View Full Version : Startup research strategy


Blkbird
Jan 16, 2006, 05:03 PM
With Game Session 1 being just a bit over 2 days away and no obvious consensus regarding the startup research strategy in the discussion thread (here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154158)), the Ministry of Science decides to set up this poll to help reaching a decision.

All options here are formulated rather vaguely. First, it's simply impossible to list all possibilities, or even all sequence of the first three, four Technologies ever suggested by all citizens after the game has been created. Second, this poll is about the strategical direction of our startup research, not about the technical implementation thereof.

Please be advised this poll is informative and non-binding. The Ministry promises to put the result of this poll strongly into consideration, but ultimately reserves the right to reach a deviating administrative decision.

What will count just as much as the numbers of votes here are reasonable, logical and detailed argumentations for each options. It is recommended to post your arguments in the aforementioned discussion thread (here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154158)) instead of this poll thread.

This poll is public and will be open for 2 days, closing about 1 hour before Game Session 1 starts.

Bengeance
Jan 16, 2006, 07:30 PM
I hate to be vague but I think a mix of stratigies is important right now. Getting an early religion is not critical, but it does help. I think we have to have animal husbandry for both the horse potential and the pigs. Then hitting religion for monotheism would help. But we can't go too long without hunting becuase of the scout and exploration benefits.

I started a test game on Prince with Egypt just to play around with the civ and get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses and I found that getting to Monotheism in time for Judiaism is doable. I went Hunting, then religion to Mono then other stuff.

Swissempire
Jan 16, 2006, 07:36 PM
I think we should hold off on the religious start, because we won't win the race for it. Wee should go the agricultural root, because it allows us an early lead, and after that we can get confucianism easily. This allows us to use our techonlogical power to spread our rellgion, not our religion limiting our technological power

Swissempire
Jan 16, 2006, 07:38 PM
Blkbird, are you going to vote? I see no problem with you voting. Since you were elcted Minster of Sceince, then it is obvoius the people have faith in your sceintific judgement!

Blkbird
Jan 16, 2006, 08:09 PM
I hate to be vague but I think a mix of stratigies is important right now. Getting an early religion is not critical, but it does help. I think we have to have animal husbandry for both the horse potential and the pigs. Then hitting religion for monotheism would help. But we can't go too long without hunting becuase of the scout and exploration benefits.

I started a test game on Prince with Egypt just to play around with the civ and get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses and I found that getting to Monotheism in time for Judiaism is doable. I went Hunting, then religion to Mono then other stuff.

It doesn't sound very solid. You sure you were playing Prince on a Large Continental map with 8 players total at Epic speed?

Swissempire
Jan 16, 2006, 08:12 PM
I was researching egypt on wikipedia, and, talk about ironic, they went almost he same route as agriculture provides!

Blkbird
Jan 16, 2006, 08:13 PM
Blkbird, are you going to vote? I see no problem with you voting. Since you were elcted Minster of Sceince, then it is obvoius the people have faith in your sceintific judgement!

I am not completely convienced of any particular strategy yet. I will base my opinion on this poll and the discussion during it. So I'm going to wait until the last minute and even then eventually abstain. The Ministry will however post an official instruction in time, that's for sure.

So, please, decide for yourself, without any influence from my side.

azzaman333
Jan 16, 2006, 08:18 PM
If we can spread a religion far and wide, and build the shrine, the gold we will pick up will be huge. I think that we should aim for Poly, and if we miss Hinduism, we can go for Mono and hope to pick up Judaism. The commerce from shrines is extremely useful.

Blkbird
Jan 16, 2006, 08:25 PM
Excuse me, but I don't get this. People are saying over and over that Shrines generates huge incoming. But isn't it just 1 Gold per city per turn? You call that huge? One single well developed city can generate more than that.

Also, even if something is jucy doesn't mean we should go for it. It has to be realistically applicable, too. Please try to prove it when you suggest something.

azzaman333
Jan 16, 2006, 08:32 PM
The X shrine gives 1 gold for every city (including foreign) that has X religion. If you spread a religion well enough, maintanance costs are virtually nullifeid. And the happiness bonus from having a religion is very useful.

Swissempire
Jan 16, 2006, 08:33 PM
I agree with the dark-colored avian on that one!

Blkbird
Jan 16, 2006, 09:03 PM
The X shrine gives 1 gold for every city (including foreign) that has X religion. If you spread a religion well enough, maintanance costs are virtually nullifeid. And the happiness bonus from having a religion is very useful.

Sorry, this is *way* to vage. You need to come with concrete numbers. The way I play my personal games, city maintanance costs can never be "nullified" because I build so many city, often so far away from the Capital. Say you spread your state religion to 30 cities on a Large map (that would be pretty impressive, I'd say), that's just 30 Golds per turn. As I said, a well developed city generates more.

And yet again, you need to come up with some feasability arguments, too. "If we're lucky, we can win the race for this religion; if not, we can try the other" isn't good enough - in fact it's pretty bad.

Flotorius
Jan 17, 2006, 08:12 AM
Pottery, Mining, Animal Husbandry

I'd like to see some production in our capital early on, so we'd need a seizable population and mined hills. By then we might get into health trouble and connect the pigs.

Donovan Zoi
Jan 17, 2006, 09:24 PM
In order to grow strong, we must first build a solid foundataion. That is why I choose the general agricultural path over military.

Blkbird
Jan 17, 2006, 10:04 PM
The race for one or several Religioins is not without risk. I'd like to ask those who support the religious strategy to present a risk accessment, best including "Plan B", "Plan C" and such.

Mike Lemmer
Jan 18, 2006, 12:09 AM
Do you mean how we could use the Religion tree to our advantage should we fail in the first push? A diversion to Priesthood for Oracle. This could go two ways if we succeed:
1. Research Monarchy while we build the Oracle, and nab Feudalism as our free tech.
2. Research Monotheism while we build the Oracle, and nab Theology as our free tech (and found Christianity).

Although I support the religious race, I still want to take care of Animal Husbandry & Pottery first. Early cottages will give us a great advantage in the research pace and put us in the running for Judaism.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 01:25 AM
No, Mike. A risk assessment with best response plans goes like:

If we research Myth and Poly, our chance of founding Hinduism should be about 85% if there is no other civ starting with Myth, 60% if there is one such civ, 25% if there are two...

If we lose Hinduism by no more than 4 turns, we can still try racing for Judaism, our chance being 50% with 4 turns lag, 65% with 3 turn lag...

That, plus explaination about how the numbers are calculated, would be a risk assessment with best response plans. Of course I can't expect something like that because our situation is rather complicated, and none of us is likely to be an industrial, financial or intelligence analyst with enough time to do such a work. However I definitely need more than "we could get Hinduism if we're lucky, how lucky I don't know, but I have the feeling it's worth a shot" - because that's all I've heard so far.

Mike Lemmer
Jan 18, 2006, 02:40 AM
I can't provide that, sir. I would say we have a better chance of discovering Judaism with a solid cottage base than we do of discovering Hinduism or Buddhism off the bat. Perhaps a 75% chance if we concentrate on commerce, compared with a 25% chance of researching Hinduism/Buddhism right off the bat.

von_Clausewitz
Jan 18, 2006, 03:37 AM
risk assesment for pursuing a religion based path compared to agriculture -

chance of hooking up pigs:

agriculture 100%

religion 100%

chance of having a worker ready to build the infrastructure to the pigs by the time the required techs are researched:

agriculture <100%

religion 100%

chance of needing pigs for health reasons by the time we have them hooked up:

agriculture 0%

religion 0%

chance of having the pigs within our cutural borders by the time we can build the infrastructure to hook them up:

agriculture <100%

religion 100%

chance of getting buddism:

agriculture: 0%

religion 0% (if we go for poly rather then med)

chance of getting hindu:

agriculture 0%

religion >0% (if we go for poly instead of med)

chance of getting judiasm:

agriculture 0%

religion >0%

the question should not be 'what is the risk?' it should be 'what is the reward?'

if we pursue religion prior to agriculture, we do not lose the reward of agriculture. it will still be there when we need it.
if we pursue agriculture before religion, we will lose the reward of early religion.

personally i think the risk is worth the potential reward. it is more then just the simple extra gold from a shrine. its the cultural benefit of having a religion early and spreading it throughout the nation. its the potential intelligence gains of having a homegrown state religion. its the diplomatic advantage of having a homegrown state religion in foriegn nations that adopt it. it is more difficult to achieve these advantages with a later religion such as confucianism. its the early start on generating great leaders.

I don't see the reward of an agricultural pursuit before religion. i would in fact almost prefer picking up hunting before animal husbandry.

Gloriana
Jan 18, 2006, 04:54 AM
I have to agree with our self-proclaimed Mischief Maker that the rewards of an early religion are great. Although we can indeed first go for any other tech (whichever it may be) if we do that we will not have (one of) the first religion for sure (that's 100% sure losing early religion), while if we turn it around the agriculture bonus will still be there, plus we might have an early religion (say, 50-75% chance). Also, we can switch to agriculture the MOMENT another civ founds a religion, we don't have to wait until the said religious tech is finished, and we don't lose the research either.
I say go with religion first, the chance for a greater reward is within our grasp, but only if we do this NOW.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 06:31 AM
risk assesment for pursuing a religion based path compared to agriculture -

[...]

That's a comprehensive list of mostly (but not all) correct, however meaningless statements. I don't know if it was meant to be a joke or your understanding of "risk assessment" is indeed that twisted. Percentages are usefull because they're *quantified* values, but all you provide are *qualified* statements (0%, > 0%, < 100%, 100%), which are all rather obvious anyway.

So no, that was not a risk assessment.

the question should not be 'what is the risk?' it should be 'what is the reward?'

That's correct, but I didn't ask the latter question as I consider myself able to calculate the potential reward, while I'm not so sure about the risk. If someone can provide me credible data about the risk, I would be able to conclude if the reward is worth the risk. It is my duty as Minister of Science to make that conclusion, any way.

personally i think the risk is worth the potential reward.

Again a statement not backed by facts. I already have plenty of those, more wouldn't help.

I don't see the reward of an agricultural pursuit before religion. i would in fact almost prefer picking up hunting before animal husbandry.

Benefits for going agricultural instead of religious include, but are not limited to:

- Having the Pigs pastured early, accelerating growth;
- Having Horses revealed early, improving the decision making process about the location of new cities;
- Being able to build Granary early, accelerating growth;
- Being able to build Cottages early, boosting commerce.

That's a lot of things you don't see.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 06:48 AM
we might have an early religion (say, 50-75% chance).

Now that's an interesting number - and useful, too, if it stands. Would you care to explain it a bit?

Also, we can switch to agriculture the MOMENT another civ founds a religion, we don't have to wait until the said religious tech is finished, and we don't lose the research either.

You kidding me. Nothing lost? There is no greater waste than half-researched techs.

I am not sure what you mean "the MOMENT another civ founds a religion". If you mean the first religion at all, I (and I believe many others) can *assure* you Buddhism will be founded by some other civ before we can do anything about it. Consider that > 90%.

Now how do I come up with that number? We have 7 competitor civs, each may come with Myth with a chance of 5/17 (17 possible civs excluding ourselves, of which Arabia, Aztec, Inca, India and Spain start with Myth). That means the chance we have at least one competitor starting with Myth is:

1 - (1 - 5/17) ^ 7 = 91%

Since we know the AI has a speed advantage over us at Prince level, we will even lose to civs who don't come with Myth if they decide to join the race. And those who do come with Myth will go for Buddhism with a very high probability. Therefore chance of losing Budd is > 90%.

Now, that's an example of risk assessment. I would be grateful if someone can do more of the kind.

Flotorius
Jan 18, 2006, 07:23 AM
1 - (1 - 5/17) ^ 7 = 91%

At a first glance, I'd say that the formula above assumes the possibility of multiple instances, i.e. two or times the same civ.

BTW, I don't know many politicians in a demogame who would rely upon probabilistic data for their decisions. :rolleyes:

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 01:53 PM
At a first glance, I'd say that the formula above assumes the possibility of multiple instances, i.e. two or times the same civ.

You're right. Ruling out multiple instances, the percentage is even much higher:

1 - (12/17 * 11/17 * 10/17 * 9/17 * 8/17 * 7/17 * 6/17) = 99%

So, it's near certainly that at least one competiting civ comes with Myth. And it's practically impossible to beat that civ or those civs regarding Budd, plus any other civ who decides to go religious.

BTW, I don't know many politicians in a demogame who would rely upon probabilistic data for their decisions. :rolleyes:

Isn't it refreshing, then, to actually see one?

Btw, real politicians do rely on probabilistic data one way or another. They may not do it conciously, but they have their analysts for those tasks, who then prepare PHB-compatible (google "phb dilbert") presentation sheets for them.

von_Clausewitz
Jan 18, 2006, 03:35 PM
That's a comprehensive list of mostly (but not all) correct, however meaningless statements. I don't know if it was meant to be a joke or your understanding of "risk assessment" is indeed that twisted. Percentages are usefull because they're *quantified* values, but all you provide are *qualified* statements (0%, > 0%, < 100%, 100%), which are all rather obvious anyway.

they are obvious points and intended to be.


That's correct, but I didn't ask the latter question as I consider myself able to calculate the potential reward, while I'm not so sure about the risk. If someone can provide me credible data about the risk, I would be able to conclude if the reward is worth the risk. It is my duty as Minister of Science to make that conclusion, any way.

its because i get a sense that choosing a religious path is getting thrown under the bus because there is risk involved. 'prove your point' is what is being told of supporters for religion, yet AH is just being accepted. the obvious points should be pointing out that there is no need to rush to AH and that it is worth the risk to pursue an early religion.

Again a statement not backed by facts. I already have plenty of those, more wouldn't help.

it will take approx 10 turns for growth to size 2.
it will take approx 10 turns following that to build a worker if we switch production immediately.
it will take approx 6 turns to build a road to the pigs.
it will take less then 26 turns to research AH.
it would take approx 26 turns to pursue myst, then poly, then AH.


Benefits for going agricultural instead of religious include, but are not limited to:

- Having the Pigs pastured early, accelerating growth;
- Having Horses revealed early, improving the decision making process about the location of new cities;
- Being able to build Granary early, accelerating growth;
- Being able to build Cottages early, boosting commerce.

That's a lot of things you don't see.

- i don't think there would be much delay in getting the pigs pastured by going with a route other then AH right off the bat. our worker still needs to get built and he would still need to build the road.
- again, there would little or no delay by the time we start construction on a settler.
- do we not need a worker, a warrior and a settler in higher priority then a granery? again there is little or no delay.
- again there are other priorities for our worker and there would be little or no delay.

there are alot of things that won't need to be seen until we are capable of taking advatage.

animal husbandry = no risk, no reward (in the sense that it will still be there when we need it)
polytheism = high risk, high reward.

i don't think the risk can be quantified. i think we have some favorable things like food and commerce from the flood plains that reduce the risk. i think we have a better then even chance of getting to polythiesm first.

BCLG100
Jan 18, 2006, 03:49 PM
I voted agricultural as that best suits are starting location and traits imo

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 04:36 PM
it will take approx 10 turns for growth to size 2.
it will take approx 10 turns following that to build a worker if we switch production immediately.
it will take approx 6 turns to build a road to the pigs.
it will take less then 26 turns to research AH.
it would take approx 26 turns to pursue myst, then poly, then AH.

These numbers are wrong. It takes longer than 10 turns to build a Worker at size 2. But no Road needs to be built to pasture the Pigs. Please get your facts straight.

Animal Husbandry may be finished earlier than the Worker, but then we can start Pottery earlier (if we go agriculture, that is). It's a chain of events, while you consider each of them singled out.

Nobody is taking Animal Husbandry for granted - at least I'm not. The reason we don't talk much about it is because the benefits and costs of researching it are so obvious it requires no discussion.

animal husbandry = no risk, no reward (in the sense that it will still be there when we need it)
polytheism = high risk, high reward.

I roughly agree with that, though I'd say Poly is high risk with high reward if succeeded and high cost if failed. The potential cost and the potential reward cancle out in my opinion (this is rather a subjective judgement, not backed by facts, I realize that, and I don't think I'd be able to deliver any proof), in which case the risk needs to be at most 50% to be worth trying. I have serious doubt that we have a 50% chance at Hinduism.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 05:21 PM
Thank you all for your participation. The official instruction of the Ministry of Science for the Game Session 1 has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592902#post3592902

Swissempire
Jan 18, 2006, 05:25 PM
For Agriculture, what exact path will we be taking? Will it be Animal Hus, Pot, Writing, then Alphabet, or somehting different after Writing. I personally vote the alphabet method! Then on to Confucianism!!

Black_Hole
Jan 18, 2006, 05:51 PM
Thank you all for your participation. The official instruction of the Ministry of Science for the Game Session 1 has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592902#post3592902

As Swissempire stated in the TCIT, we never voted for an exception if Mysticism iis popped from a hut.

In the rare case a Hut gives us Mysticism within the first 10 turns, switch research to Polytheism immediately.

If this were to happen, your instructions would violate Article C of the Constitution

Please remove this

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 05:56 PM
An explaination of the official instructions has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592942#post3592942

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 06:06 PM
If this were to happen, your instructions would violate Article C of the Constitution

Please remove this

First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.

Second, this poll clearly states it asks for general directions, not precise implementations. An exception clause like the one you're questioning is an implementational addition that doesn't change the general direction.

Third, the poll result does show a strong support for religious direction, and the discussion shows there is no general, unconditional aversion against the religious direction, instead the most disputed issues is how to assess the risk of the religious direction. If this risk varies from our current point, the most relevant assumption under which this poll result is achieved would be changed, therefore demanding an adjustment of the decision.

Fourth, Article C of the Constitution is not violated in any way at any time. I will show this later when I have more time.

Black_Hole
Jan 18, 2006, 06:36 PM
First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.

Second, this poll clearly states it asks for general directions, not precise implementations. An exception clause like the one you're questioning is an implementational addition that doesn't change the general direction.

Third, the poll result does show a strong support for religious direction, and the discussion shows there is no general, unconditional aversion against the religious direction, instead the most disputed issues is how to assess the risk of the religious direction. If this risk varies from our current point, the most relevant assumption under which this poll result is achieved would be changed, therefore demanding an adjustment of the decision.

Fourth, Article C of the Constitution is not violated in any way at any time. I will show this later when I have more time.
I didn't notice that informational part until just now, I just didn't you would do that, but owell

and still informational polls still have power

edit: From Article C.3:
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.

I don't want to get into a huge argument over this, I just don't like it when a leader sneaks an extra instruction in

ravensfire
Jan 18, 2006, 07:22 PM
First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.


Minister Blkbird,

Will we soon begin to see official, binding polls from your ministry then?

-- Ravensfire

von_Clausewitz
Jan 18, 2006, 07:28 PM
I just wonder why we would switch immediately in the first ten turns for getting mysticism from a hut, when we could research it in about 10 turns.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 07:41 PM
edit: From Article C.3:

Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.

That's right. But my instructions did not contradict the poll result, but rather *implemented* it. You may disagree with that implementation, but I did have the power and the duty to do it.

As for "sneaking in", it's ridiculous to call something "sneaked it" that has announced in advance in bold letters! Why do you think I did that? For better "sneaking"? Pay some attention before you raise such nonsense accusations, would you?

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 07:45 PM
I just wonder why we would switch immediately in the first ten turns for getting mysticism from a hut, when we could research it in about 10 turns.

We couldn't have researched it within the first 10 turns.

Quantity does matter, even in small amount. You're ignoring that over and over again, I don't know how many times I have to stress it to you.

Black_Hole
Jan 18, 2006, 07:51 PM
That's right. But my instructions did not contradict the poll result, but rather *implemented* it. You may disagree with that implementation, but I did have the power and the duty to do it.

As for "sneaking in", it's ridiculous to call something "sneaked it" that has announced in advance in bold letters! Why do you think I did that? For better "sneaking"? Pay some attention before you raise such nonsense accusations, would you?
Could you please direct me to where you posted that exception at (before it being posted in the TCIT)?

ravensfire
Jan 18, 2006, 07:57 PM
Black_Hole - it is posted in the middle of a paragraph, and is bolded.

As Blkbird once chastised someone else in another poll, that's information that should be seperated at and the top.

Blkbird, I'll repeat my question - will we soon see official, binding polls from the Ministry? What I'd love to see is a discussion on a more general research direction, say one that targets not the next two techs, but the next 7 or 8. That would give you latitude in achieving that goal, and not have to poll all the time.

-- Ravensfire

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 08:09 PM
Minister Blkbird,

Will we soon begin to see official, binding polls from your ministry then?

I'm not sure what kind of poll you mean by that. As I've explained in the intial post of this very poll, it was simply impossible to poll over every research path including every possible game event that may have an influence, and every response towards those events.

The next poll will probably be more specific, because after we've agreed on the agricultural path and researched Animal Husbandry, there are much less sane options now to choose from.

I guess Black_Hole was right that it didn't really matter if the poll was binding or not. It stills has precedence over my Mandate.

However, I will continue to execute my power and fullfil my duty by complementing the general decision of the citizenery with implemtational details, specially responses towards possible eventualities (Plan B, C, etc.) like I did this time. I won't be able to publish most of those details in advance for voting, because I usually form those response plans from inputs I receive during the discussion of the general decision.

If anyone feels my complementary instructions contradict the general decision of the citizenery, I suggest he files a Judiciary Review. Otherwise I'd appreciate you letting me do my work.

As a final word, I can honestly tell you I do honor citizen inputs utmostly and I always actively seek them, too. If you take a look at the poll subforum, you can see I am indeed the only Government Official who has posted a poll for Game Session 1 - even though I didn't have to.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 08:16 PM
What I'd love to see is a discussion on a more general research direction, say one that targets not the next two techs, but the next 7 or 8. That would give you latitude in achieving that goal, and not have to poll all the time.

We can discuss, but I don't like the idea of making a decision 7 or 8 Techs ahead. Too many game events and information will come in in the meantime, which, put togother, will almost certainly have a decisive influence on research.

Chaos theory is a cool, but for more practical applications, walking one step a time is much more solid. I'm more of a micromanagement freak anyway, in case you haven't noticed yet.

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 08:19 PM
Black_Hole - it is posted in the middle of a paragraph, and is bolded.

False. It's not "in the middle of a paragraph", it's an entire paragraph stating nothing else than the status of the poll.

Black_Hole
Jan 18, 2006, 08:29 PM
False. It's not "in the middle of a paragraph", it's an entire paragraph stating nothing else than the status of the poll.
Sorry, I was meaning the exception clause in the TCIT:
"In the rare case a Hut gives us Mysticism within the first 10 turns, switch research to Polytheism immediately."

When I said "snuck in", I didn't mean sneaking in the non binding part, I meant sneaking in the clause incase we get mysticism from a hut, I must have miscommunicated

Swissempire
Jan 18, 2006, 08:34 PM
We can discuss, but I don't like the idea of making a decision 7 or 8 Techs ahead. Too many game events and information will come in in the meantime, which, put togother, will almost certainly have a decisive influence on research.

Chaos theory is a cool, but for more practical applications, walking one step a time is much more solid. I'm more of a micromanagement freak anyway, in case you haven't noticed yet.

Chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamic systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos, which is characterised by a sensitivity to initial conditions .As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Actually if we could make it work, Chaos Theory would work better than micromanagment, or.. say.. a minister of science! :lol: Kidding. The only thing that could replace you Blkbird is a polictical oppenant, a scandal, or a Civ related breakthrough regarding eigenstates.! :lol: You got me going :D

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 08:42 PM
When I said "snuck in", I didn't mean sneaking in the non binding part, I meant sneaking in the clause incase we get mysticism from a hut, I must have miscommunicated

No, *I* must have miscommunicated. I knew you meant sneaking in the additional clause, and I was saying that clause wasn't sneaked in because it was announced in advance that my final decision may deviate from the result of this poll.

A complementary clause that has been announced in advance (not specificly of course, because it didn't exist in advance) is "not sneaked in".

Blkbird
Jan 18, 2006, 08:45 PM
Chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamic systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos, which is characterised by a sensitivity to initial conditions .As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Actually if we could make it work, Chaos Theory would work better than micromanagment, or.. say.. a minister of science! :lol: Kidding. The only thing that could replace you Blkbird is a polictical oppenant, a scandal, or a Civ related breakthrough regarding eigenstates.! :lol: You got me going :D

No joking, Chaos Theory really would help us here, or even slightly less advanced (?) methodes like Fuzzy Logic. But those kind of things are so complicated in implementation, we could have as well just gone through every possibility in the mean time in our case. ;)

Microanalysis *is* a valid - and more straightforward - alternative to Chaos Theory. It breaks the chaos down to "simple, linear, deterministic" events. And that's what I'm trying to do here.

von_Clausewitz
Jan 19, 2006, 01:48 AM
yes in about ten turns. not in the first ten. the first turn is shot as we build the city, no research there. so that makes it in about the first 11 turns. that is 'about' so it could be the first 11 or 12 maybe as high as 14. i don't think more then 12 unless we lower the science rate or work somewhere with no commerce. but in about ten turns. yes, in around half the time it would take to finish animal husbandry. since we would finish myst in about the same time we grow to size 2, we would be about halfway finished with poly at about the same time we would be finishing AH or also the same time that anyone with myst to start would be founding buddism. halfway to hinduism would make it better then 50% if the others had to switch right then. the one large variable is how many of them are there? and would any of them decide to take the longer route to poly instead of meditation?

unfortuantly, you wanted a probability of success. for that you need a statistician and the Chief Mischief Maker is by no stretch of the imagination a statistician.

the risk of researching towards polythiesm first can be valued, not by what we stand to gain, but by what we stand to lose. the benefits of researching animal husbandry first is what we stand to lose (the risk) and yet we don't lose them or even delay them beyond our capacity to utilize them. so there is no risk if we succed or fail to gain hinduism because we do not lose anything substantial. that is the point that seems to be lost, there is no risk for trying because we don't lose anything. if the decision is based on probability of success, then that is a different matter, though i think the chances are fairly high (better then betting black at roulette). if the decision is based on risk, its a bad call. Who Dares Wins.

Blkbird
Jan 19, 2006, 04:23 AM
the benefits of researching animal husbandry first is what we stand to lose (the risk) and yet we don't lose them or even delay them beyond our capacity to utilize them. so there is no risk if we succed or fail to gain hinduism because we do not lose anything substantial.

I absolutely disagree. The lost would be very substancial, as I have already argumented for.

Blkbird
Jan 23, 2006, 05:36 AM
Please discuss the upcoming research strategy in this new thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155451