ADLG: Good And Bad V4 Lists

Background

Recently, I wrote my final piece on the subject of "super" armies in Art de la Guerre (ADLG). The main points were:

From a visual, and statistically naive, analysis I concluded that there are no "super" armies in ADLG. By "super" I mean armies that offer all players an advantage.

My underlying hypothesis was that as games increase, luck, player skill and list choice even out, so efficacy tends to 50%, leaving only inherent list differences (if any).

More rigorous testing showed that luck does even out. What is left behind is real and not chance, but that leftover is a tangle of list strength, player skill and popularity. The tests can only measure its size, not pull the tangle apart.

My hypothesis was only partially right. In a perverse way my initial conclusion still holds, but for totally different reasons. There still aren't any proven "super" armies because, given the data available, it's impossible to prove or disprove their exstance. It's case unproven.

One of the "byproducts" of the statistical testing was a list of 20 good and bad armies in ADLG V4. At first I didn't see it as particularly useful because they don't reflect just an army's inherent performance.

Now I've had time to reflect, I think the lists may be of more general interest; not least because they contain quite a few surprises and people do love a good list or two.

Definitons

As well as dividing the list of statistically different armies into good & bad they were further subdivided: those that passed rigorous statistical tests of difference and those that passed weaker tests (see full technical details). This gives the four groups presented here.

Caveat

In what follows please resist the temptation to ascribe army performance to any one factor. At the risk of repeating myself: an army's efficacy could be the result of any number of factors. The only one eliminated is chance. In short: when drawing your own conclusions please use a "hefty pinch of salt".

On this basis the groups are presented without further comment from me.

Good, strong evidence

Good, weaker evidence

Bad, weaker evidence

Bad, strong evidence

Closing remarks

I'd be interested in your views in the comments.