Break even research is only a disguise if our opponents aren't smart enough to figure out that's what we're doing. I guess we feel safe in making this assumption? A competent player would easily deduce our true research rate regardless (and explain to other teams if they were interested in a coalition.)
The reasoning on a little military insurance is this:
Scenario A: we build the amount of occasional military we are doing.
If things go on as they are, is there any possible way we can lose? The consensus seems to be no? I'd ask what would happen if: 1. we are severely underestimating one or more of our opponents, especially in their ability to communicate and motivate other teams to dogpile. 2. There are teams willing to break a NAP (maybe invoking a weak justification that Alemanni is east of the Oasis or something? 3. There are teams who feel like anything but first place is an equal loss - for such a team, if anther team is going to win for sure, it is always in their better interest to do something to prevent that, which can actually be a rational justification for doing things like running an army across the world, if they perceive this is their only way to prevent the #1 team from winning. (It can't be in their worse interest because doing nothing means their chances of winning are 0.) 4. Someone recognizes that we are at our weakest point ever right about now. We don't have horses or a UU. We're ahead in tech so will have knights, maces, etc. before other teams most likely.
Can we still win if the above are true, or is there absolutely no possible way they can be true? If so carry on.
Scenario B: We keep up with #1 in power. (I think that's about 6-8 axes / spears above where we are now?)
Can we _lose_ if we do this? I think it's much harder to imagine a way that can happen, even if we're underestimating opponents drastically and we play as if they will make the best possible decisions. It's also hard to imagine that the economic cost would be enough to drop us from our extremely strong lead.
So that's how I look at it, trading a situation where there is almost no imaginable risk, for one where there is _literally_ no risk of losing. The downside is some sense of pride at how much we're lapping the field, I guess?
This military obsession from some of you is starting to border on paranoia. As has been stated MANY times previously in this thread:
* We have NAPs with all neighbors.
* Two of our three neighbors are fighting each other in a war.
* There is tons of unclaimed land out there and we don't touch borders with any other team.
* Our military is #2 in the game and significantly above the world average.
* We have tons of population ready to whip if necessary.
* We have one of the best ancient era unique units in the game (and will soon have the resource to build it).
* Our diplomatic relations range from good to excellent with every team we've met.
Discussing this issue any further serves no point. I know that people get bored during these long turn timers and want to talk about something, but this has long past the point of diminishing returns. This is essentially a closed topic. We're fine. We are not in any danger. Find something else to talk about.
I agree that we're totally safe. I don't see why you want to shut down discussion though, Sullla. I think it's great that we have so many people participating in here.
(January 16th, 2013, 13:02)novice Wrote: I agree that we're totally safe. I don't see why you want to shut down discussion though, Sullla. I think it's great that we have so many people participating in here.
Agreed on both counts.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(January 16th, 2013, 13:02)novice Wrote: I agree that we're totally safe. I don't see why you want to shut down discussion though, Sullla. I think it's great that we have so many people participating in here.
I agree. This reminds me of the idea that great scientific innovation often happens from studies that had no particular applied goal or had a completely different goal. As long as our conversation is related to the game and is framed in a positive, healthy dialogue of contrasting opinions and perspectives, let's engage! Plus, it makes it easier for people like me--those who feel like the C&D and micro conversations are a bit over our heads--to engage in the conversation.
I'm not convinced that breakeven research is much better in terms of not scaring people. People like to rationalize. If you alternate between GNP highs and lows, to some extent they will compare their own "typical" performance to your lows, and excuse your highs as being flukes.
A related point is that it's much more difficult to evaluate someone's GNP when it keeps jumping around (and people like to think they're not doing as bad as they are).
There is also the fact that with binary, at a random time we've done more "low" compared to "high" than is actually the case over the course of researching a given tech, because the pattern is low-high-low-high- etc. (the low comes first, and part of the time they will evaluate us pre-high).
And fourthly, there's the benefit of running to final turn of a tech's research at 100%, so that the percent bonuses of the libraries and the tech bonuses themselves don't show up multiplicatively on the graph that turn (since the graphs are calculated after the tech is researched).
I think I favor continuing with binary research because of flexibility. It comes up time and time again, if you are paying as close attention to other teams' progress as we are, and thinking about the game as much as we are, that we want to make a sudden course change. And saving gold makes this much easier.
Heh. In a way, I find that it's easier to compute the research power of the opponents if they run binary research, at least in this game. With APTmod I can see both their GNP, their culture output, their espionage output, and their gold generation loss.
If they run breakeven research, the gold generation (or loss) is relatlvely minor, and I get no real value of the size of their economy. With binary research, I can reverse engineer their "true" GNP by comparing their gold loss and gain, and both of them with their listed GNP.
Anyway, it's also quite possible to estimate a team's teching ability by simply checking their score increases and guesstimating which techs they get, so I see no real reason to run binary research or not from a counter-C&D perspective. And we're not targeted by any serious C&D right now, anyway.
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(January 16th, 2013, 19:37)waterbat Wrote: what do the teams get in APT mod if they don't have enough EP in-game to get regular graphs?
They also don't have the magic waterbat tool
Are you sure? You did post it on the Internet. If Google has scraped across your site and they googled "Magic Waterbat Tool", our secret weapon may now be compromised, in the hands of our enemies....
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon
