Do you care much about powergraph ratings ??

[Flubber]

I don't. I look at the graphs and the who's who out of idle interest but I find that they are seriously flawed as a measure of game progess unless there is a major lead in almost all the categories.

I know that the major indicators of "power" on the graphs are pop and tech and both are HUGE but realistically I have so often seen someone (pop-boom capable) explode up the charts that it is hard to take them seriously.

If you don't have infiltration you have no idea what stage an opponent is in with respect to booming and terraforming so it tells you very little. "Puny" on the graphs could mean that they have pathetic little bases OR it could mean that they have 20 size one bases (each with crawled condensers) that are all about to get rushed creches on the same turn as they switch to planned. That pop 20 empire suddenly grows and you are facing an opponent with a pop of over 100 within a few turns. AAs can equally change the balance if suddenly an opponent cashes a bunch.

Of course of you have infiltration, the graphs just provide a basic and somewhat innacurate overview of what you already know.


The category leaders in the who's who is a LITTLE more helpful ( again pre infiltration only). It is sometimes nice to know who the tech leader is or who has the most cash ( this one can change a LOT from turn to turn).

Don't get me wrong . . . I like the graphs as cute little game features. I just don't think that they provide much in the way of concrete and reliable information. I do like watching the ups and downs of a war though. You should see the downward trend in one MP game where we are lobbing PBs and suffering from a worm rape

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Flubber,

Your right the power graphs are a poor substitute for infiltrationknowledge. OTOH it may be your only source of knowledge if you missed the opportunity to infiltrate via direct method or Plan Gov or Empath Guild and a faction got the Hunter Seeker (albeit a poor one). Also its kinna helpful as you alluded pre-infiltration or pre-faction meeting who you should target for infiltration/probing/pacting etc.

My favorite disparity is when you get fusion and completely deplete your reserves upgrading units and rush building fusion labs. All of sudden your power rating plummets whilst you really know that you've upgraded your empire tremendously.

Og

[mark13]

They can be very useful indicators - for instance, someone exploding up the charts within a few turns usually means a pop-boom. No substitute for infiltration, agreed - but you can gleam quite a bit of information from this, and the number of votes a faction has (for instance, if someone's low on pop, and high on the chart, you know they've got bucketloads of tech). Also, an AI faction with an unusually high rating usually means they're in the jungle.

(and it is quite satisfying to see your power graph rating triple during a pop-boom )

[Darius]

In spite of the shortcomings of the powergraph, I just feel better when my powergraph is in the lead. On the other hand, when it is significantly lagging, I console myself with the fact that it is inaccurate. (Can you say "double standard"? )

Admittedly, I'm a less "technical", more "seat-of-the-pants" player than most here appear to be. So it's kind of nice to have a quick glance at how I'm doing relative to the other factions, as long as I keep in mind that it is only a rough estimate.

[mark13]

Well, my original answer was "only when I'm in the lead" so you're in good company there

[Lefty Scaevola]

The fegister for the powergraph calculation needs andother digit, it came be overun by a huge empire and rool over to zero. This is a problem if economic victory is enabled. The amount of enegy credits a faction must pay for economic victory appears to be proportional to the sum of the others factions powergraph numbers.

[Flubber]

In MP I sometimes wonder if some players like to hide in the weeds for a while when it comes to the powergraph.

It sounds like we view it similarly -- a cute feature that gives some very basic indications but which can give wildly inaacurate information (watch a good drone player sometime)-- boom and then KABOOM.

yup I love that peverse result on getting fusion as well. Suddenly every army is effectively twice as strong, the ability to use engineers is a new huge advantage and the power graph goes down cause a little cash was spent.

If it were to be accurate it would at a minimum need

1. some indicator of the terraforming performed ( Are 10 boreholes worth nothing ??)

2. Some indicator of facilities

perhaps these are in there somewhere but I have not seen any difference for facilities. I rush tree farms and probably drop a bit for spending the cash.

[RedFred]

Unlike most players I do pay attention to the powergraph, because some or all of my opponents are likely to be the AI. While the powergraph formula is flawed, the computer will use the results from it to plug into the formula that assigns your chances of diplomatic success.

So if I am low down in the rankings I will be more likely to chat with a faction that I am running a SE conflict with. And if I am number one, I'll look around to see where number two is and start preparing for war. War may not be inevitable between #1 and #2 but it sure is probable.

I found the powergraph in combination with the demographics information in Civ II to give a better indication of where everyone stood. So if SMAC had a feature to break it all down into stuff like industrial might, army size, tech level and rate, cash income and rate, pop size and rate, and so on, it would be way better.

It is hard to fix a formula that I am only guessing at, but the SMAC formula seems to give an inordinate amount of weight to population in the late game. There should be a sliding scale towards the end of the game where tech becomes increasingly important and population has gradually less impact. No amount of booming will save me if my opponent has an inassailable tech lead.

In the early game, research speed should be given a bit more weight and total number of techs a bit less. And the value given for having many energy credits always seems too high.

[KrysiasKrusader]

I pay attention to the powergraph also... Even though it's a bad indicator for
human adversaries, it's great in letting me know how the computer guys are doing.
If in mid-early game a computer guy is doing well, usually because he's in the
uranium flats or the monsoon jungle. ( except for Morgan, he always gets a bad start... must be because of his planet rating).
Then I look for the top two dudes and launch my probe foils in their directions. I'm usually number three till the early-mid game. After the probe assault i'm usually up to par.
Also the graph tells me who is likely trying to ally with who. The lower guys seem to like to bundle together against the top guys, and alas, me also.
And lastly, I like all the coloured lines on the display, they look cool !

[Flubber]

Originally posted by RedFred
Unlike most players I do pay attention to the powergraph, because some or all of my opponents are likely to be the AI. While the powergraph formula is flawed, the computer will use the results from it to plug into the formula that assigns your chances of diplomatic success.
\.

True

I guess I have been playing too many googlie specials where the AI is designed to be permanently POed at me. Its been a while since I had an AI that could be my friend.


and Krusader-- I also like the colors-- I do find it a bit of fun

Montreal eh ?? go Habs !!!

[johndmuller]

If you don't have infiltration, the military leader in the who's who display can be of great interest (especially if they come calling) in determining ones attitude towards them - as in Yes my dear Santi, are you sure I can't give you any more tech; how about some energy?

If you are rated number one in the power charts, it is somewhat disadvantageous viz a viz negotiating with other human players, especially if you need to convince them that some other player is really the threat because they have the boundless potential and you are really just overachieving in a seemingly hopeless attempt to stave off the inevitable. How's that sound, are you buying it?

[spartak]

I always like to watch the relative strengths of my opponants and then watch the graph go down as they are destroyed....

[Frankychan]

Heck yeah I pay attention to the power graph (both column and timeline).

I like to see my blue Hive line grow from the smallest one to the dominant one! (and watch my nemesis' flat-line!)

[Mr. President]

I love the power graph. If I start falling behind I worry, and go on either a spending spree or a warmongering fascist period to catch up.

[LordEd]

In a recent game, I watched my opponent surge up the powergraph. He had a good reason to - #1 in Pop, Wealth, Territory, and Military. Thus I knew who to force all of the other factions to attack. There is nothing compared to the glee one gets when organizing a victorious coalition against the not-so-friendly neighborhood superpower. Needless to say, I ended up being the one taking the brunt of the war (but I reaped the benefits). Without the powergraph, who do you gang up against?