Imperialism 1870 v2.0 PBEM

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos
I'm not sure if tech trading will be allowed. To me the two things appear to be seperate things altogether

How can that be? I thought the ban was a begrudging alternative to slowing research.

Anyway, Alejandro says on MSN he's for, so we have a majority:

conmcb25: For
Germanos:
Darius871: For
JamesJKirk:
Pinkygen: For
academia: For

I won't play until we've sorted out this imbalance issue however. For the three reasons I mentioned I think the differences are too insignificant to waste time redoing the file over, but if you insist I'll wait for a new file.

[Darius871]

The facts:

Japanese techs: 28
American techs: 32

Edited Japanese techs: 103
Edited American techs: 107

Tech rate at 50% research:

United States
Unedited: 20 turns
Edited: 67 turns
Increase: 235%

Japan
Unedited: 74 turns
Edited: 220 turns
Increase: 197.3%

Difference between the two increases: 16%

In other words, with the current situation Japan gets a 16% smaller penalty than the U.S. does. So yes, the less advanced civs benefit somewhat. I don't see how this is unfair.

[JamesJKirk]

This is great, I was worried that the amount of the increase would be too much, but it works out to about between 3 and 3.5 times longer for research for each civ, which sounds about right to me.

This, coupled with the ban on tech trading (which was voted for by a majority, I believe) means that this'll be a very different experience from the other Imp games

[Darius871]

What? I thought the purpose of this was to make a ban on tech trading unnecessary. It would have to be one or the other, since a combination of both would make progress too slow.

Just FYI, here's the pic from earlier but taking into account what the U.S. started with:



In the CFC game of the original version, we'll probably finish the tech tree by 1875. With the edited file, our research progresses about 1/6 as fast. This would make the tech tree last until about 1905 here, which seems historically accurate. Why would we need a trading ban on top of that?

[JamesJKirk]

Okay, well let's decide which we'd rather do, either way it'll be interesting, and I'm fine with either one, though tech will definitely still accumulate fast with trading allowed despite the edits to the file, don't you agree?

EDIT: I didn't see the additions to your post. Did you get the 1905 figure by dividing the acquisition from the CFC game by 1/6? In that case, I think that you're underestimating the impact of trading and coordinating research. That being said, I'm still fine with either solution

[PinkyGen]

If we employ this method, then I think it's obvious there should be tech trading. I will not consent to slowing down the research this much and also banning tech trading.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by JamesJKirk
though tech will definitely still accumulate fast with trading allowed despite the edits to the file, don't you agree?

Originally posted by JamesJKirk
I think that you're underestimating the impact of trading and coordinating research.

Actually, the ridiculous research speed of the CFC game is due almost solely to intensive tech cooperation within the two alliance blocs. Since they are coordinating research as much as possible and will reach the end of the tree by 1875, and the edited file slows progress to 1/6 of the norm, predicting a 1905 finish here with tech trading seems reasonable.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
If we employ this method, then I think it's obvious there should be tech trading. I will not consent to slowing down the research this much and also banning tech trading.

Neither will I.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
If we employ this method, then I think it's obvious there should be tech trading. I will not consent to slowing down the research this much and also banning tech trading.

Ditto!

[conmcb25]

OK Darius and I and Pinky are all for reduced research AND allow tech trading. What are the official votes of everyone else?

[JamesJKirk]

I'll give the majority vote if I means we can get this thing going again

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871
What? I thought the purpose of this was to make a ban on tech trading unnecessary

For you this may have been obvious, but not too me, and apparently also for JamesJKirk. You have started this project on your own (although I have no idea what has been going on behind the scenes) while a ban on tech-trading was discussed, and while it seemed a ban was acceptable to quite a few players.

Actually, the ridiculous research speed of the CFC game is due almost solely to intensive tech cooperation within the two alliance blocs. Since they are coordinating research as much as possible and will reach the end of the tree by 1875...

[read between the lines mode]I'm not going to discuss the CFC game here, as it is still running, but you are presenting your assumptions as truth here. You may or may not be right [/read between the lines mode]


I'll have a look at the concequences of Yaro's edit later today, but I'll go with the flow in any case.
As I have said earlier in the thread, Japan is a small player here, and earlier I have abstained from voting because of this.
Japan is to a large extend at the mercy of the true Imperialistic powers of this era, and I won't whine about it .

In other words: I'll stick with the majority vote.

[germanos]

[disclaimer:]
It is not so easy for me to determine what a good comparison would be to sort out who benefits most from the proposed increase. From Darius' calculation it seems that Japan benefits from the increase, but my gut feeling says this can't be.[/disclaimer]

I have had a look at both Darius saves, and I get the following figures (Note: to determine numbers I have looked at Japan and the US seperately, since the King level influences the research cost for the 'player' civ and the 'AI' civs. To make a fair comparison (the values that we will actually need when playing) one would have to look at the values as one would be playing the respective civ)

Beakers needed for the next tech:
Standard: Japan needs 4424, US needs 5056
Modified: Japan needs 16274, US needs 16906

Increase of beakers per civ:
Japan: 16274-4424=11850. Increase percentage: 4424/11850= 267%
US: 16906-5056=11850 (no, this is not a coincidence) 5056/11850=235%

Or, when looking at it via another angle:

Cost of a Japanese tech compared to the cost of a US tech:
Standard; 4424/5056= 87,5 %
Modified: 16274/16906= 96,3 %

Conclusion: I would say these numbers point at a disadvantage for civs who start out with fewer techs.


As Darius has pointed out, with tech trading the tech numbers could quickly even out, and if so, giving the 'backward' civs a smaller increase then the proposed 75, they will actually have an advantage when the technumbers will have been equalized after techtrading

We need a andora's box: smiley.


If the question is: Do we ban tech trading or do we increase the tech number with Yaro's .net file, then Japan's vote is for banning tech trading (as it currently stands) and leaving the tech number as it is.


A last remark from my side: I think we should give Exile's post here in the thread give serious consideration, and probably play the scenario as presented. Exile worked hard to improve his scen, and since we are one of the first groups to play the improved version as pbem, we might experience that this version might be much harder then the first edition.
And as Exile pointed out: the players have a say in having WW I in 1875 by choosing their strategies for the game. It is very well possible to end the tech tree well before 1905, but it is equally possible to put the brakes on that.

Summary:
Yaroslav's save : No
Ban Techtrading: Yes
Both measures, or just one: both is acceptable for me, but none as well
Majority vote decides: Yes
Get going:

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos
You have started this project on your own (although I have no idea what has been going on behind the scenes) while a ban on tech-trading was discussed, and while it seemed a ban was acceptable to quite a few players.

Actually I planned on it before the game started, but Yaro's been busy. I didn't get a hold of him until the 14th or so.

Originally posted by germanos
[read between the lines mode]I'm not going to discuss the CFC game here, as it is still running, but you are presenting your assumptions as truth here. You may or may not be right [/read between the lines mode]

Would you care to offer a different opinion? Three civs with similar economies gifting every tech they discover and being sure to never discover duplicate techs effectively triples each member's tech rate. What could be more responsible for the game's research speed than this fact?

Originally posted by germanos
[disclaimer:]
It is not so easy for me to determine what a good comparison would be to sort out who benefits most from the proposed increase. From Darius' calculation it seems that Japan benefits from the increase, but my gut feeling says this can't be.[/disclaimer]

The logic is very simple: the more techs a civ has, the slower its research rate. Japan has less techs than the United States, so its research rate is slightly faster (all things being equal that is; of course it's slower in reality due to its different economic status). Yaroslav agreed with me on this conclusion, and his word is law!

Originally posted by germanos
Or, when looking at it via another angle:

Cost of a Japanese tech compared to the cost of a US tech:
Standard; 4424/5056= 87,5 %
Modified: 16274/16906= 96,3 %

Conclusion: I would say these numbers point at a disadvantage for civs who start out with fewer techs.

Don't these results prove my point?

Standard: 5026/4424 = 1.14 American techs discovered ->PER<- Japanese tech discovered
Modified: 16906/16274 = 1.04 American techs discovered ->PER<- Japanese tech discovered

When the quotients have labels, you see that Japan's rate in fact becomes CLOSER to the U.S.' I could be wrong, but it looks like Japan benefits with your math as well.

[conmcb25]

OK Darius I think we need to hunt down Yaro and have him post here again on the realtivity between tech speeds.

Then we need to reach a decision on what we are going to do, and then do it.

If someone is REALLY uncomfortable, I would suggest they bow out, with no hard feelings from the rest of us.

Or perhaps the same group should start ANOTHER PBEM, playing with the opposite decision.

So if we go slower research via Yaro here and tach trades, we go normal research in the other one and ban tech trades.

I have been trying to cut down on PBEM's BUT for that reason I could do two.

Just an idea.

Darius what are you doing at that PBEM at CDG? (Or wherever it is)

Also on slowing the research is there anyway to do that permanantly in the scenario? Instead of hex editing the .net file?

The reason why I ask is because if this works we sohould make a recommendation to exile to possibly include it a a variant to the scenario.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871
The logic is very simple: the more techs a civ has, the slower its research rate. Japan has less techs than the United States, so its research rate is slightly faster (all things being equal that is; of course it's slower in reality due to its different economic status). Yaroslav agreed with me on this conclusion, and his word is law!

Surely Japan will still research 'faster' because it has less techs, and it will still do so when adding 75 techs. What I say that Japan will research less 'fast' in the modified file. It will still be 'faster' then the US though, I don't dispute that.

Don't these results prove my point?

Standard: 5026/4424 = 1.14 American techs discovered ->PER<- Japanese tech discovered
Modified: 16906/16274 = 1.04 American techs discovered ->PER<- Japanese tech discovered

No.
4424 Japanese beakers against 5026 US beakers for a tech means 1.14 japanese techs against one US tech, not the other way around.
(so in the modified file it will be 1.04 japanese tech for each US tech)


To Steve:
I won't be able to squeze in another PBEM, even with a small civ like Japan. In fact, I am allready pressed for time, and I was happy to have this small civ here to join the revised version of this scenerio.