Comparing civs

[deity]

Originally posted by markusf :

The PG is meaningless.

I don't think there is a single person in the world other then you that would consider our civs even.

The stats in this graphic are what I would think most folks here would use to guage each others civ.

What do you think?

Is there anyone in the world that would agree with me that our civs are rather evenly balanced?

Or do you agree with Markus assessment?

[finbar]

Are you two STILL at it?

[Rasputin]

You missed the city & unit numbers!!!

[rah]

Yeah, city and unit counts, but more important, techs and wonders (if you are playing wonders)

What? you didn't have an embassy with him so we could see if he was first in the categories that you were listed as second?

RAH

[drake]

WAR

Thats the only thing that truly can test a civs strength.

This little swordfight youre having isn't like you Deity. Who cares?

[markusf]

I think poll is a good idea, it gives an idea if people considered a civ with many wonders a threat or not in a game or if they just use demographics to guage..

Here are the straight facts, i fail to see how these 2 civs are equal???

Diety 18 cities, 1 wonder GW, 19 techs.

Markus 24 cities, pyramid, HG, GL, Sun Tu,lighthouse,marco polo, magellans. 29 techs


Markus
30% lux, 70% science 0% tax

$18 income $11 expenses
123 science beakers.

Diety
10% tax 30% science 60% luxery
$17 income $16 expenses
47 science beakers.

[markusf]

Oh, and a comment on the demographics , your GNP is higher because you need 60% luxeries to keep your people happy. My civ is only using 30% luxeries, although i could go to 20% and only one city would be unhappy, but i didn't want to starve that city.

[Ming]

Hmmmm... based on the stats markus included, it's not even close. I'd take his position anytime.

[rah]

Agreed. A much stronger position. Even if you just consider techs alone. Markus will cruise to Dragons and Rifles and then the rush will be on.

There is truth in Drake's post. War determines the true level of strength.

But I am surprised that Markus has HG, 24 cities, 30% lux, and he's not number one in POP.

RAH

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah
Agreed. A much stronger position. Even if you just consider techs alone. Markus will cruise to Dragons and Rifles and then the rush will be on.

There is truth in Drake's post. War determines the true level of strength.

But I am surprised that Markus has HG, 24 cities, 30% lux, and he's not number one in POP.

RAH

Actually, i only needed pysics and magnitism. Which would have taken about 13 turns to get. Then i would have rush built frigates and blockaded diety, then bombarded all his costal cities. Just ask AH Frigates are vet with one attack, and they are nearly impossible to lose when the other guy doesn't have gunpowder.

Going number one in pop would have been stupid, my civ would have ended up like dieties, i would need 60% lux just to keep them from rebelling.. Its far better to just have a bunch of 4's and 5's with 5-9 shields of production and good science. If i grew them i would have half the science and production..

[drake]

Uh oh

You called him "diety" markus....

He hates that when people do that

[rah]

Originally posted by markusf
Going number one in pop would have been stupid, my civ would have ended up like dieties, i would need 60% lux just to keep them from rebelling.. Its far better to just have a bunch of 4's and 5's with 5-9 shields of production and good science. If i grew them i would have half the science and production..

For me the pop growth is just the prelude to Communism. The extra trade arrows help the caravan bonuses to get the techs for democ and SOL. (and I know you know how to take advantage of Caravans ) Once in Communism I can drop the lux down to 10% and still generate the same if not better tech growth. The production bonus from the larger pop allows a great base for war.
The 10% will sometimes allow my larger well developed cities to stay in WLTKD status.

So, no, I don't think growing the pop is stupid.

RAH

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah


For me the pop growth is just the prelude to Communism. The extra trade arrows help the caravan bonuses to get the techs for democ and SOL. (and I know you know how to take advantage of Caravans ) Once in Communism I can drop the lux down to 10% and still generate the same if not better tech growth. The production bonus from the larger pop allows a great base for war.
The 10% will sometimes allow my larger well developed cities to stay in WLTKD status.

So, no, I don't think growing the pop is stupid.

RAH

Let me put it another way, its stupid to grow unless you can go back to a 30% luxery rate after growing. You need marketplaces and some trade routes in place or colloseums. If you grow to size 6 or 7 and need to maintain high luxery rates its going to take you forever to get to democracy. The goal is to have the highest science rates possible at all points in the game as well as the highest tax rates & production.

[rah]

Originally posted by markusf
Let me put it another way, its stupid to grow unless you can go back to a 30% luxery rate after growing. You need marketplaces and some trade routes in place or colloseums. If you grow to size 6 or 7 and need to maintain high luxery rates its going to take you forever to get to democracy. The goal is to have the highest science rates possible at all points in the game as well as the highest tax rates & production.

Agreed. But I'm willing to take the hit for a few turns if it serves the longer term purpose. (but just a few turns)

And I'm used to 2x where it's a lot easier to keep them happy at 20% or 30%.

But by that point, YOU always have 3 trade routes in all of your core cities. Or at least in every game I've played you in, unless you got off to a real ugly start.

RAH
And enough trade caravans will offset a low science rate in the interim.

[deity]

Interesting replies.. Thasnks!

I guess my original point has been missed.

If we keep going into all the stats and the fact that I'll be Democ first with Colosseums in super cities ready to grow.. blah.. blah then we could both put up a full case for analysis of each civ and then a verdict. I'm at work so I can't look at the save just now.

But my point is that as a general rule we use the above mentioned facts to compare civs, ie the ones I posted plus cities and units to some extent and of course Wonders - but Wonders do show up quite heavily in the pg. This is why a top pop civ is just running slightly second in the pg.

pg is pop+techs+Wonders as the main factors.

I think it fair to say that at the end of a session we all look at the pg and a quick consensus is developed about how we are all faiting. We don't go into the above exhaustive analysis followed by hypothetical scenarios that might follow.

Does anyone undestand me? LOL

Hey drake, I miss you!
I'm just having fun here and this is turning out to be a good thread.... maybe it will swing back my way.... who cares!!!! It's just fun!!