Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)

[triqui]

thejeff said:
If one nation has won twice out of 20 games is it twice as powerful as a nation that has only won once? Or even twice as likely to win?

No. But if you find that the 4 nations that win more total 50% of the victories, and happen to be 4 nations with strong sacreds, and that most of the nations that has never won dont have strong sacreds, or sacreds at all, that might be a trend.

2vs1 is not relevant. 4 vs 0 is a bit more (even if not deffinitive)

[thejeff]

Agreed. I think it's clear to all that LA Ermor and R'lyeh are powerhouses.
The other eras are closer.

And it's very hard to draw any conclusions about the low end. Where there are multiple nations that haven't won at all.

[Tifone]

But they're just so thematically KOOOOOOOL!!!!

[triqui]

Some of the strong nations are as well thematically cool (ermor MA is a good example imho). Some nations that are very low end are not the "coolest" ones thematically as well. So that's not a cause-effect relationship.

[Endoperez]

triqui said:
Some of the strong nations are as well thematically cool (ermor MA is a good example imho). Some nations that are very low end are not the "coolest" ones thematically as well. So that's not a cause-effect relationship.

But then, some of the low-end nation are very cool. EA Agartha is awesome...

[triqui]

To add an extra evaluations:

MA Shinuyama: 2-5-4-2-2. (weak army for early expansion, lack of sacreds and low morale make them attractive nation to be rushed. Later, they have access to very strong army buffs and one of the best, if not the best, and more cost effective mages in the game which happen to be non-capital. Late game they have strong Death which means strong thugs and Tartarian factory, and easy access to game-winning BE like Army of Gold+Heat from hell)

[Wrana]

Bump?