2. Even if there were 40 full-control scenarios: the stronger one should be the winner! Clearly avoiding the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in a "jump-around" battle, the player will almost certainly lose.

In a turn-based strategy game, the winner should be the one who is smarter. I remember a game where my opponent got bogged down in treasure hunting, building up his army and stats. And while he was doing that, I took all his castles and decimated his troops. And the opponent, without control or any boosts, simply didn't have time to return.

Added 3 minutes later

The only thing I object to is technical wins. I defeated an opponent, won the "first place," but another player gets the technical win.
At the very least, it feels like I wasted my time, because my victory took 2-5 hours, but all I had to do was wait a week or two, and the victory would have come to me on its own.

Here's an example from your group in the Novice league: the game between Tofsla and Dau. Tofsla did everything to make the game happen, but Dau, having lost his chances of qualifying, decided not to waste his time. And what result should I record for this game?