 |
|
dejon
|
|
The score is an arbitrary statistical system and can hardly measure game skill or even status, by human standards.
In addition, a low score allows us to "fly below the radar" of the other teams until such time as we are prepared to conquer another civ.
There are possibly signs already that CDG may be preparing to attack south rather than north. This could be due to our NMs, but our seeming harmlessness could also be a factor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dejon
The score is an arbitrary statistical system and can hardly measure game skill or even status, by human standards.
|
I'm not sure I would go *THAT* far, although I agree score isn't everything. Someone with a huge score has a lot more land than you, or a lot more people, or both. Unless the guy with the little score has a big military and uses it quickly, the guy with the big score is going to develop a superior industrial base and will be able to leverage that against the small fry. Score= land area and population; short term those mean nothing, but long term, they mean EVERYTHING.
However, the "Lobster in the Tank" effect is very common in MP games such as this one, and I would expect that if anyone climbs too far, three or four others will pull them back in.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
My thoughts on our situation:
Score means little. You could look at our low score in terms of "investments".
1. Two Granaries equals about three Settlers in the same amount of time. With the Settlers we would have a better score sooner, but the hope is that with the Granaries we'll have an even better score later.
2. Close city-spacing reduces score (since you control less land), but our empire is just as productive, and certainly more efficient than teams who places their cities further apart. Eventually we will see this pay off because we will be able to "do more", regardless of what the score says.
Of course, there is no denying that we're not exactly in a powerful position in this game. That is something each of us is going to have to deal with. In SP games many players would probably quit at this point, which is why I've always been a proponent of sticking it out; just quitting may not be an option in MP (because of pride, etc.). Please do not give up on this game because we're not in the top 3 (yet)!. Things can and do turn around.
Here are some advantages we do have:
1. A lot of land area to expand into compared to our neighbors. Certainly we've got more than CDG, maybe even GCA (I have no idea about CFC).
2. CDG is not very fierce competition. I'm not underestimating them; any player can cause some harm with Immortals. But given some of the stuff they've done and some of the posts I've read by their members, I'm confident we can out-play them.
3. A great team. Yup, I sound like a cheerleader, but it's true.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 18-05-2003 at 21:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
We're actually not that far behind the French team or CFC, and not too far behind CDG (I'm surprised CDG has such a large score... they have half our # number of cities).
The nature of "score" is that it is tallied and added to every turn. So a civ three times as powerful as anyone on the planet could instantly appear at turn 50 and since his score was 0 for those first 50 turns, his score will appear to be impossibly tiny for the longest time.
A better (but still not very good) way to see how strong teams are is the change in score. For example, between turns 54 and 55, the following teams changed in score:
GCA +2
Firaxis +1
CDG +1
Netatolians +3
Apolyton +1
CFC +0
GWT +2
Grenouilles +1
The numbers are still dependent upon previous score, but it can offer a bit more insight than the regular score.
I'm fairly sure we have a greater-than-average number of cities, and the reason our score is staying similar with the rest of the teams is because of our previously low score, because the population of our cities is quite low and our city spacing gives us less territory.
As E_T pointed out, a superb way to "stay under the radar." Despite appearing to be 2nd to last, in fact we have one of the best economies in the world, despite our low population, a large number of cities, and if we let our cities grow in size, we could probably get up to the #2 spot in raw power (the Netatolians probably have 6 cities right now, and maybe more, so it would be hard to overtake them).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
I have just finished placing my figures into my corruption spreadsheet and here are some quick figures:
We have an average of 11.5% Corruption/Waste in our 4 cities. Our city currently with the largest corruption is Bananatopia, with 18% Corruption/Waste. When we build the Iron City, it will have about 31% Corruption/Waste and it will rise to 33% when the Horse city is built. The Horse City will have 24% corruption/waste.
And to give you a feel for CDG, I have mad a separate sheet for them, too.
With their 3 cities, they have an average of 13.3%, with Goats being at 17% and Zarigueya being at 20%.
[EDIT] I forgot to take into accout that Zarigueya is not connected to their Capitol and thereby gets a higher corruption. It currently at 22% and the Average is 14% [/edit]
So, we are doing the right thing at this moment
E_T
Last edited by E_T on 18-05-2003 at 22:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2003 15:54
|