The Merchant Exchange

[DeathByTheSword]

can we please leave the roleplaying a little bit in this kind of discussions and just concentrated on what is best for the faction

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic


...Remember that we've already lost some significant turn advantage in this first term with the CDC canditates getting in.

I just ordered a copy of Vel's guide a couple of days ago- I can't just read the SMAC-only version on-line without getting in trouble with my wife . But surely "turn advantage" is a more technical term than is implied by Archaic's usage here. Velocyrix would surely not confuse ideology and game mechanics... though that is absolutely a P4 trademark.

(and Archaic- thanks for posting those links to the tutorials... I'll be able to read them a bit at a time)

[GeneralTacticus]

What Morale hit ? I hope we have Children Creche in all our bases long before we discover Eudaimonia !!!

The Morale hit for our troops in the field. If we have to face the serious possibility of losing bases, we're doing something wrong.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
Velocyrix would surely not confuse ideology and game mechanics... though that is absolutely a P4 trademark.

So my ideology happening to be supported by the game mechanics anyway means I confuse them? And while you could try and justify the statement with me, you can't for the rest of P4. You lefties are rather fond of the old strawman, aren't you?

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic


So my ideology happening to be supported by the game mechanics anyway means I confuse them?

Son, a) My ideology is also supported by game mechanics. You react with ignorance.
b) You used the term "turn advantage" ideologically. That is the sort of offence which you, Archaic, view as an excuse to go ad hominem on someone at the drop of the hat. "Moron" in the Network Node as I recall. You are writing as though you just discoverd the term "turn advantage" and have converted to it religously. I have seen this behaviour in first year economics students when they discover a market/theory interface term like "relative advantage" in their studies. The word becomes like an esoteric bludgeon, mis-applied at will in the thrill of "paradigm-discovery". You will make a wonderful fundamentalist Christian, Archaic. Be sure to sign up when they come by your dorm room.

You lefties are rather fond of the old strawman, aren't you?

Your use of the concept "game mechanics" in support of your retort is as straw-man as it gets, hypocrite.

As for the rest of the P4, TKG isn't a snotty prat about it, but does base "right and wrong" on game mechanics as well...

[Method]

Originally posted by lucky22
As for the rest of the P4, TKG isn't a snotty prat about it, but does base "right and wrong" on game mechanics as well...

well, it is a game

but if you're referring to my preference free market because it advances research, then well, my ideology isn't free market. if it was, i'd join CP, not P4.

[Maniac]

P4 distantiates itself from anything said in this thread.

Now, argue ahead gentlemen.

[Anodyne]

God damn ye merry gentlemen

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22


Son, a) My ideology is also supported by game mechanics. You react with ignorance.
b) You used the term "turn advantage" ideologically. That is the sort of offence which you, Archaic, view as an excuse to go ad hominem on someone at the drop of the hat. "Moron" in the Network Node as I recall. You are writing as though you just discoverd the term "turn advantage" and have converted to it religously. I have seen this behaviour in first year economics students when they discover a market/theory interface term like "relative advantage" in their studies. The word becomes like an esoteric bludgeon, mis-applied at will in the thrill of "paradigm-discovery". You will make a wonderful fundamentalist Christian, Archaic. Be sure to sign up when they come by your dorm room.


Your use of the concept "game mechanics" in support of your retort is as straw-man as it gets, hypocrite.

As for the rest of the P4, TKG isn't a snotty prat about it, but does base "right and wrong" on game mechanics as well...

Ooohhh...a fiesty one. Bring it on chump.

a) If your ideology is also supported by game mechanics, then why don't you explain it instead of just claiming it without citing evidence? For my free market based approach, I cite Vel's guide and the Civgaming Acadamy. That's the closest to "Academic Research" we have on the game IMO. Where's your "Academic Research" to back up the claims your people have put forward? If you've done it yourself, then please, show it to us.

b) Explain how I use the term ideologically? I've used it to justify my ideology in respect to SMAC, yes, but I've never made it my ideology.

My calling someone a moron is a personal attack, yes, but I wasn't using the personal attack as a Ad Hominem to prove their statement wrong. To do that, I made an Appeal to Authority with Vel's guide and the Civgaming Acadamy. Now, that appeal is only a fallacy if those people can't be considered experts on this game. Would you like to say those people aren't experts?

If I've misapplied the term "tern advantage", explain how I've done so instead of just accusing me of having misapplied it. Turn advantage is mainly generated through the correct use of rush building and teraformer time, correct? (Though one could also argue that it can be expanded to the correct use of SE's to foster the economic environment necessary for the cash flow for rush building.)

Nice Ad Hominem at the end there. What you've tried to do is discredit me without providing an explanation why I should be discredited. Can't say I'm suprised after the rest of your post.

If my use of "game mechanics" is a strawman, explain how. Again, I make the standard appeal to authority. Given the success story of the methods I promote with many, many MP players (Would you like me to list a sample of players?), the burden of proof isn't on me here. You're trying to promote a strategy which has not yet proven itself as a better alternative to this method. Can you provide proof that it's better?

After that, all I can say is that you seem to have paid a bit of attention in Latin Class (Even if you did end up misapplying Ad Hominem slightly), but the rest is the same old debating fallicies I hear everywhere. Appealing to peoples emotions is a nice trick (And easy to pull when your opponent is someone as completly unashamed about being a bastard as I am), but it hardly makes your points more valid. Justify them next time and I might start to take you seriously, but until then I'll just add your name to the list of morons. If you have a problem with that, take a ticket and get in line. I'll listen to your opinions when you try to back them up with facts instead of Ad Hominem attacks.

[GeneralTacticus]

Archaic: wrt your original claim that we have 'lost significant turn advantage due to the CDC candidates getting in', I think it's a bit early in the game for SE (which is where you seem to disagree most with the CDC) to be much of an issue.

[Archaic]

I disagree with the CDC about everything. If I've been more vocal with the SE issues, it's because I was going for that directorship. That's by no means the only thing I disagree with them on though.

Really, SE has little or no bearing on where I believe we shall lose turn advantage in this first term. (Unless of course someone sends us into Demo before we've hit critical mass in base expansion, thus denying us the essential 10 free minerals, or if someone sends us into Planned when we're not in Demo, when we can't support the -2 Efficiency. ) It's in the terraforming and base spacing issues where we shall lose significant turn advantage. While I don't completly agree with my own party's position there either, it's a lot closer to what I believe is the ideal than the CDC and Pandemoniak have proposed.

If you'd like, I can go into detail at length on this subject, however I'd far prefer to direct you to certain sections of Vel's guide and the Civgaming Acadamy. Whatever I posted would only be a rehash of their ideas in any case.

[GeneralTacticus]

Where are your disagreements with the CDC about terraforming & base spacing?

[Archaic]

Just give me a few moments and I'll type it up for you.

EDIT: Done.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I suggest we first extend quite large (ie 6/8 tiles away ),

Far too far away. Time is just wasted moving the CP that far. It creates significant gaps of unused tiles inbetween the bases, and gives the bases each more tiles than they can ever hope to work in the game until far later, where we'd be better served by them not working the bases and being specialists anyway.

When the base reach size 3 (or size 2 if we can have lots of ressources easily, ie with a monolith), we stop the building queue. At this point, the new base founded keeps producing colony pods to found other bases in the blank and unused areas.

This waits far too long to send out more CP's. We've already wasted time getting the CP's out way too far away under his method, now he'd have us wait too long to create more CP's to create more bases?

Another important thing is to build sensor arrays at a square where we plan to build a base.

Building sensors can be a fine idea, but under his method, it's unworkable. That former time could be better spent improving other bases. Under a tight base spacing model, we wouldn't need these in any but the border bases simply thanks to other bases being so close by as to already cover it.

DBTS, same than M@ni@c, except for one big difference about Fongus. Since we play the Pk, we wont have any perticular benefits of nearby fungus, so I suggest we give the DoTC enough terraformers to eradicate EVERY fongus inside base control tiles.

Unnecessary. Former time could be better spent on tiles that can be immediatly workable, and Forest expansion can take care of the rest.

[Maniac]

I agree with Archaic! Pandemoniak's terraforming strategies don't work. Thin expansion rules! Efficient terraforming rules!

Disclaimer: P4 distantiates itself from anything said in this thread.

[Method]

while i don't necessarily argree with pandemoniak's terraforming and base spacing strategies either, that does not mean that his views are shared by everyone in the CDC, and there's no need to attack them. if you have a problem with pandemoniak, go talk to him.

*this views expressed in this thread do not necessarily reflect those of the P4, or its members*