The powergraph-- I know its largely bull but . . .

[Flubber]

I've expressed many times before my views in the powergraph. I think it can be a bullcrap measureand in single player games you can even employ "playing possum" strategies where the AI will take pity on you and be very friendly before that magic turn when you finally proberape the AI and then cash your AAs and begin a popboom. The fact that in one such turn you can go from looking weak in the graph to a dominant overlord highlights how very little it actually measures factional strenghths.

All that said, a current PBEM has me curious how the various things actually work in those little displays.

I am the Hive and according to the various categories, I lead in pop and tech while a mixture of folks lead in other categories. Both the bar graph and line graph show my faction with a slight but discernable lead BUT for some reason the Cycon leads in the "overall".
category. (No one has built a secret project yet)

I can understand easily how a faction can lead "overall" even if they lead NONE of the individual categories. But I wondered at the lack of linkage between the graphs and the "overall" lead. I would have thought that the overall leader would be what is reflected in those graphs.

Since this linkage was absent, I wondered

1. is it just a timing thing as to when the respective things are updated?

2. Do they actually measure different things?

As I said, I think these measures are bullcrap in measuring real factional strength but manipulating them can have real impacts on how the AI reacts to you, so I am trying to understand them better

[Maniac]

In my experience it's the timing. If two factions are close to each other, the lead may constantly switch depending on who last played their turn etcetera.

But as you say the powergraph is not very reliable. Factions who use lots of scout patrols for police duties will seem more powerful than a faction under free market, with lots of crawlers and formers.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Maniac
In my experience it's the timing. If two factions are close to each other, the lead may constantly switch depending on who last played their turn etcetera.

But as you say the powergraph is not very reliable. Factions who use lots of scout patrols for police duties will seem more powerful than a faction under free market, with lots of crawlers and formers.

Can you elaborate? I can see the lead switcing back and forth between close factions but what I am not understanding is which of the two measures (graphs versus the overall leader) lags the other. Is it that one is updated only at the end of a year while the other changes player by player??

[BlackCat]

Re: The powergraph-- I know its largely bull but . . .

Originally posted by Flubber
I've expressed many times before my views in the powergraph. I think it can be a bullcrap measureand in single player games you can even employ "playing possum" strategies where the AI will take pity on you and be very friendly before that magic turn when you finally proberape the AI and then cash your AAs and begin a popboom. The fact that in one such turn you can go from looking weak in the graph to a dominant overlord highlights how very little it actually measures factional strenghths.

All that said, a current PBEM has me curious how the various things actually work in those little displays.

I am the Hive and according to the various categories, I lead in pop and tech while a mixture of folks lead in other categories. Both the bar graph and line graph show my faction with a slight but discernable lead BUT for some reason the Cycon leads in the "overall".
category. (No one has built a secret project yet)

I can understand easily how a faction can lead "overall" even if they lead NONE of the individual categories. But I wondered at the lack of linkage between the graphs and the "overall" lead. I would have thought that the overall leader would be what is reflected in those graphs.

Since this linkage was absent, I wondered

1. is it just a timing thing as to when the respective things are updated?

2. Do they actually measure different things?

As I said, I think these measures are bullcrap in measuring real factional strength but manipulating them can have real impacts on how the AI reacts to you, so I am trying to understand them better

I think that your claim of BS is BS. How do you suggest that your potential power should be displayed ? You can use all of you AA's on hurrying scout units wich almost makes them worthless or you can hurry CBA.

The graph shows the current measurable power (wich as you say, maybe isn't that reliable ), but it can't show your potential.

[Leon Trotsky]

There could be no perfect Powergraph (there is a subjective element, especially when dealing with diplomacy) but the current one is not great at all.
Regarding Alien Artifacts, yes, they can be measuerd more accurately, and yes, they are underrated. Sure, you can waste them in scout patrols, but you can also send a tachion needlejet against a SAM garrison; the value of the unit is somewhat of the mean thrust it can give your economy/military effort, it cannot take into account the skill of the player.

[BlackCat]

Well, my example was maybe a little extreme and unrealistic - a more sensible choice could be to use the AA's on either ME or WP. Using them on the first would be a waste that wouldn't change the power graph while the second should give a considerable boost.

[Flubber]

Re: Re: The powergraph-- I know its largely bull but . . .

Originally posted by BlackCat




I think that your claim of BS is BS. How do you suggest that your potential power should be displayed ? You can use all of you AA's on hurrying scout units wich almost makes them worthless or you can hurry CBA.

The graph shows the current measurable power (which as you say, maybe isn't that reliable ), but it can't show your potential.

I am not suggesting any other method although a system that could measure lab cash and mineral production per turn would be more in tune with my idea of "power". The current system overrates tech lead and secret projects without any consideration of what they are.

When I am assessing an opponent I am MOST concerned about economic production and mineral production. I don't care that someone has two more techs than me-- I would be more concerned about the faction that is producing 30% more labs and cash. I fear far more the faction that has a pop of 20 spread through 8 bases that all have good terraforming and available nuts over the faction that has a pop of 40 but has no additional nuts and has 2 useless doctors in every base . . . etc etc etc

The powergraph is fine for what it is . . . a very very rough idea of standing. I look at it from idle interest except to the extent that I try to think about ways that manipulating my standing could conceivably alter AI behaviors.

A good human player won't care about the powergraph that much since they will see that the faction lagging behind in number of techs

1. is leading toward getting a particular key tech
2. has AI neighbors that have a number of the missing techs ( I consider any tech in the AI hands to be usually easily obtainable)
3. Has cashable AAs

OR the pop-challenged faction is completely ready for a popboom across 10 bases . .

etc etc


All my comments are meant to say is that I don't look at the powergraph when assessing the other factions. I mean who cares which faction is wealthiest? I don't since most of the best players spend almost all their cash every turn ( I do care a lot however if someone has hoarded 1000 ec)

Its a cute picture. The line graph in particular is kind of nice to monitor progress but I could play with no powergraph at all and I would not miss it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, my example was maybe a little extreme and unrealistic - a more sensible choice could be to use the AA's on either ME or WP. Using them on the first would be a waste that wouldn't change the power graph while the second should give a considerable boost.

Thats an interesting comment. Are you saying that the ME would have a different effect on powergraph standings than the WP? ( by itself and not considering the effects like a PTS population increase).

I agree they have very different values to a player but I always thought all SPs were valued the same for powergraph purposes.

[Mart]

From alphax.txt, SP have their values regarding certain strategies, and maybe there is some average value from it

; ai-fight=Corresponds with AI 'aggressiveness' setting of -1, 0, or 1
; ai-mil= military value
; ai-tech= advance-of-knowledge value
; ai-infra= infrastructure value
; ai-colonize= colonization value

Interesting is, a note on a side, that originally they vary between -2 and +2.
In Aldebaran Smacksim changed the values to between -5 and +9, AI was making some SP in this mod like crazy.

Re crawlers, AI does not respect them, so no wonder the game itself does not value them.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flubber



Thats an interesting comment. Are you saying that the ME would have a different effect on powergraph standings than the WP? ( by itself and not considering the effects like a PTS population increase).

I agree they have very different values to a player but I always thought all SPs were valued the same for powergraph purposes.

They probably have, but shouldn't (ok, mart7x5 showed that there are differences). There are a heck of a difference between a SP that only affects the economy of a single base and one that vastly improves terraforming capacity.

PTS is a nice thingie if it's combined with WP otherwise it's pretty annoying to see those beautyfull three citizen bases dropping to 1.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat




PTS is a nice thingie if it's combined with WP otherwise it's pretty annoying to see those beautyfull three citizen bases dropping to 1.

IT is relatively easy to have enough food coming in to keep the bases at 3. If one isn't ready and shrinks to one, you can always build a colony pod and get it back to 3 when you do have enough food around

[BlackCat]

It all depends on how fast you are able to expand (build CP's) and if terraforming can keep up speed.

Originally posted by Flubber
If one isn't ready and shrinks to one, you can always build a colony pod and get it back to 3 when you do have enough food around

that would be a waste - I prefer to expand my boarders even if it demands putting a colony in wasteland - terraforming must then later repair the lousy position.

I'm not that fond of moving peoplewith CP's, but it is usefull now and then depending of situation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat
It all depends on how fast you are able to expand (build CP's) and if terraforming can keep up speed.

Very true.

Originally posted by BlackCat


that would be a waste -.

Not really-- You recoup 10 minerals of the CP cost if running decent support so the effective cost to grow from 1-3 would be 20 minerals at 0 industry. If those two extra workers can work forests at 1-2-1, you will see a 20 mineral investment return 4 minerals and 2 energy a turn.

Originally posted by BlackCat


I prefer to expand my boarders even if it demands putting a colony in wasteland - terraforming must then later repair the lousy position.

Different playstyles I guess-- I rarely want a vulnerable outpost and tend to more compact and easily defensible empires. I only get in to borderpushing races for particularly valuable land

Originally posted by BlackCat


I'm not that fond of moving peoplewith CP's, but it is usefull now and then depending of situation.

Of you mean pod booming, I do not use it much either but their are situations when it is useful

[Kataphraktoi]

I believe that they both measure slightly different things, and that the powergaph is bugged graphicly and lags behind the standings-then again i cant get any consitancy when testing. I think its just BSed. I think there was a good post on this sometime but cannot recall where.


I would border push like mad except terraformers cant keep up.

[CEO Aaron]

I imagine most of the players here remember CivII. In CivII, there was a data pane called 'Demographics', which I felt was much more informative than the powergraph from SMAX. Something which rated factions by population, industrial output, lab production, military might all separately would be an improvement I'd love to see in any SMAX sequel or addon. (Yes, I still daydream that Brian Reynolds might get the SMAX license and produce a worthy upgrade).