The game in question is 3v3 Biomes https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=34073184. I would like to know, where we managed to win. Was it luck? Error of opponent? Positional advantage?

LOL.


As for the game, I have no idea, what happened.

Edited 6/16/2023 23:10:57

The thing is, that for the first 10 turns, we had fewer armies, less income, and the enemy didn't do any major mistakes (and even though they did some mistakes, we did mistakes as well, for example, forgot to sanction). Yet, after turn 10 we just started winning. We had some luck turn 10, but I believe it didn't play a major role.

better choices turn 2, bad gifts turn 7 and could have blocked elsewhere, huge texx stack by turn 8, were never really behind at any point.

(this is my 4 minute analysis, still it's the best you've had so far)

It has been a fight NA vs SA with counter positions of both teams in the other part. I am no expert in INSS but I believe whil Harmony was able to dance around in Blitz's positive area, Blitz had to dance around in Harmony's negative bonuses. That finally made a contestion in North America easier and cheaper, while contesting SA cost Blitz probably even more than it helped. Does this make sense?

Edited 6/19/2023 11:58:17

they were too busy recruiting

"The thing is, that for the first 10 turns, we had fewer armies,"

Technically yes, realisticly, not really. Thing about army stat is that it included ALL armies. Meaning immoveable armies aswell.
If you were to take a look at the controlled territories you would see that they also always owned more terr. Meaning a sizeable amount of their "Unit advantage" were immoveable units.

"less income,"

Yes, but you have to consider the sanction. Their majority of income was distributed on 2 players while yours were on 3. Meaning all sanctions (if not misplaced) are more valuable for the team who has their income more distributed.
After all reducing 18income by 33% has a bigger effect than reducing 12income by 33%
To check actual inc differece, you have to use "armies actually deployed"

"Was it luck? Error of opponent? Positional advantage?"

for the most part, you guys were attacking.
Bodski's income was never threatened
You guys attacked CrYsT 2v1 for an easy cleanup on your continent (SA) where as they only had a 1v1 on their continent (NA)
They had to defend their income 1v1 (Grendel v Texx) where as you 2 could defend 2v1 (lineal vs Texx and Kallisti)
Not to mention that they got their income clumbed together on 1 spot while yours was more spread out

"Yet, after turn 10 we just started winning. We had some luck turn 10, but I believe it didn't play a major role. "

CrYsT was dead,
lineal (the one attacking your income source) had no income himself to even attack

Looking back on this, this was a beautiful little comeback.

I think we made the comeback because we had legitimate reasons to hyperfocus 2 particular players, which eventually starved them of card pieces and gave us a big target to sanction.

Some nice predictions and moves, like Kal’s defensive predictions on T7 and his mini captures on T10 allowed us to secure the position, and also our choice of ordering the moves to perfectly foil most of their plans. We also distracted their big guy for just long enough to deal with the other two.

I think we should have lost on picks, but we played near perfectly to turn this around.

Using full hindsight though, did any team make a blunder in this game? I thought Blitz played great. I think Kal does too and that’s why he’s confused how we won this.