistics are about sample size. You have a much greater sample in classic, therefore the anomalies like FK mentioned have a greatly reduced effect.

I think SA is a badly designed country. It has one of its home centers on a different continent. That makes defense incredibly difficult.

I think SA is an example of the creator wanting to keep FA honest, but not realizing argentina can dominate that antarctic SC and FA is too disjointed to live.

But perhaps an alliance between SA and FA could produce very good results?

One thing I have to say overall is that the World map has an advantage over the classic one because its circular. There are no "corners" or "edges" along which you can be safe. Indeed even the poles are very vulnerable.

On statistics, I generally don't buy into any of the stats on the games. Russia statistically has a high solo rate, but in the invitationals that I play, Russia is actually one of the weaker countries on the map. I, for one hate playing Russia. It all depends on the player, not the country. I've seen people time and again do great things with Italy, or Austria - even though they have a small chance of soloing.

But, completely contradicting that statement, there are some countries on the world map who I feel have a distinct advantage. Brazil, Kenya, the Canadas, and Oz all come to mind.

I agree with your assessment of the countries in world dip gold, but why do you precede it with the vapid truism that "it's the player not the country?" *Of course* the player matters more than the country, but that doesn't negate the proven results that some countries fare better than others.

By analogy - there are people born into poverty that one day become rich. It is certainly true that capable individuals can handle disadvantages and succeed anyways. But people born to wealthy parents are far more likely to be wealthy themselves than people born into poverty.

Drawing Kenya or Western Canada in world dip is like being born rich, IMO.

Join http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=69843

I just say that because in higher quality games, the country is less and less a factor in determining which countries are better and which are not.

By analogy - with modernization, labor costs are less and less the main decider of the price of a good, but they are still there to some extent. The more modern a factory system you have, the less labor you need to produce X amount of goods.

The higher skilled a player you are, the more "technologically advanced" you are.

a little statistical, from the last 10 worlds-games. I give a point to the first 4 countries
Kenya 6
China 4
Argentina 4
WC 4
FA 3
NE 3
Oz 2
PR 2
Brazil 2
Rusia 2
India 2
Libya 2
SA 2
Quebec
Europe

Gold, that is a really thoughtful point. I am persuaded and agree completely.

I think one of the factors of high quality play neutralizing the advantages of some countries is that good players take that into account when making decisions. The fear that say, Turkey is a powerful country, might in itself induce an anti-Turkish alliance.

Draws Wins Survive
Kenya 43 5 16
China 32 2 10
Frozen 32 3 9
Near East 26 3 9
Quebec 31 5 7
Argentina 30 7 9
Ghana 28 5 10
Pac-Rus 24 1 9
West Can 33 1 6
India 26 6 12
Oz 20 1 10
USA 20 4 15
Europe 21 4 8
Brazil 27 4 11
Russia 28 2 13
Libya 14 2 7
South Af 17 2 1

I hope this posts correctly

Ehh, it got rid of the spacings, but it went alright. Spent about an hour compiling this, from probably around 150 games, but I'm really not sure of the sample size. To note, there is a significant amount of error because I didn't do much in the way of screening games. I counted ones with resigns, CD's, mass draws (though I began to exclude those), etc. So this data isn't perfectly reflective, but its a good start.

Kenya is clearly in a league of its own in draw percentage (note, these are numbers of draws, wins, not percentages). Followed by that is a group consisting of China, Frozen-Antarctic, Quebec, Western Canada and win leader, Argentina. The next class would be composed of Near-East, Ghana, Pac-Rus, India, Brazil, and Russia. Rounding out the bottom grouping is Oz, USA, Europe, South Africa, and Libya.

Its interesting to note neighbor dynamics, how Ghana does better than Libya, Kenya better than South Africa, but Quebec and West-Can usually perform at about the same level

A few thoughts:
1) On a world map populated largely by skilled players, a solo is impossible (stalemate lines are too common due to the large sea zones)
2) The World Map is definitely more unbalanced than the Classic Map. "Bad" powers to draw (IMHO) would include USA, South Africa, Europe, Near East, and Pacific-Russia. "Good" powers would be West-Canada, Kenya, Russia, India, and China.
3) On a board full of experienced players, a bad draw can be overcome and a good one can lose its advantage very very quickly with good/bad diplomacy.
4) Experienced players who are playing the World Map for the first, second, or third times should keep in mind that the World Map plays very differently than the classic map. Lose your assumptions, observe with an open mind, and consider the geographic strength of the various powers at start before starting your diplomacy.

"a bad draw"=drawing a country in a difficult position.

Thank you for the information, goldfinger!

Germany is basically Holland though, right? I mean, I've been there, and they sprech the same Duetsch and everything...