But mommy I don't wanna be Supreme!!!

[SandMonkey]

In my current game for some crazy reason i have been labeled as having Suupreme power. Hey that's all fine and dandy, but what is in my army? 20 Phalanx, 16 warriors, and the ever so mighty 9 settlers . Does this seem Supreme to anyone else?? Granted I have 23 cities, but still. Now the stupid French just sneak attacked me , and I am stuck with my pants down and no army to fight back with. How the heck did they calculate that I was supreme???

------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

"Ecky ecky ecky!"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Check out my 1602 A.D. site

[AkwaticDudeCity]

I have good reason to believe powerlevels (i.e. Supreme, Mighty, Strong, Moderate, Insufficient, Weak, Pathetic) are, as in real life, determined by the following; population*production per capita. The higher the outcome, the more powerful you are.
I checked to make sure. In Demographics you can see your total population and your total production.

------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[Ely McGreen]

No, I have found that power level are determined by technological advancement. In a game, I was Supreme until someone discovered Gunpowder, and gave it to others in exchange for techs they wanted. I was bumped down to Strong and didn't do anything.

If your supreme you might as well use it and attack.

[SCG]

quote: ...but what is in my army? 20 Phalanx, 16 warriors, and the ever so mighty 9 settlers . Does this seem Supreme to anyone else?? Granted I have 23 cities, but still.

you managed to build 20 phalanx and yet not even 1 attack unit? that is inviting trouble reguardless of circumstances. Having a military of over 30 units probably went a long way towards determining your power to be supreme, especially if your cities are small.

[Tom DeMille]

I would imagine that your Supremacy rating is also determined by the number of military units, not their quality. So those 16 warriors affect your rating as much as 16 Knights.

[Adam Smith]

I am pretty sure the power graph, and hence the power rating is run off the old formula from Civ I. That formula depended on four factors: population, money, techs, and number of shields spent on military units. Of the four factors, population was by far the most important. HERE is a year old thread on the topic.

[This message has been edited by Adam Smith (edited June 14, 2000).]

[Ming]

As Adam Smith points out, the power graph is run by the old formula. However, I'm pretty sure that the only thing that determines Supreme or other levels is the RAW number of military units. It doesn't matter what they are, just how many. So yes, warriors = tanks

[AkwaticDudeCity]

That's odd. In my test the outcomes of (population*production per capita) per civ were in the exact same order as their power levels as stated by the foreign advisors.
Could this be a cosmic fluke? (i only tested it once)

------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[Ely McGreen]

But how is it then that when one civ discovers a technology that it can bump down my rating? Fluke- I think not.

[Adam Smith]

Ming:
I just ran a test on your theory. I took my current game, in which my power was Supreme, and disbanded every unit I had, including non-combat units like settlers, dips, and caravans. Next turn my foreign adviser tells me my power is still Supreme. I think this indicates that the number or shield value of units is not the only thing determining power.

I am not sure if just the number of units matters (ie that warriors = tanks), but I am pretty sure that the power ranking does not adjust for quality. In other words, a catapult (60 shields) wandering around some far-away island counts the same as a veteran mechanized infantry (60 shields) fortified in a city.

Akwatic:
If the production per capita is pretty much the same for all civs, then the ranking you hypothesize would be pretty much the same as a ranking based primarily on the population.

edit: forgot about Akwatic
[This message has been edited by Adam Smith (edited June 14, 2000).]

[SandMonkey]

quote: Originally posted by SCG on 06-14-2000 09:31 AM you managed to build 20 phalanx and yet not even 1 attack unit? that is inviting trouble reguardless of circumstances.

Well, I am playing ICS, and I am not yet up to Knights, so why build a bunch of units I am going to disband? And since I have two units in each city (Phalanx + warrior), I don't think those Horsemen are going to get too far

I cheated and I know for a fact that I am not first in science, actually I am fairly far back (disapointing, i know ). I don't know about Akwatic's formula.... And (also by way of cheat) I saw that the English and the Japanese had a large amount of units, and they both were ahead of myself in techs. I would think, just by looking at that, that they would be Supreme, where as I would most likely be one or two levels below that.

------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

"Ecky ecky ecky!"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Check out my 1602 A.D. site

[DaveV]

SandMonkey - I like to have some diplomats in the situation you describe (waiting for better tech before you build attacking units). The AI rarely stacks its units, so they're easy to bribe.

[SCG]

Early in the game, i consider anything with an attack of 2 or greater as an attack unit. well, that and diplomats, since they can also remove a threatening enemy unit. In ICS, if I don't get any hut units, I'll build 1-3 attack units just so i have the ability to put forth a preemptive strike on a menacing unit, or finish off something after it has weakened my defenses. Number varies based on need. I might build only 1 chariot - fast and attack 3 - it can hold off most early turn units long enough to rush build more if ever needed. Whereas I may build 2-3 horsemen or archers as they either lack attack or mobility. And I always have a few diplomats around. They make great exploring units and also can rally attacking units to your cause not to mention they don't require any support And you can always move a couple militia or a phalanx from an inner cities to an outer city if you worry about defence, so you don't need to build any more units.

[AkwaticDudeCity]

Mea culpa
I tested the formula in another game i'm playing and it did not work 100%. Guess it was a one in a bazillion fluke, but a fluke nonetheless.


------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[Scouse Gits]

Sand Monkey - just a quick point - you don't need to cheat to determine how well or otherwise you are performing in Science just hit cntl-T and ask the Science Advisor. With practise you can actually tell from his face!
I know many players disable this 'feature', but it can be a seriously useful source of information.