PB 59 organizing and tech thread

[Mjmd]

I accept your concessions towards me. 

Shoot I was away and Charriu beat me to it!!!!

GG everyone.

[Tarkeel]

We see a similar pattern as with the following PBs after PB59. The lightnouse nerf has a huge impact right around this T100 mark. I expect that the reduction in percentage goes down by T150. Also and I hate to say this, but I think Tarkeel misplayed his trait by not focusing enough on cottages and/or lighthouses.

I'll readily admit I not only misplayed FIN, but most of the opening turns as well. See my thread for the time I didn't see the second barbarian, leading to an embarassing city capture. My only defense is that this was during the most hectic part of PB58, which had all my attention.

[Charriu]

I only have lightly read Lazteuq's thread so far, so I only have my in-game knowledge.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering who lost a city to the barbs in the T60s.

[Charriu]

That sounds more like a true diplomatic victory, thrawn.

[naufragar]

Looks like naufragar captured a good chunk of cottages?

0.

Fascinating stuff so far, Charriu.

[Miguelito]

I enjoyed following this and found myself rooting for all of Mig, Amica, and Picc at different points of time. One thing I really wanted to suggest (but lurker rules...) was for Mig to offer a three way draw just before he killed Picc. He didn't rate his chances high against Amica in the follow up but could leverage his position first against Picc by saying accept or I'll kill you, and then against Amica by saying accept or I won't kill him. It would have been a great way to end it as I thought that all three of them deserved to win.

Although I may seem weird after the burden of playing the late game has been discussed so much here, I was really enjoying the game. Not without anxiety and suffering at times, but if that didn't add to the fun I would have been out ca. turn 180; actually it got better from there. The time investment was actually not significantly more than when we were playing 1 turn per day (but as a consequence I was also playing worse than Amica, and also reporting was obviously slacking). It was a great game that I wanted to bring to a win condition, and we were in a unique position that I don't expect ever to achieve in a game again (I think I read a similar sentiment from Amica even though for them it was not sustainable to continue, which again is very much to be respected). I felt we had sufficient odds for it to be worth the try (whether to try or not was debated in the thread several times). Of course, my assessment regarding our chances was more pessimistic than Amica's, so I feel vindicated that it was reasonable to carry on.

Also yeah, that's diplomacy, although I can imagine the lurkers would have allowed it.

[klops]

I will then start on the tracking tool statistics, which will take some time. Now this is the first time I'm doing this for a larger game like this...

just had a quick look at it and... wow, those are a LOT of numbers. If you continue to do such a detailed analysis, it's probably as much work as Amicas latest turn :D

Definitely interesting! Thanks

[Charriu]

Beware the biggest report is still in the process with T150 and still 19 players alive.

[Miguelito]

Charriu,  I have some plausibility issues with the numbers from your last report. Probably I'm missing something,  but:

• How are we making (significantly) more Fin commerce than we have total population? That number is unbonified, right? Even if it were I think it's too high. We did not really have a lot of modifiers, and a bunch of if not most cities had rather few Fin tiles
  
• civac making 750 off Agg? I mean sure he had a huge army towards the end,  but wouldn't that mean that he had >1500 units? was he running Pacifism? That could explain some of it.  but it still seems weird that he would  have >2 times our savings and near 4 times Amica's. I can see that he has higher base unit cost than Amica or us if he has the same army size with fewer cities (plus Amica running vassalage), but I can't explain the dimension
  
• This is the weakest one and I'd have to check in game: I had expected a comeback of Pro (you see it for us in the t200 stats already), but I have trouble buying into the numbers for Amica and us. That's more than 10/city. Even pretending that every city was coastal with 4 routes that seems too high. We still had international routes with I think 4 or 5 players, and Amica with civac (ok, drop ion the  bucket). Also mind that a significant share of our and Amica's cities were still revolting.
  

While I'm at it, worth pointing out that the t250 numbers include a lot of wealth/research building, and corporation HQs play a major role. The Mining HQ was approaching 2000 gpt (of which I was sending a bunch abroad to compensate international miners), and surely Cereal was making at least similar figures.

[Charriu]

- The FIN numbers are actually bonified, which should explain a lot that. Unfortunately as I explained I was not able to calculate the gold modifier accurately. It is mostly higher then it should be.
- Vassalage reduces the unit maintenance before AGG kicks in. Meaning If you run Vassalage your savings from AGG are smaller. Having a lot of pop increases your free unit limit before unit maintenance kicks in. Therefore high pop numbers also decrease the AGG savings. Both of these factors applied to Amicalola. The pop factor applied to you, which explains why your savings are higher then Amicalola with Vassalage but way lower then civacs.
- PRO is also bonified.

Good that you mention the HQs those are most likely the main cause for the distorted gold modifier. I have to find a way to calculate the gold modifier accurately for future games, but obviously this could not be done here.