Well many things need to be taken into account there:
- The amount of games the nation has, it's logical to say that a nation that is played more is more likely to win a game.
- Player skill behind the nation. The better the player in control of a nation the better the changes to win.
- Player skill behind other nations. The better the competition the harder to win, or vice versa.
- Amount of nations in the game. The fever nations there are the fever players you have to fight against (fever neighbors that start next to you, lower change of getting dog-pilled, in all less variables) ergo better chances of victory.
- Other nations. A strong nation with a bunch of crappy one is more likely to win. Say Mictlan versus Agartha, Man, Oceania... you get the point.
- Diplomacy. No matter how good you are, or how good a nation you have diplomacy can always bring you down or put you on top, depending just how manipulative and silver tonged you are ( Yes, I mean you WL
) But to be honest diplomacy is usually tied to the player behind the nation not the actual nation (except in cases of Hinnom, Ashdod and such immensely OP nations, and in cases clear graph leader.)
- Etc...
So it's my personal opinion that you can't reliably represent nation winnings to power levels.
Mictlan for example has 3.5 wins while Fomoria has 6.5 I pitty the fool who thinks Mictlan is the lesser nation.
Sauromatia has 9 HoF wins while TC only has a single. Sauro is a better nation but not that better. I'd personally put TC very close to Sauro power vice.
Sure, there are powerful nation in the top of the HoF which ought to represent them accordingly but there are equally powerful nation near the bottom as well.