Planetary Datalinks

[Kataphraktoi]

Starting small at first. Watch out for inaccuracies due to patch differences. Use the intelligence thread for discussions and feel free to post anything that seems usefull for the team here.

Binary science rate. The idea here is that instead of running any set science rate you alternate from 100% to 0% avoiding rounding losses to your beakers.

A other blake-on-whipping article with case studies.Is this usefull for anyone or do we know everything there is to know about whips? I removed the other two articles as they seemed obsolete.

The exact opposite of CS slingshot. More blake posts for those with Blakitis.

blake on caste system
Caste is kind of... rubbish. It's a toy for the Spiritual civs and maybe philo.
A grassland cottage is much better than any specialist.

And the Scientist is usually the best specialist and it's dead easy to get a library to run 2 of them, and often hard to get enough food to run more than 2.

so... overall... I consider Caste to be really niche. Slavery is about as far from niche as you can get. Slavery will always give very real productivity gains (ie poprushing settlers/workers, such that each food is converted to 2+ hammers instead of 1 hammer). The fact of the matter is that with Slavery, a 5 food tile is a 10 hammer tile. Caste just doesn't give awesomeness like that.

When it comes to effective poprushing the most important thing is actually not exploiting the bug(s), it is in balancing the population killed with the happiness penalty. Once you get this right you'll get massive profits from slavery.
As a rule of thumb, with a food surplus of 3-4 you want to kill 2 population at once, with a food surplus of 5-6 you want to kill 3 at once. Higher than that and you might need to actually soak up some of the excess surplus on mines or specialists, unless you can practically kill 4-5 pop at once (whipping settlers for 4 pop is good for this).

[binTravkin]

Wow, I read that first link. It's so old, but the binary and worker stuff was still new to me.

Excellent stuff Kata

[binTravkin]

The second I had read but I think there are some little things, that need checking out again.

[binTravkin]

The third is again a very cool one and fairly recent.

[Kataphraktoi]

I think this post might be of some interest since we were proposing a mercantalism route. Better make sure the bonus from having +1 engineer per city also makes for a decrease in GS's trade as well our own...

Killing foreign trade goes both ways though, so you are denying your opponents lucrative trade routes into your cities.

Quite true, it's a point I forgot to touch on.

A large empire sends out a lot of trade. This is a double edged sword. Not all AI's are your opponents, some are your trade partners and will help you keep up in tech with the leading AI's.

Like say you have some friendly middle of the pack AI's which are barely able to keep up in tech - this basically makes them useful trade partners (AI's which are far behind, or are leading, are not useful trade partners...). It would probably be in your benefit for them to have extra commerce so they can research more techs for you to trade. Rather than shutting down all trade routes, you might be better off just closing borders with the antagonist civs.
Merchantalism can deprive your trading block of A LOT more beakers than the simple analysis suggests.

[Kataphraktoi]

Im also finding blakes AAR\DAR in the AU academy to be an interesting read and also a look into his thought processes to some extent.

[binTravkin]

Yup I've read couple of those, they're good.

[PJayTycy]

Why isn't this in the topped "great library" thread ?

[Kataphraktoi]

No one reads topped threads, fact.

[binTravkin]

I could merge them, but for now let this live, while people post here.

Yeah, I noticed no one read that there's a maintenance spreadsheet and links to trade route info posted.

[Kataphraktoi]

Heres a post i found handy at the time, maybe everyone knows this but i always run down the checklists when playing

Having been pointed to this by Krysia's Krusader I thought I would take up the discussion of MP diplomacy.

It is one of the less "threshed out" subjects as it is less to do with game mechanics & more with human interaction.

Yet "getting the right agreements in place" will absolutely make or break your chance for victory.

In my experience alliances are usually formed out of necessity - that is a group of players realize they need to start assisting each other or another player (or alliance) will simply steamroller them all or simply to gain an advantage to get ahead.

The tricky point in alliances is of course that internal suspicion may prevent them from being really effective. That is: "A something for something agreement where both still worry about sneak attacks from the partner" will be a lot less effective than alliances where you fully operate as a team and distribute priorities so as to be most effective for the team - regardless of whether it benefits one ally more than the other.

The last is however tricky if you are not running an actual team game and even more so if there is no coop victory allowed - yet in some cases doing so may be your only chance at victory at all.

In my experience a succesfull alliance is based on the following basis:

It genuinely improves the chances of victory for all involved. That is when forming an alliance you must give the ally a real (though maybe not likely) chance at beating also yourself. Otherwise the ally will have no reason to wholeheartedly join unless he is just trying to get someone else.
Or in other words if you offer a bull**** deal - you will usually get a bull**** ally.

This also brings up the point of when to form an alliance - IMO (sort of obviously) you do it if doing so improves your chance at victory. If you are already so far ahead that you are kind of giving away a chance of victory to someone having no chance before & whose assistance you don't really need, better just don't ally.

In my experience forming alliances usually is easy. If there is a real advantage in doing so the other player will usually see it too. Sometimes a lot of haggling will occur as to the exact terms. If the other player is unreasonable (not wanting to give you a realistic chance) - I usually drop it, unless I have absolutely no choice, and simply suggest trading something for something and a pact simply as a "mutually beneficial financial arrangement & otherwise no strings" and watch the guy like any other opponent.

Finally:
Busters list of imminent backstab warning signs

* Build up of weaponry towards you - that is the placement & priorities are not consistent with trusting you & prepasring for combat with another player.
* Ally doing something other than agreed and giving strange excuses - players are usually not dumb - they do what they do for a reason
* Any kind of dodgy behaviour - alliances are based on shared goals and plans - that is you wan't the other ally to know what you are doing and why so they can align their efforts. Secretiveness is a sign you don't really have an ally.


Trust is the basis of any alliance, lacking that "obvious mutual benefit" can do - but on the last expect it to last only to the point where the ally sees more benefit from an altered strategy. Complete openness is the best way to ensure that trust stays.

When seeing any of above its time to get war preps into gear - watch the allys cities as closely as your own - ensure you have infiltration (as once the pact goes you won't be able to see what they do if you don't have it).

It is very wastefull for allies go get into a "mutually directed arms race" but getting caught unprepared often means sudden death. Directly asking the other person what they are doing will often make them declare their intentions - either directly or it will show in the rethorics used. Of course if you sure it's warranted you may opt to sneak attack first.

also

- The bar-none axiom: The best (easiest to make) deal; is one where both parties win (get something).


- Everybody has a certain style that they enjoy while playing the game. Hence, everybody wants a particular something very badly that they will pay more than what someone else (or you) will (A certain Secret Project, placing bases in a particular terrain feature, being left alone to build, acquisition of a certain technology, acquisition of a certain ability, etc.).
The trick is to find out what that is, acquire it yourself, or be in the position of doing so, and passing it along to the other player - for a price, of course.


- Openness and honesty, without putting yourself at a disadvantage or pointing out your weaknesses.
But do point out the benfits that the other player will recieve - AS WELL AS - the benefits that you get out of it. This way, you immediately demonstrate sincerity and trust because, you have also put your desires on the table for the other player(s) to see.


- When communicating about game mechanics, explanations, set-ups, rules questions, etc., I use my first (real) name. When communicating in regards to diplomacy, alliances, deals, etc., I use my alias or characters' name (In my case, this is: Krysia's Krusader.). This way, there is less chance of a misunderstanding occuring between the parties. Commiting a "faux pas" by e-mail, is an all too common occurence that I have seen amongst players, and (unfortunately), experienced myself since having started playing SMAC multiplayer.


- Roleplaying (Communicating with the personality of your factional leader.) can be very entertaining. It shows that you put in that "little extra" effort, and increases the enjoyment of the game for some people. However, (I have found, so far), that the more competitive the game is, the less that this is used. Even to the point of being non-existant.
If you do use roleplaying in your communications, be sure to follow my advice in the preceeding point (real name / character name). Because if your going to be as domineering as Colonel Santiago, or ruthless as Chairman Yang, better be sure that it will be percieved (tacken whithin correct context) in the proper manner by the person your communicating with.


- Keep a record of the transaction. The best is; one where the details of the deal have been established, followed by all agreeing parties acknowledging this from their own individual e-mail addresses. Sure saves a lot of time from the old: "What! I never agreed to that." bull****. Then you can just send them a copy to refresh their memory. Also, some games last so long, that these records are handy for your own referal purposes. Especially if you "wheel an' deal" in several games simultaneously (like me).


- Just about anything can be negotiated. One of the best deals I have ever made was: Agreeing to a co-operative victory (even though I was ahead), so that I could see and discuss with my ally; certain tricks, game situations, strategic concepts, and just how he did things. I learned more from this game (alliance), than any of the others I have been in so far. (It is also a source of inspiration for writting my thoughts here.)

Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless

[binTravkin]

Lol you added that hitler quote!
I agree, sooner or later you will wage war either against a common enemy or each other.

[binTravkin]

Interesting discussion on financing of empires:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170774

Interesting quote

In the longer run for larger empires, always head towards Banking ASAP, so you can add Grocers and Banks. These will help your research more than Universities.

[Kataphraktoi]

He is talking about banks versus universitys

And he explicitly said ''ASAP'' that means as soon as possible, not ''beeline'' Ergo its possible to get banking after getting cheaper, closer and more relavent techs

[Kataphraktoi]

I made a gutsy move and posted a question on the topic. I referenced it to my own SP games, hopefully no one notices