Factors in choosing a civ in SP

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Originally posted by rixxe on 12-20-2000 03:23 PM Here are the results.... So, per example, Win Green is incremented if he won with his stamina bar remaining in the green, Lost Yellow, if he lost with his opponent's stamina bar staying in the yellow zone....In every case, the mongol won more combats than the Babylonian....

I'm not a statistician -- I'm not even sure I can spell "statistician" -- but a couple of things occur to me looking over this table:

First, it's not clear who's attacking and who's defending; this is enormously important in the archer test, since defenders are at a disadvantage versus attackers (d2 v. a3). It's also may be important in the alpine test, since I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the attacker always has the advantage of striking the first blow.

Second, the sample seems to me too small (and I say this knowing I would never have the time or patience to do even as much as you've done). With the alpine test, a shift of a single victory in any category (except vet-lost-red) would either reverse the results or render them a tie (kind of like the recent U.S. election...but I digress ). It seems to me that if a larger sample produced proportionally larger gaps in the win-loss column, you'd be onto something; if the gap was still a single victory, you'd have a statistical fluke.

Finally, there's seems to be no way to reconcile the Bab vet archers victories in the "won yellow" category with everything else these tables seek to demonstrate.

Not that I'm not impressed by the effort; as I said, it's more than I would have done or thought to do.

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited December 21, 2000).]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 12-20-2000 09:37 AM Yeah - 'fess up Dr. Firefly - my sins are in my profile as are ESTs ... p.s. in edit - Yikes there not any more - sorry - I'm in Information Technology.

I deal a lot with I.T. guy, so I see why you call what you do a sin

I'm in Communication Studies, mostly mass media/popular culture but also some telecommunications and Internet stuff (from a policy/social impact angle; my techie skills are limited to being able to automate settlers )

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited December 21, 2000).]

[Kitana]

I don't know what it means but I was playing a game as the French and had a heck of a time trying to beat a phalanx on a river with a veteran elephant. Now when I play with the Japanese I have an easier time defeating the same phalanx with the same veteran elephant. Now French are civilized and Japanese are militaristic so maybe it does play a role. I will also admit that I start with more (not necessarily better) tech as French than I do with Japanese. With Japanese I typically start with Bronze Working and with the French I get Alphabet, Ceremonial Burial and sometimes Code of Laws (Real easy to get Monarchy from there. )

------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese

[Edward]

rixxie,

I think the 0 (zero) for a leader's/tribe's attribute means that that tribe is neutral for that attribute and doesn't lean toward either side.

For example, the Russians, Vikings, Mongols, etc. are on the "aggressive" side so they tend to start wars and demand tribute. This is why the AI French can be such a pain in the butt. The Babylonians, Americans, Indians, etc. are on the "rational" side and tend to make treaties and exchange knowledge. The Egyptians, Aztecs, Sioux, etc. are "0" or neutral and are more balanced in their friendliness towards others. They'll be more cautious than the "rational" tribes in making treaties with you, but aren't as hostile as the "aggressive" tribes.

This works similarly for civilized/militaristic - which influences how much a given tribe values different tech advances. Tribes which are "neutral" for this attribute think Literacy is a pretty good advance to have. "Civilized" tribes think Literacy is the best thing since sliced bread and "militaristic" tribes think it's pretty worthless. These biases are quantified in the tech table.

The expansionist/perfectionist attribute influences whether a tribe builds more cities or develops the ones it already has. A "perfectionistic" tribe will have a few well developed mega-cities with lots of improvements. An "expansionist" tribe will try to settle all the land it can and have "leaner" cities. Tribes which are "neutral" for this attribute are in between.

Note: Even "expansionistic" tribes are sluggish compared to humans at peaceful colonization. Because of it's programming, the AI expands more effectively through conquering than through settling land. This means that tribes that span the globe tend to be "aggressive" not necessarily "expansionistic". (Witness vast empires of the non-expansionistic but aggressive Russians and Zulus. However the expansionistic but peaceful Celts and Spanish never seem to get too big.)

[Bohlen]

I'm not quite understanding the win/loss/Bab/Mongol results table. Could you please give it a different explanation?

[rixxe]

Here are the results....
So, per example, Win Green is incremented if he won with his stamina bar remaining in the green, Lost Yellow, if he lost with his opponent's stamina bar staying in the yellow zone....In every case, the mongol won more combats than the Babylonian....

Babylonian Alpine/Mongol Alpine
-------------------------------
Win Green.......0/0
Win Yellow......2/1
Win Red ........3/5
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....3/4
Lost Red........12/10

Babylonian Vet Alpine/Mongol Vet Alpine
---------------------------------------
Win Green.......0/0
Win Yellow......0/1
Win Red.........7/9
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....1/1
Lost Red........12/9

Babylonian Archer/Mongol Archer
-------------------------------
Win Green.......3/3
Win Yellow......8/8
Win Red ........6/7
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....0/1
Lost Red........3/1

Babylonian Vet Archer/Mongol Vet Archer
---------------------------------------
Win Green.......1/3
Win Yellow......8/5
Win Red ........7/10
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....1/0
Lost Red........3/2

There's another strange thing in the rules.txt file, attitudes are set by giving a 1 for expantionist, and giving a -1 for perfectionist, per example, and some civs (like the russian and the sioux) have an 0 instead of 1/-1, nothing is explained about that....really strange...
Nonetheless, both bab. and mongol civs have correct settings in the rules.txt file...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 20, 2000).]</font>
[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 20, 2000).]

[Blaupanzer]

Tendency is for the AI to not like/trust the human as he/she grows stronger, whatever supposed personality we pick. I just can't see that it makes any difference in my experience. As to Rixxe's contention: how many thousands of verification/identification tests would be rendered useless if unit strength variances occurred based on leader personality. Very unlikely.
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited December 20, 2000).]

[Scouse Gits]

Yeah - 'fess up Dr. Firefly - my sins are in my profile as are ESTs ...

p.s. in edit - Yikes there not any more - sorry - I'm in Information Technology.
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 20, 2000).]

[East Street Trader]

Professor of what Rufus T?

I'm going to be surprised if attack and defence values are not fixed.

Romans get an edge on legions. EXCELLENT!!! I really like the developers of Civ. Bet they knew they were making something good.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Rufus we looked at whether there was a difference between perfectionist/expansionist civs. There were some trends - but it would be wrong to publish half-baked information!

As a civ player who needs all the help I can get, I'm sighing in frustration...but as a professor, I salute your scruples.

Seriously, though, I wonder if the game is easier when you play as a civ that is pre-programmed to match your own playing style, and harder when you play "against type." Maybe next time I start a game I'll pick an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist civ and try my usual rational, civilized, perfectionist strategy, just to see how it goes!

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[rixxe]

It can be tested by attacking 50 times a Russian vet Alpine with a Greek vet Alpine, & vice versa, write down the results and analyse it. (Use an alpine because its a/d points are the same). Of course the gov. must be the same, and it must be done on the same terrain...

I'll do it tonight, and i'll post the result.....

[debeest]

I don't think the military strengths differ from civ to civ. Then again, I didn't think barbarians' attack strength varied according to game level, until somebody knowledgeable told me so and I did some experimentation that seemed to confirm it.

[Deity Dude]

not that i mean to doubt rixxe but does anyone else think or can prove that the military values are variable and not absolute. i know that a phalanx has a remote chance of beating armor but i thought that was due to the permutations that the game goes thru, which is explained in the manual. I just never thought that the values themselves that are used in the calculations were variable.

[rixxe]

Yes, if you want aboslute value for the attack/defence points, you have to choose "simplified combat" til there we're ok.

From this point other factors are interacting with the a/d points, the chance (in 1 case out of 1000 u can beat an armor with a phalanx), and the civ/leader nature, this may impact on what could be called, "the spirit/behaviour of the troops "

Other parameters are also impacting on these things, if there's no palace, if there's an anarchy period etc...all that impacts on the strength of the AI

Since all these parameters are not described in the manual, i cannot certify it,(maybe it's just my immagination) but im quite sure there something like that behind the result...

Its useless to say that the AI might act diferently, according to its parameters (declaring war, building armies instead of buildings, irrating instead of funding new cities, etc....)


[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Scouse Gits]

Rufus we looked at whether there was a difference between perfectionist/expansionist civs. There were some trends - but it would be wrong to publish half-baked information!

One interesting point - the Romans were the only Civilised nation to receive Warrior Code as a starting tech. Perhaps some historical recognition!

-----------

SG (2)
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 20, 2000).]