I tried to compare the real outcomes from the campaign, with a hypothetical situation when every faction had the same point (3) awarded for a victory. I’ve done that yesterday, so the numbers might be a bit dated, but concerning this is a last day of the campaign, I do not expect great changes. The result are quite interesting (and the strength of the factions looks like completely different when you look at it). So, the current outcome (i.e. Monday Midday) as based on the results are: 1) Haqqislam – 769 2) NA2 – 750 3) Yu Jing – 717 4) PanO – 552 5) Ariadna – 531 6) ALEPH – 521 7) CA – 438 8) Nomads – 435 9) Tohaa – 379 10) O-12 – 332 If all factions would have the same points, the result would be: 1) Haqqislam – 588 2) PanO – 552 ˄ 3) NA2 – 548 ˅ 4) Yu Jing – 546 ˅ 5) Ariadna – 531 6) CA – 438 ˄ 7) Nomads – 435 ˄ 8) ALEPH – 387 ˅ 9) Tohaa – 232 10) O12 – 205 Conclusion: 1) There are 5, say, “first tier” factions – Haqqislam, PanO, NA-2, Yu Jing, Ariadna. Their performance was quite similar, with an exception of Haqq being the „first among equals“. The rest of the first tier are so similar that they could be considered holding the same place. Then there’s a large gap – difference between no.1 (Haqq) and no.5 (Ariadna) is smaller than difference between no.5 (Ariadna) and no.6 (Combined Army). Then there are 3 “second-tier” factions – Combined, Nomads, ALEPH. Probably, no surprise here. Combined Army is a special case that I’d like to mention later. Then is another gap and finally 2 “third-tier” faction – Tohaa and O-12. Again probably nothing surprising here. For a better look: First-tier factions: 1) Haqqislam – 588 2) PanO – 552 3) NA2 – 548 4) Yu Jing – 546 5) Ariadna – 531 Second-tier factions: 6) CA – 438 7) Nomads – 435 8) ALEPH – 387 Third-tier factions 9) Tohaa – 232 10) O12 – 205 2) Haqqislam is still the winner of the campaign, which is not a suprise concerning the dedication they’ve proven. 3) The “points-per-win” ratio is a huge outcome changer, considering that 3 of 5 first-tier factions had it. For a faction in the same tier it’s probably impossible to resist attack (or perform a succesful offensive against¨) of another same-tier faction with point bonus, as has been proven in case of Haqq-Ariadna. Yeah, Haqq would win the campaign nevertheless. But I’m not sure if they’d be able to hold the airport (Pakngein NBIS) in the end of Phase 2 without their 4-point per battle bonus. 4) The number of zones held has more impact on behavior of the faction then on the game impact. I could describe 3 types of behavior here: “static defenders”, who concentrate on defending their own; “attackers” capable to conduct a sustained offensive against an enemy; “scavengers” preying on weakened enemy. It might be surprising how these cathegories match with number of zones held. „2-zones factions“ became static defenders, without capacity to hold their zone and perform offensive worth of mentioning (neither PanO nor NA-2 wasn’t able to launch sustained offensive in Phase 1, and I’m not even mentioning Ariadna and Nomads here). „1-zone faction“ are the “attackers”: they could perform offensive actions, as have been shown in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. „Zero-zone“ factions are the scavengers who could succesfully prey on stronger factions, but only if they’ve a point bonus and an ally who’ll assist them (as has been proved in case of 0-12 and Tohaa). 5) Combined Army is a sad story. Technically they could become the scavengers, but lacking any possible ally and having only 3 point per win ratio, they couldn’t even prey on weaker target (as we saw on the conflict between CA and ALEPH in the Maze, Phase 1). Concerning this, it's not surprising that CA haven’t achieved anything in the campaign, although being technically the 6 strongest faction… and that their morale fell down drastically in Phase 2. 6) Another sad story are the Nomads. Although being just "second-tier" faction, they'd get 3-points per win ratio and 2 zones to defend. They've been just lucky that no heavy hitter (first-tier faction with 4-point bonus) haven't chosen them, because their defenses would cruble down real fast.
So we are no sad story, we are a lucky story Lucky that there was lacking interest in out locations. But overall I agree with you, I did my own calculations on the basis of the Top-5-Commanders whichs show similiar results, but also shows why CA didn't accomplish anything while Tohaa did.
Haqqislam did not have a 4 point per win bonus in Phase 2, we got put down to 3 point per win. this still let us split for a few days to take Liberty Cargo Admin. Unfortunately, Ariadna had a strong last minute push that forced us back to NBIS. We went to 3 points per win on Tuesday of Phase 2 (.5 days in).
There's also a pretty sizable morale influence if one of the largest factions is getting 4 points instead of 3. Even if the average casual player doesn't know about the bonus, it creates a momentum that can have a better impact than more points. I'm not sure if that's entirely true, on individual commander's pages it seems like that's what happened, but in theatres and the front page it still seems to be 4... For example, if we take your own results, you have 10 wins and 1 draw, which is 31. The faction page says 41...
I'm sorry Gricks, I heard that rumor as well, but as I made my calculations, the numbers looks otherwise. I've found 16 win reports and 1 draw for Haqqislam on Liberty Cargo, where there are 65 points for Haqq. Resulting ratio is 4 per win (there would need to be 21 Haqq Wins and 2 Draws in case of 3-per-win ratio for Haqq in Phase 2) Also, if I take a look on your profile for example, there are 10 wins, 2 losses and one draw, and your score is 41 points (taken from Haqq info). That's 4 points per win for me, but as I said, I do not have another source to confirm it. Anyway, as I pointed above, Haqq would win the campaign (and also conquer Xaracs) even if had 3 points per win from the beginning,
We had 4 points per win first phase, and most of my games were first phase. I had 1 loss, and 1 draw, with...6 wins? I got an additional loss and the final 4 wins second phase. This means my points SHOULD be 38... Then the question I think I have is when did we drop to 3 per win? Because I know right now we are scoring 3 per win in NBIS.
If you were getting 4 in the first phase and 3 In the second, you'd have 37 If you check up on @Thandar 's math, yes its displayed as 3 per win on each player page, but the theatres(there actual pages not the points per theatre on your own page) , faction and front pages are still showing numbers for 4 points per win...
Take your pick(multiples allowed) from: It's supposed to display as 3 everywhere. It's supposed to be 4 everywhere. They didn't want to take the points off retroactively when they realised Haqqislam were a bit too big for 4 points. They want to hide taking the bonus points away in the AI historian. They wanted to hint at the bonus points coming off while maintaining Haqqislam's momentum.
This ranking reflects the raw wins, but then undervalues faction performance. Leadership and morale are nebulous things, but situational awareness, group communication, figuring out and projecting likely outcomes based on points scored per battle and player engagement and managing to get players playing in the right theatre at the right time make a big difference in whether a faction will seize a theatre or fall short. One of Yu Jing’s strengths this campaign has been good morale and motivating players when they’re on the back foot and getting them to commit to battles in the right place. That’s mostly why we were able to hold out against the tag team of NA-2 and Tohaa without any real support from allies.
Whatever the reason, it was the same for all factions. A win was 3 points for all players on their player page (draw = 1), but the points put into a territory depended on the faction. I noticed this when I was running my own analysis on whether or not factions were being "carried" by a few very active players.
Don't worry! You did very well and will be growing from now on with every new release! As for the points anomaly on the player page, I also noticed that on mine -- I have 1 Battle at Xarak's Ammo Module and 2 Battles at the Japanese Bottom, but as you can see....
And where supposed to be an anomaly? Every player's win is 3 points by default (before the faction bonuses), so you did score raw 3 points at the Ammo and 6 at the Japanese Bottom.
Ah, I didn't have an ambition to describe all possible factors in the campaign... in fact I'm not even able to imagine how it could be done. In terms of "power projection effectiveness" was Yu Jing maybe the best of all. I just wanted to point how the points bonuses affect the campaign... and how some factions are seriously beaten by that (particulary CA and Nomads).
Agreed, there are lots of factors here and I was expecting someone to make the same analysis you did. The point differentials definitely put some factions on steroids and others in a hard place. Yu Jing was lucky not to be hit hard by a large faction with a scoring bonus and we had quite enough trouble with Tohaa scoring 5:3 against us in phase 1. Luckily that was toned down in phase 2 to stop them bullying us quite so much and let NA-2 and Yu Jing go head to head with 4 points per win each.
More that I think the Haqqislam assumption that they began scoring 3pts in Phase Two rather then 4pts comes from how the player page displays data.
The zone still went with 4 points per win for Haq Islam. If the score is brought back to 3 we will have a different result on the battled zones. the Battery field would be 166 for Haq Islam versus 156 for Ariadna the Traffic Control would be 117 for Haq Islam versus 125 for Ariadna Both are a rough estimate, but the first will be a lot closer and the second would mean the Ariadnans took the Traffic Control.
Next campaign if able COMBINED ARMY shall get 5 pts per win on location; so it will make fight the real menace. Make it the forth offensive or else; we need that kind of drama in our campaigns @Aspect Graviton
