Benchmarking your performance

[TeeWee]

Land, Tech, Power.

First in land, First in Power, First in tech, by 1 AD.

In practice, it should probably be earlier than that, but 1AD is a reasonable target to start with.

If you can manage the triangle, you're probably in good shape to start working combinations that sacrifice a corner (Power + Tech - Land, Power + Land - Tech, Land + Tech - Power).

I know you can use the demographics to see your rank in Land and Power, but can you see the same in tech? Or is that based on what you can / cannot trade in the diplo screens?

Anyway, this is a completely relative way to mark your progress. I understand this need and perhaps this is a better way to judge how well you're doing in a particular game. I like that you're giving some indication of what the goals in general are and I think even a Noble player can do something with this to find the next immediate goals. Like:

• Power + Tech good, Land bad? Exploit your advantage (WAR!)
• Power + Land good, Tech bad? Sit back behind your solid walls and build infrastructure
• Tech + Land good, Power bad? Consolidate your holdings by building military

 

[Le Singe]

"If I don't have a specific goal, I aimlessly tech my to death because I forget to build defenses. "

lol- the ol "click til death" race.

haha this is my preferred defeat condition.....maybe i'll write a walk through.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

lol- the ol "click til death" race.

The Liberalism slingshot shaved 10 turns off death....

 

[troytheface]

Benchmarks i use are- i take the leaderhead of every AI killed and put it in photoshop and then put it on a pole with a Dali like far perspective.

while most look at numbers - i look at heads on poles on desert ground inside of venn diagrams sketched in sand with high contrast and shadows all over the place.

almost as frightening as those still talking about the fictional 1.5 worker man walking around like a Freak in Browning's film.

 

[champ82]

I usually look at progress vs. history. If you have Musketmen and reserching Liberalism by 1600 A.D., you are doing a great job.

Not on monarch+

 

[Cjreynol]

But, when in doubt, it's better to have too many workers than not enough.

I need this written on a bat and smacked against my head. I tell myself before every game I need to get those workers out and stop working unimproved tiles even if it means slowing down my expansion a bit. But then I get in the game, and start thinking well I can put off a worker until after I get this city. Ok, well after that one for sure. And once I've filled up the land I have a ratio just under 1/1, and then it's getting too late as I have a few cities working lots of unimproved tiles.

At least I play on Prince right now and can still get away with it
Might be in trouble when I move up to Monarch soon though

 

[Bezurn]

One thing I do to make sure I have enough workers is to build a granary as the first building in any new city. It will either be finished by 4 pop, or if it is a heavy food city I slave the Granary and then let the pop grow back to 4 again. Then once a city has a granary and is at 4 pop I will start it on building a worker and then whip it the next turn. This gets the worker done and gives quite a few overflow hammers to begin working on the next building / unit. With the granary the city is back to 4 population before then. Then if I need another worker from that city for some reason I wait til it gets to 6-8 population and then whip another one after a turn. This works best when the city is just about to grow, so that the city returns to the previous population before the whip very quickly.

Or if I am slaving my settlers to beat the AI to a spot on the map I build a worker right after the whip on the settler as a way to allow the city to cooldown a bit so it doesn't hit the unhappiness cap too early.

 

[Lansky]

Research/Tech wise:

NE built by 200AD
Oxford built by 1000AD

 

[Negator_UK]

w=c(g/20)+c(d/20)+c(f/40)+c(j/20)+c(h/80)+c(a-1)-c(p)

Uhh, at my brain activity level 1.5 is a lot more useful that this, but it does look like a very manly equation