I’m not sure I understand how that would work as we don’t calculate wr for each player separately. I wonder if we need to weight the individual matches based upon the players closeness to random selection (apologies if this is what you were meaning) something like:
Each player gets a weight of:
1 - (max(g) / sum(g)) + (1/num_civs)
Where g is a vector of the number of games played that player has played with each civ. Then the match weight is the mean of the player weights. Idea being it penalises people based on how too heavy they are with their most played civ.
Having said all this, there must be some literature on this though surely (I’ve just been too lazy to look)
Oh, I see. So you want to make a score that assess how many civs a player use to pick. 0= Pure one trick pony, 1= full random.
What I was suggesting was to weigh the beta coefficients of each civ (which should be related to civ winrates) by the player’s pickrate of that civ. I was thinking in regression models. But your idea seems more rigth.
Supplies wouldn’t pay off in time if you’re just going to create a handful of men-at-arms in the feudal age (as an opener that transitions into something else), though if you’re committing to forward towers along the m@a you might keep training more where it could come in useful.
Okay, but according to the stats that @coolios9876 posted, those civs that have a go with militia opening have a win rate higher than 50% in the early stages of the game
I know the benefit is not specific to the Militia and THS, but it will encourage making that opening even more
If you manage (somehow) to keep your THS alive until the transition to Castle, it will be rewarded
Just to be clear (not contradicting you but making sure the numbers are well represented) it means if the game ends early for infantry civs it is very likely to be a victory. The distribution of game lengths imply most matches don’t end that early though.
Just had a look in the winning stats of poles: Poles perform the worst against Berbers, Magyars, Saracens and Huns on open maps… Seems like Poles weakness cav archers confirmed. Whilst Poles seem to perform best against infantry.
Archer civs seem not to be too strong against poles, but I also didn’t expected them to dominate, as Poles weakness against them is only the lategame so poles have enough time to beat them before.
Bohemians don’t seem to have clear weaknesses or strengths in open maps.
I think this Polish weakness against cav archers should be adressed. Poles should actually excel against cav archers, as they historically did. It makes no sense to reverse historical reality like this. I think the winged hussar + lechitic legacy would give nice opportunity to make a light cav line that could deal with cav archers very nicely. And the knight line could be less “mass > class” in the exchange.
I mean, literally 60 F 30 G trash cavaliers or 80 F winged hussars… what a decision! Make them more destinct, there is a reason we have gold and trash units ;).
Also very interesting. Some Civs seem to excel in TG and others mostly in 1v1. But it also looks like that cavalry civs dominate the 1v1 ladder currently and are therefore worse in TGs because there usually we have 50% cav and 50% archer civs, so cav civs have 50 % winrate in average and therefore lose winning record in team games…
Regarding Poles on Arena, on top of their strong boom with Folwark. Their army is extremely cost-efficient. Winged Hussar, Szlachta Privilege Knight, also Obuch is one of the most cost-efficient infantry UU. Also poles can access to arbalester, which make them unpredictable. So opponents cannot blindly go for Halb or Camels.
I doubt that data confirm their weakness against cav archer. Meanwhile, they have highest winrate against Tatars in Closed map, and also high winrate against Magyars and Huns. They perform evenly against Mongols and Turks.
I think Poles weakness against Magyars, Saracens, or Huns in open map are more likely their early game weakness. Their farm would be exposed when they utilize their bonus and weak against early aggression civ. Low winrate against berbers likely due to their weakness against camel especially before they get Sazlachta Privilege.
If opponents succeeded to get huge number of FU HCA, Poles likely dead. But HCA need tons of upgrade and good eco. Poles more likely punish the opponents before they get enough upgrade and number, which can be shown in the closed map statistics.
I’d love M@A and Towers to be a thing again with M@A buffs like this cheaper Supplies buff. After many needful nerfs to full walling, crafty players adjusted their builds to the nerfs, and early full walling is about as common as it was before. But Trushing before the Feudal Tower HP nerfs was always a consistent counter tactic to early full walls. And I feel Trushing with buffed M@A’s could be just as effective vs. early full walls as before the Feudal Tower HP nerf, while being less annoying for the defending player.
Cav archers are almost never a thing in closed maps. Cav archers need to raid to be effective and in closed maps, well… Raiding is nerfed heavily.
Cav archers need a lot of space to make use of their mobility… Closed maps don’t offer much “open space”, it’s in their name they don’t.
So I chose to look only for open maps for good reason. The only way you can win with cav archers in closed maps is if you manage to build up an unbeatable force and camp right in front of your enemy’s base. And that also presumes your opponent lacks tools to break your composition. Ofc there are some of these cav archer civs which can make “kind of” deathballs like tatars or mongols. But as you mentioned it is hard to get to this even on arena.
Not convinced by that. I don’t see Saracens or Magyars as top tier early game civs. Magyars have good agression, but lack eco and saracens only shine with market abuse - who in the range of 1200-1600 does this? And surprisingly the cav archer civ with the highest early agression potential doesn’t excels against Poles. Mongols only make about average against Poles. But most other cav archer civs have one of their top 5 matchups against Poles.
Well, Poles would like to go for Szlachta Privileges against cav archers. That gives the cav archer player enough time to build up a raiding party. I mean most of the time the weird transition to cav archers is the biggest Problem for cav archer civs, so giving them time to perform it can be the decisive factor here. This can also be an explanation. Cav archers aren’t weak, of course the FU HCA is what you’re aimig for but also the raiding potential of cav archers in the midgame is what allows you to go for it. (I mean you literally sacrifice your eco when going for CA - that’s why you need to get raids in asap otherwise your opponent just outbooms you.)
But ofc the early agression potential of some of the cav archer civs is an interference factor. Still don’t know if the Poles bad early game mainly comes from bad decision making, like going for too much trushing or too greedy play, trying to make szlachta privileges work. Cause I don’t think Poles early game is as bad as the stats suggest. I think there must be strategical misconceptions involved.
Maybe it’s just that easy, many of us, including me, focussed on shenanigans poles can do in the early to mid game, like making trushes, castle drops eg. Trying to go for szlachta privileges (which I incentively had great success with). But maybe that civ should be played more defensively (That was also my first interpretation when I saw their two eco bonusses, that they should work nicely together to build a strong base first as the folwark eco is easy to raid but the stone bonus should help a lot to build up defences early. Maybe that’s more the way to go with Poles. Because of the Folwark poles also should have very good trash to defend in the early and midgame - untilt they can transition into either obuch or szlachta privileges knights. That’s what I try to make work now after seeing the stats of poles “underperforming” in the early to mid game - where so many claimed poles should actually excel in. It seems a bit weird to play a civ with bad lategame scaling with a defensive opening, but maybe that’s just what you need to do, so their otherwise vulnerable eco is protected.
Interesting, is that Celts grouping with Huns? I wouldn’t have expected that.
Also interesting there are two main “cavalry groups”, the purple one seems to be those that has a reasonable archery range (in terms of defense, ie. skirms), weird slavs end up there albeit with a lower correlation.
I’m not sure about this kind of clustering diaagram.
I also would shift all winning percentages of the civs in a way that they all have average 50 % winning percentage. Why? Because with this kind of calc civs will be paired that have good winning records and civs will be paired that have bad winning records. I think this explains more why certain civs “pair” better, not because they have relative commodity, but rather because they are just overall equal in strength.
That’s why on the left there are so many “bad performing archer civs” and on the right there is the cavaly cluster with good performing cavalry civs, not because they are archer or cav civs mainly, but mostly because they have quite close overall winrates.
Of course the character of the civ is still important, but I think it would be better if we would isolate the overall winrate from that analysis - I think this would give way better results.
This at least is my interpretation of that dendrogram.
This algorithm has managed to pair the Malay, a civ missing the last two armor techs for Cavalry and a powerful long-term eco bonus, with the Burmese, a civ missing the last two armor techs for Archers and a short-term eco bonus, by comparing their winrates against other civs and found them similar.
Anyone else feel like the data is grasping at straws, just a bit?
Please note the “Malay - Burmese” pairing is 2nd highest individual civ pairing indicating that they are likely not that similar. Likewise, it is not pairing Burmese to Malay directly; it is actually pairing Burmese to the cluster formed by Malay, Vietnamese and Portuguese.
The ward algorithm works by minimising the increase in variance i.e. of all the available clusters the variance was increased the least by adding the Burmese to this one. Again this is the 2nd highest pairing so it indicates Burmese are a bit of an island like the Indians in that they are very different to other civs.
Please let me know if you need anymore help in understanding how to interpret what the plot shows.
The main issue I have with it (and why I labeled it as experimental) is that it just uses the point estimates and ignores the uncertainty we have in those estimates. Considering how wide the confidence intervals are for the civ v civ win rates it means that the graph is likely very unstable. (Also I don’t think it really has that much utility and its kind of just there for interest)
Edit: I am now wondering if a 2d minimum spanning tree plot might be more interpretable as it more clearly shows each civs relative position to each other than than hypothetical clusters…