(July 24th, 2020, 17:44)Borsche Wrote: So I put together a spreadsheet with the number of times an AI has survived a game, put up against the first/second place finishes, their kills etc. Pretty interesting. Two things that stand out to me immediately are Mao, Darius, and Brennus. Mao for being tied for first in the number of games played... with only 1 first place finish to show for it. He has survived the most games, which makes sense because I feel like I'm constantly seeing this guy pop up in wildcard games. Mao actually leads the pack in surviving games haha. Darius has also somehow played in a bunch of games with not a lot to show for it. And Brennus is the leader in surviving games without finishing first or second - he seriously has 5 games now where he managed to not get killed, but not advance to the next round either.
Not that this needed anymore reinforcement, but this just highlights how absolutely terrible Sitting Bull is. Every other leader, across 5 seasons, has managed to survive a game or kill another AI. SB gets a flat 0 across the board.
Here's the google doc if anyone's interested in taking a look. Colored in Gold are the Pool 1 leaders and in Silver are the Pool 2 leaders according to the current (through the wildcard game of S5) Sulla rankings.
For Brennus, as far as I understand your table, he was killed only ONCE (game 1 season 4), but never manage to finish in the top 2 of his second game, when surviving is not enough to advance (being either wildcard or playoff) !
Close. He has one other death in playoff game 3 season 1 (the one column just points out an opening round death, as opposed to total deaths), but otherwise the guy has survived through every other season while only coming in second place twice (game 1 season 1 and game 6 season 2). Its almost at the point where it's not really a fluke anymore - the man just sort of hangs around in his games.
then there is s slightly mistake in your table as he has 7 games survived out of 8 games played
Are we undervaluing the emphasis of the map on civ performance? Asking this because I've switched the starting positions of Huayna/Inca and Washington/America in Survivor 4 game 7 and got a Washington-PWNs-everyone scenario:
I guess Inca starting position in this game was indeed very strong.
There was that alternate history last year where the same three starting positions placed 1/2/3 despite being completely different leaders as well. It's definitely one of the biggest factors imo.
(July 26th, 2020, 17:58)GreyWolf Wrote: Are we undervaluing the emphasis of the map on civ performance? Asking this because I've switched the starting positions of Huayna/Inca and Washington/America in Survivor 4 game 7 and got a Washington-PWNs-everyone scenario:
It's a combination of both : map and leader performance.
And that's why the championship game, with its mirrored or semi-mirrored maps, is the least interesting from a prediction standpoint (unavoidable, though : you want a fair map for the grand finals).
For instance, in the latest game (wildcard season 5), I think the community was dead wrong to have Bismarck as the grand favourite for First To Die.
It simply was never in play (or, since we know that everything is possible, it was extremely unlikely).
Now, switch his position with Gilgamesh's or Tokugawa's, and he's 100% First To Die.
Conversely, switch Huyna Capac with Lincoln or Montezuma in this year's game, and I doubt we'd see a Lincoln or Monty roflstomp !
For instance, in the latest game (wildcard season 5), I think the community was dead wrong to have Bismarck as the grand favourite for First To Die.
It simply was never in play (or, since we know that everything is possible, it was extremely unlikely).
Now, switch his position with Gilgamesh's or Tokugawa's, and he's 100% First To Die.
I don't know how you could say that, he didn't have any metal and wouldn't have ever had metal if he didn't land the GW. If anyone had attacked him at any point, he would have melted as badly as Zara did. That's why I picked him as FTD; I saw how difficult it would be for him to get metal. Conversely I think everyone realized how tough Hammy would be in the early game since he effectively didn't have any barbs and had bowmen at a minimum. So either Hammy goes first via dogpile, or Bismark goes first via ANYone attacking him, even Hammy.
I was aligned with Fluffball in my thoughts about the Wildcard: a no metal Bismarck next to be-metaled Tokugawa seeming like a chomping opportunity ripe for the picking.
But I think Wyatan's premise was that there was a TON of room between Bismarck and anyone else, which meant he was unlikely to be pressured upon for some time. Is there more that you wanted to add, Wyatan? I'd love to understand your thoughts.
I don't know how you could say that, he didn't have any metal and wouldn't have ever had metal if he didn't land the GW.
He had Iron first ring to his north, in a spot he was extremely likely to settle.
He got beaten to it by Hammy this time because he was so late to develop. I don't know if that was a fluke or not.
His other source (the one he got in the end) was unlikely to get contested by anyone but the barbs, so he wouldn't have stayed metal-less.
I considered Mao more at risk to end up metal-less (his northern source was also in barb land, but Genghis could have conquered those barb cities).
(July 27th, 2020, 11:42)Fluffball Wrote:
So either Hammy goes first via dogpile, or Bismark goes first .
That's why I gave this example about the importance of the map.
Two high peace weight AIs with 5 low peace weights... FTD just has to be one of the two, hasn't it ?
Well, I remain convinced that the highest chance for FTD was Toku, Genghis, or Gilgamesh.
Neither Hammy nor Bismarck.
You saw how weak Toku was. That Gilgamesh chose to go after Genghis rather than him... seems flukey.
Now I gave that example because I assumed that for a lot of people, the reasoning would have been :
- high peace weight AI in a low peace weight world
- who has performed abysmally so far
=> FTD !!
Prediction purely leader-based, with no consideration for the map.
Now, in your case, you did take the map into consideration (we simply differ in our reading of it), so bad example as it relates to you.
(July 27th, 2020, 11:56)Zalson Wrote:
I was aligned with Fluffball in my thoughts about the Wildcard: a no metal Bismarck next to be-metaled Tokugawa seeming like a chomping opportunity ripe for the picking.
But I think Wyatan's premise was that there was a TON of room between Bismarck and anyone else, which meant he was unlikely to be pressured upon for some time. Is there more that you wanted to add, Wyatan? I'd love to understand your thoughts.
As said above, Bismarck had iron close by, so I didn't consider him as a metal-less civ. Copper-less, sure, but with raging barbs, a super early DoW seemed unlikely.
His capital was on a hill, so tough luck breaking through that. He had horses for chariots to help fend off barbs (yeah, I know, you need The Wheel for that ).
But basically, early game, he only needed to worry about Toku.
While Toku also had Gilgamesh to be wary of.
Gilgamesh was stuck between Brennus (that they would share a religion definitely wasn't a given, and creative borders tend to make neighbours unhappy) and Toku.
Genghis between Hammy and Mao.
Early eliminations often come from an early combined assault, and each of these three was far more at risk than either Bismarck or Hammy IMO.
I didn't anticipate that he'd have so much trouble dealing with barbs (but so did Toku), so I thought he'd fill his backline quicker.
Lots of cities means slow conquest (assuming he'd be on the losing side), which would have exposed his would-be conqueror to a deadly backstab.
![[Image: Screen01921.png]](https://i.ibb.co/cNgsQZB/Screen01921.png)
