ATC 2019 stats and interesting numbers

ATC 2019 stats and interesting numbers

Our Asian Team Championships 2019 held over the weekend of 20 & 21 July saw 24 players taking part, including 6 honored guests from outside Singapore.


Players form up into Teams of 3 players each, with no country represented twice within the team, even if it was an allied company. Teams are then paired against other teams for 3 swiss rounds on Day 1, and are then moved to an upper / lower bracket based on their respective performance. There, the teams then proceed to slug it out over another 2 rounds for their final placing and prizes.

With the conclusion of our successful Asian Team Championships 2019, here are some stats:


Country / Faction representation

 

We have a total of 15 NATO players (63%) and 9 PACT players (37%). Each slice represents 1 player.

On the NATO side we have 3 Dutch, 3 Iraq (1 pure 1 UK 1 USA), 2 USA, 2 UK (1 pure 1 iraq), 2 WG (1 pure 1 USA), 2 Israel (1 pure 1 WG) and 1 Canada.

On the PACT side, we have 3 Russia, 2 EG (1 pure 1 Russia), 2 Czechs (1 pure 1 Russia), 1 Syria + Iran, and 1 Iran.



NATO countries not represented are France and ANZAC.

The only
PACT
 country not represented is Poland.



Iraq being classified under NATO is still funny and will never get old.

For the rest of this article, the armies with out-of-country allies will be grouped under their main country.

Tournament Performance

Representative VP is the total VP split amongst the players of that country. Average VP is taken from the total VP split amongst the number of games played.

The expected outcome is derived from the "median" of the Win Draw Loss outcomes.

The top 3 best performing countries for ATC are Israel, Iraq and West Germany, suggesting that the Israel Iraq powercreep worries may indeed have some truth to them. 

On the PACT side, Czech and mother Russia are the clear powerhouses, with Czech giving you more explosive WIN BIG OR GO HOME performance while Russia offering a more stable gameplay outcome.


It should also be noted that 1 WG player went undefeated throughout the tournament and singlehandedly pulled WG into the top 3 best performing countries. Thank you for proving to us that WG is indeed playable at the highest competitive level. #schooled

Both EG players unfortunately had to attend to other commitments and could not stay for the entire duration of the ATC, resulting in the bottom tier results shown.

 

Missions

A total of 53 missions are played throughout the ATC weekend, with NO RETREAT being the most commonly played.

REARGUARD is removed from the playable pool of missions due to time constraints for ATC.

ATC also featured some rules modifications, with the Attacker being able to win on Turn 4 for missions that normally end on Turn 6, and Delayed Reserves starting from Turn 2 instead of Turn 3 for both players being the two most notable/impactful modifications.

 

On the whole, NATO players tend to be weaker in ENCOUNTER and BREAKTHROUGH missions, while enjoying an advantage in COUNTERATTACK, BRIDGEHEAD and FREE FOR ALL missions. The opposite is true for PACT players.


CONTACT occurs so rarely that it really is a toss up between the players.

The problem with games going to time / ending in draws could be traced to the type of mission played, with NO RETREAT, COUNTERATTACK and BRIDGEHEAD resulting in large number of draw outcomes, even with the ATC modified rules (ie. Delayed Reserves entering on turn 2, attacker able to win from turn 4 onwards instead of turn 6). Perhaps excluding these missions would result in fewer draws?

 

tl;dr Summary

>> NATO 63% PACT 37% of playerbase.

>> If you aim to win, play Israel & Iraq. Powercreep is real. It is still unknown what would happen if you mix both Israel and Iraq together.


>> For PACT players, Czech is stronger but more unstable. Russia offers a more consistent performance with less punch. 


>> 1 main factor for the draw problem in TY tournaments could be due to the type of mission played.


We hope to see you at our next major event!

Share this post...
Previous post Next post

Comments

Leave a comment

Our brands