Announcement

**East Street Trader** · February 16, 2001, 08:50

I think there are quite a few factors involved but that number and quality of military units plus population are probably the two that carry the greatest weight.

OCC experience convinces me that you are entirely right to think that not being supreme confers substantial advantages.

Apolytoners have compiled a formidable list of AI "cheats" and it is clear that many of these are intentional balancing features written in by the programmers in an attempt to keep the game challenging for the human player who is doing well. We have not bothered to do the other thing, which is to look out for balancing features written in to give the human player who gets a bit behind the chance to catch up. But I am convinced they are there. I saw a post recently, commenting that if you delay founding your capital the AI civs don't seem to advance as quickly as normal. That matches my experience. I suspect that if the human player chose to do no research, the AI research rate would suffer a consequential penalty just as the human player's does when he is "NO 1 in SCIEEEENCE". Maybe someone who has tried the research set to zero throughout challenge could comment on that.

I have noticed that limiting the number of cities built makes for a pacy game and that can add to the fun.

But I think there remains quite a bit of challenge. The A1 production advantage can be hard to cope with in the space race. In your game did any the supreme A1 civ get well ahead of you and the others or were most of you much of a muchness?

**Albert B** · February 16, 2001, 09:08

I believe that the power graph is based off of much more than just military units and such. In a lot of my SP games, I usually build a very minimal army - basically a couple of defensive units in each city, for both defense and martial law and then a few offensive, 2 move units for more aggressive defensive tactics and to catch those lovable barb kings. Also, I usually play a perfectionist style and only build 8-15 cities. I'm almost always last in the military service category of the demographics screen. Despite having such a minimal army, I am also almost always first on the power graph. I believe that the number of techs, population, number of trade arrows, amount of land, etc all play a role in the power graph ratings as well as the number and type of military units. My guess would be that just about everything in the demographics screen would be factored into the power graph rankings.

**DaveV** · February 16, 2001, 09:24

Check this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-3-000365.html

**Rufus T. Firefly** · February 16, 2001, 10:09

quote:

Originally posted by East Street Trader on 02-16-2001 07:50 AM

I have noticed that limiting the number of cities built makes for a pacy game and that can add to the fun.

I assume "pacy" means quick; if so, then yes: about 3 hours, start to finish.

quote:

But I think there remains quite a bit of challenge. The A1 production advantage can be hard to cope with in the space race. In your game did any the supreme A1 civ get well ahead of you and the others or were most of you much of a muchness?

The supreme civ, the Americans, kept pace with me technologically -- in fact, they were ahead, since they'd also managed to acquire techs I had no use for (like Fundamentalism); #2 (Carthage) was somewhat behind. But as for their production, I don't know what to say: the Americans had 24 cities to my eight and beat me to fusion power (deliberately; I'd lowered my science so that getting fusion to early wouldn't "tempt" other civs), yet their ship was still on the launching pad when I landed, maybe because I had a boatload of money to rush-build with. Also, I was able to build all of my top-twelve Wonders (Colossus, Gardens, Copernicus, Mike's, Leo's, Adam's, Newton's, Bach's, UN, Hoover, SETI, and Apollo) without any significant competition; only the UN had to be rush-built, and I was almost done with it when that happened. It really was different!

------------------
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

**Rufus T. Firefly** · February 16, 2001, 10:18

quote:

Originally posted by DaveV on 02-16-2001 08:24 AM
Check this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-3-000365.html

Thanks, King Dave! Very helpful.

(Edit after reading the thread more carefully): Well, that explains it: with population being the most important factor, an 8-city civ is rarely going to end up being supreme unless that's a specific strategy; I probably had at most 160 "people" in my empire, which means that a civ with 24 cities would need only 7 people in each city to surpass me in that category. That civ would almost certainly pull ahead of me in the shields category too, since I'd be playing defensively and probably be supporting only 3-4 units per city (one of whom was an engineer). In other words, it should be easy to have an excelent, rich, productive country without being supreme -- kind of like Canada, really. Very interesting indeed.

------------------
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 February 16, 2001).]

**Stuff2** · February 16, 2001, 11:08

I've noticed that the treasury does play a role in the calculations of how powerful you are. In one game i did notice that when i did some ruchbuying i suddenly went from supreme to mighty (and could get a peace treaty with all my opponents). A few turns later when my treasury was full of gold i suddenly got supreme again, and i'm pretty sure that the numbers of units in my arsenal was significantly lower than the biggest ai-player. I think economy is a good part of whats measured in the powergraph. In really late game, try to give alot of money to a really tiny ai-civ and look at the powergraph (look at the powergraph a few turns later, beacouse the last turns are never represented). You'll find a huge leap up for the tiny ai-civ.

**Roman** · February 17, 2001, 10:13

Please don't laugh, but where can I find the power graph?

**Scouse Gits** · February 18, 2001, 06:50

The graph itself is always shown at the end of a game. However, there is an ongoing indication of your power throughout the game. Once you have established contact with at least one other civ, just hit F3 and you will see a description of your empire regarding power and reputation. This ranges from "Sire we are Supreme and Spotless to Pathetic and Atrocious"

Should you wish to see the actual picture of the powergraph at any time you can save the game and retire - then re-load to continue playing.

------------

SG(2)

**Rufus T. Firefly** · February 18, 2001, 07:50

quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 02-16-2001 10:08 AM
I've noticed that the treasury does play a role in the calculations of how powerful you are....In really late game, try to give alot of money to a really tiny ai-civ and look at the powergraph (look at the powergraph a few turns later, beacouse the last turns are never represented). You'll find a huge leap up for the tiny ai-civ.

Yes, that make sense given the formula found in the link DaveV provided:

POWER = 8*(Sum of City Sizes) + Number of Techs + (Treasury/32) + (Number of Shields in Units)/10

If this formula holds true for Civ2 (it was the original Civ formula), then there are three ways to raise another civ on the power graph -- give away techs, give away money, or give away military -- and giving away 8 techs is the same as giving away 256 gold is the same as giving away 80 units. I actually think it's easier to give away techs at the end of the game -- I tend to have many more than the weakest civ -- but giving away money has the double effect of raising another civ on the power graph and lowering you. The same is true of giving away units, but I can always more easily spare 250 in gold than 80 units! (though I did once give away my entire navy to the Babylonians, who were land-locked; that was fun).
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited February 18, 2001).]

**Theben** · February 18, 2001, 14:19

I wonder if the tech level of your units matter. I've had 'enraged' enemies go down to 'uncooperative' immediately after I've updated my military.

**Smash** · February 18, 2001, 14:40

Here is a little tidbit posted by Andu Indorin at civfanatics.

Power Graph Explained

I just completed an experiment to determine what the Power Graph actually measures. Only two factors are
included in the Power Graph: tech levels obtained and net population. By net population, I mean total
population without reference to population score, i.e., without reference to the number of happy citizens, the
number of content citizens, and the number of unhappy citizens. Note that tech levels count as 1/2 of a
citizen. The Power Graph does not reflect Barbarians, does not reflect Wonders Built, does not reflect years of
Peace, does not reflect the Space Ship. These have absolutely no effect on a Power Graph, only on the
Civilization Score and the Civilization Rating (i.e., final %).

The power graph also records the relative strengths of civilizations every four turns, at least until 1850. The
Power Graph maxes out when one achieves around 200 total population/tech levels. It spikes downwards
when one achieves around 4000 total population/tech levels; it spikes back upwards when one achieves
around 8000 total population/tech levels.

sounds reasonable to me.

Announcement

The Power Graph

The Power Graph

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment