DR has contributed to 55 posts out of 1071 total posts
(5.14%) in 2,719 days (0.02 posts per day).
20 Most recent posts:
Is it doable? Sure.
Not by me though :P. I don't have the technical expertise in that kind of area.
Oooo, what drastic changes are these?
Were you attacked by him. And some time later you tried to thief him? Or did he thief you and immediately try to thief back? Because he can't thief targets under half his score, so he could have thieved you, got some more land then become to big to hit you or be hit by you for thieves
Just chiming in, the doc with regard to mongol explore isn't correct as you've all figured out. The 12.5% (That I recall from long ago) would be more accurate to say ~14%.
As to regard why it is 10/11 vs 15/16 figures you guys are getting.
From memory the formula was always
Just code dived to confirm the above formula. Hope this helps :)
Turks, get back iron bonus, hunters only 2 fpt, rather than 2.5.
Farms +1 food. (So 9 food instead of 7)
Special units in general have a 25% casualty rate compared to normal units, some civs, eg. zulu will have a higher casaulty rate. Probably up the bonuses for quite a few special units.
For sake of the future, continued discussion should be in strategy forum :P.
On the whole, I feel the advice given above is sound enough and anymore really confuses new players.
1 thing I disagree with, vikings should not be splitting rls among iron, wood and food until later in game. I think I'll expand on this point while it is fresh, just for discussion. I think we can both agree that if goods sell on pm, you'd produce whatever has the best gold/land ratio. Thus it doesn't make sense to spec rls in your non main eco good while it sells. Once it doesn't sell, it does become beneficial to spec rls in them BUT this normally isn't the first run out. And IF it is, while exploring you get full benefits from food eco. So there isn't really an arguement if you are doing food eco, to get non food eco rls because you get far more out of the food eco rls at that point. This point would allow a viking to get bigger than you one explore (Assumption (A) for reference).
A reasonable assumption you've made, is that lack of land for viking attacking up to get large enough to get you down, hopefully one day this assumption won't be true. Assumption (B).
I definitely agree with your assessment of catting power, I was going over numbers the other day, and it is reasonable to homeless someone in 4 hits. That is just insane. Just on the subject of cats, I'll be looking to see changes in that area later, don't jump the gun though, I've got some interesting views on it.
I feel the crucial factor, is whoever is first mover. Ie. after your jap is at 20 mill and 400 rls, if he runs before the vike does for his 2nd run, he'll win, if he doesn't he'll lose. Point (C).
A good example was
Quote: In my head the run out of pro where you hit me about 2 hours before my mage was the difference in that round. Still would have lost to you, but would have been a very competitive finish.
If I hadn't hit you before your run, I have no idea if I'd still have won, I'll take your word for it :). Example D (hitting you before you get your mage, by being a few hours earlier (so similar turns)). I'd also state that I got there through the inverse of point B, that I attacked up.
Now I'll suggest some counter strategies that you as a viking could play against your jap. Potentially other civs too. You may not agree, but this is discussion after all.
1) Use A, C and D . IIRC you were probably trying to mage on 300-500 turns after out of pro? A jap with 150 defense rls is probably going to get 8.75x def, I suppose you could up it to 10.5x~ with a lot of difficulty (leaves you vulnerable to popless though even with 0 cat rls), but we'll go with that. You have a viking that is larger or as large as the jap, with more turns from A. Relying on C, he mages before jap. While maging, he constantly thieves jap (you may remember this from me) burning buildings, producing weapons. Jap defense goes down to 7x. The viking with 60 fs swords has 1.95x base attack without attack rls or wine. If he is at the same size as jap, either he has both less rls in food than jap and he has more turns. From the rl count you mentioned here
Quote: a Jap will have an easy 400 rls
, 150 def rls, 100 cat rls, 50 conq land, and some fort space thrown in.
Seems like 100 food rls (that seems really tiny...)
The viking should be larger than jap with 150 food rls. Like... 20-33% larger than jap at least...
If we take the point that the viking did go for defense as jap exploring out did too, then his rls would be 150 food, 60 fs, 50 def, rest whatever he wants ? 260 total. Close to 10x defense (not full commit, only 75% land, jap defense of 10.5x is 95% commit).
Summary on out of pro: 24 million land, 260 rls.
So after maging he would have another 240 rls if not more. Say 30 cl, 100 w/t, 100 attack. So he has close to 4x attack, vs a 7x defense. His score will also be larger since he has more army and jap are slightly freelanded. I'd say 1.5x is reasonable if not higher. We are looking at 6x (relative to jap) vs 7x defense (japs). He probably would have made some wine (if brought even better). To take 30% of jap land, he needs about 3-4 hits.
I feel, that while all this wouldn't be piss easy, but the viking (with you playing), could certainly manage the take down. And on 2x the japs land (pending wine, more possibly), the japs position is suddenly a lot more precarious. The jap has less land to mage on, and taking down that viking becomes the same game of, it is damn difficult to (if he goes towers). I think the jap could certainly take him down, but jap would be down a mage. I feel there are plenty of cases where we can point at weakness in this strategy, but at the same time, it is not beyond the realm of reason. I've also tried to be conservative at the most, fair about my expectations for the viking. This entire strategy however hinges on first mover though (C + D).
That being said, this is where the fun actually begins. Suppose the jap endeavours to homeless the viking every run. The advantage the viking has in defense of archers disappears if he ends up going towers. Or he deals with all the issues with regard to freelanding/homelessing, which while preventable, is still painful. Funnily enough, the only rls that help in this case are fortspace and defense rls. Defense for if towers of course. And japs have bonuses in this field via extra rls :P. I'd suggest by the way, the jap would have to take similar precautions, to a different extent, because someone who is forts is still homelessable and freelandable.
So in a way it becomes a war of attrition. The viking however, has all the economic advantages and if food no longer sells, this advantage is multiplied extravagantly even with 1:1 conversion for jap. So while the first mover will probably win, it seems a viking first mover will have a much easier time of it than a jap. And a first mover jap has a much harder time of it.
If I may. I use a simplified example.
Say you produce 3 food per land.
At explorers cost 300. You spend 200 land on food production to get 600 fpt to afford 3x horse for each explorer. You have another 12 land as stables (I will ignore extra population requirements).
So total 212 land gives 1 explorer with 3x horses.
Or 1 explorer with 12 months.
If you just used explorers without horses, from 212 land, you get 636 food which gives 2.18 explorers without horses. Divide by 2, since 12 months vs 6, 1.09
So the equivalent of 1.09 explorers with 12 months
9% more explorers from not using horses yet.
So in response to some of that previously, I'm wondering why you'd choose japs over viking?
I'm just going to summarise what I feel are their main points against each other. I'm ignoring turks because at the time, they are two very different beasts. Comparing at a time where plains forest was 2:1, but 1:1 for vikings (is this right?). This is for blitz by the way, although standard viewpoints welcome.
japs get 22% more rls than other civs due to research bonus. This advantage really comes out in w/t rls or fs rls.
in pro, since they go with all plains they can get larger.
can use 20 land tcs to own everyone.
The arguing points for vikings are thus, their strong swordsman, bows, 1:1 for hunters, wood and iron bonuses means that regardless of the jap rl advantage, viking army will always have higher effective strength even with less rls (in terms of attack and defense rls), they have a far higher economic advantage in hunters, if you make weapons on local (you probably will), the wood and iron again makes the extra w/t japs increasingly irrelevant. In other words, their basic bonuses mean that the extra rls japs get only matters for fs, and one could argue that the reduced rls vikings need in attack, w/t, food, etc. more than covers the "extra" fs needed to match a japs fs.
You could also suggest that the all plains advantage is defeated once vikings out of pro, since they get so much more food.
TCs only really useful if you do catting (as tem did in his game), in which case extra rls complements the 100 cat rls very well.
Basically to me, all the advantages for japs gets defeated/breaks even by innate viking bonuses with the exception of tc catting.
I can spit out some numbers for how effective in rls viking is if you like. Just discussion?
I can foresee one controversial start being including 100 explore rls (for blitz) for jap to get higher early land to take advantage, since that'd translate, to a ton of land (33-40% off the top of my head from memory). Using that to get more than 100 rls in return, plus other advantages of being further ahead. Viking advantages also significantly reduced if you aren't using a swordsman army, since offense is a very big contributer, but that only really leaves horseman as the alternative, which has its own huge set of cons. Well there are pikes or maces also for attacking, both of which fare quite poorly, to the point where the extra cost of swords probably more than outweighs for vikings at least (discussion point?).
Aid needs 6 turns to get there.
Quote: In regards to my stories, they were purely because some muppet? was in here suggesting that everything should be changed because they didn't know how to make weapons with any civ that wasn't a Mongol.
bahahahaha :P. If it had a weapon bonus I played it. If they didn't I certainly gave them a try.
Quote: only way to make civs arguably playable by every style of player will be to give every civ an attack weapon bonus Or lower the costs so the civs without a bonus don't need one, while still giving those with one a good advantage.
I'll look at pushing this through when I'm back (away for a week).
In lieu of figuring out a demand/supply formula.
Tighten all price ranges eg. iron 70-130, food 15-30
All batches have user ID.
When putting goods on pm, you have action to sell now, or later. If sell now, 5% tax (that is current value yeah?). If later 15% (holding costs). Withdraw is still 25% AFTER goods have been put on.
You get two batches (batch A, batch B) per good (this is all for one good). You set their prices, the reason for two is, you might some at top end of range 130, and some at low end 70. You have an invisible batch for the "sell later" (batch H for holding) group, that you can shift into either batch at will. You can't shift it back though, (or if you can, you have to pay 15% tax!).You can shift new goods into either A, B or H.
Batch sizes aren't shown to public, shown to allies though.
You can choose to block players goods from appearing in PM, or to highlight certain ones on a list, show which are enemies, allies etc. Some bonus for buying allies maybe (tax is removed and split between both, should probably increase tax by 5% to make it more effective).
Reduced price range means reduced feeding margin. Limited batches number means PM will keep moving since one player can't control it. It is a lot harder to use PM to store goods, since likely to sell. For the ones in holding, you are taking quite a huge tax hit.
Introduce anonmynous batches, basically you get another batch A n B called C and D, except player ID isn't shown AND they cost another 10% in tax. If two anonmynous batches are at same price, the one that was put there first sells first! A way for players to try get around embargo.
So for a goods type, you have 5 batches A, B, C, D, H which gives you all the flexibility you need really.
Franks: (fresh start)
cl *1.1-1.2 for all
All units also get another defense bonus, like archers.
Goldmines: Only 4 land instead of 6 (minor, one day more work).
Aid gold, can send *100-1000 markets rather than market number.
Local market stops decreasing in price after 45-50% price change from original.
Edited by DR on Jan 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Alternative, base the land taken on base defensive score ratio. Since you want to encourage people to defend, it doesn't make someone with camping army to "benefit". Or have the base defense ratio also affect your % drop. Crappy defense, lower % drop.
We would all like this for the social reasons, (lounge etc.), but the main value I believe in this is the capability for saving pro. Eg at
1005,1010,1015,1020 You can choose to save your pro progress to use in other rounds (no pm allowed). This feature would have saved days of my life. :)
General adjustment to a)
Make the production loss max 50%, 0 at 0.33x base def, in between is linear proportion. Not sure of population loss effect value. Maging would probably follow above number rule rather than flat stopping.
c) You can still get homelessed and poplessed, it means you cant be homelessed poplessed again in the same day (maybe) depending on the your %, so after a certain attack % on you, nothing kills/destroys buildings. Speaking of which, we some kind of scale to stop people attacking you out with 1 catapult/thief to lower %
Also some new ones at bottom of post.
a) you want a productivity reduction, this is because the numbers involved in population are far more variable. You can't say flatly population won't grow, because if you are freelanded/homelessed so free land, then being unable to grow population means your empire will be in vicious cycle of do nothing. That means you need to allow population growth - raider effect, which can be offset by just having extremely high rations or something. So to get around that, you need productivity reduction.
a) that is the point :). You should never be going freeland, and if you do, wouldn't you expect to be attacked and lose productivity?
b) I always thought the % was based on the builders you get assigned from tool makers. So it isn't based on population, but population as builders.
c) Popless and homeless is part of game, this still means you get homelessed and popped, what it does mean is that 1) getting camped while rebuilding or repopping isn't as painful. Being homelessed twice in a day sucks and is quite frankly a bit bs. Once is sufficient especially given the economic losses associated. 2) it saves average (or lower) players a lot of pain, since they won't have the same tricks vets use to help protect themselves. So they still go through the experience, but not as painfully
Quote: Have to be honest here, this point triggered a flashback of Civilisation. The old Barbarian horde
Considered it, but too open to potential land deletion abuse. Plus it is far more complex.
a) You are right, campers could put a serious dent in this. But, doesn't this lead back to the whole, put up more defense? :P The most dangerous is definitely the being catted problem. Which I have to say how is that different from now? Maging in front of catter, you'll get popped and freelanded anyway. I think that is more a problem with catapults than anything. You always have towers option. Definitely something worth considering though.
b)it is quite a big gear change to actually switch from normal exploring to getting up a high great wall, it makes sense if you have spare builders to put them all on the great wall. The amount of builders to meet your turn by turn needs take 150-300 turns to build up wall... rather silly.
d) I wouldn't expect blitz to be shut down, it is just that you'd have to wait for a player base to build up.
Bounce % reset on page load, discussed else where, here is appropriate, I think not on page load, after 2 mins online.
Land score ratio based conquer needs a lot of thought.
The yellow colour for pro doesn't go away until half of the pro period is gone. Eg. 480 turns in standard. They lose protection though. Might need some kind of server protection to stop scripts checking attacking all players.
Possible: Each hour online, some attack % against you is reset (1 attack per 20 minutes)? and your cl/productivity/attack/def, etc. goes down by 1%? Floating an idea here. Make being online a decision, you get extra information and capability but at cost of exhaustion (both human and empire).
Sorry, I seemed to have left something out.
Quote: In pro, 10 plains:1 mtn conversion
Implication is outside pro is 1:1.
Going to push it now.
Ahhh I was thinking def ratio was based on defense players defense score/ land score not just player score. So can disregard my previous math.
Quote: scoreRatio = defense.score / player.score;
landScore = (defense.mland*5) + (defense.fland*4) + (defense.pland*3)
defRatio = defense.score/landScore;
takeLandRatio = 2*(((scoreRatio - 1) * 0.5) + 1)/defRatio;
Question, a camping mongol with all swords has a very high score/land score ratio. Are you relying on the fact you'd take a large proportion of their land to tilt it out? Similarly attacking back down the other way. I'm liking the principle of this, but need to think about the numeric values. This seems to be a mainly, punish freelanders (not a problem) and stop people dying thing (I'm not sure about this, if they are inherently foolish enough to not have a proper defense, that is their fault?). I'm not entirely sure this benefits you from someone camping with all swords though (seems like it goes both ways). If this was coded in before though, maybe you can explain your experience about it?
Edited by DR on Jan 4, 2012 at 02:30 AM