BNW Deity Tier List

I can confirm this. GW, GA, GM, GG and admirals don't do this, but they do increase their respective counters. It's a bug IMHO that prophets affect GS points. Also it kind of punishes early Theology, since you have to avoid GE/GS/GMerchant/GP for the first 4 cycles if you want to spawn a cheap GS from Education. I usually do GA, GG, GW, GS, GE, merchant, for this reason. (GA to finish Tradition faster, GG comes in handy for securing 5th-tier resources and Natural Wonders from CS, GW to power through Rationalism)
 
You could grab a GE and rush hagia if you really want that prophet without setting back your GS generation.

Edit: lol nvm, the GE will set it back anyway. What a lame glitch.
 
Yes, the Great Prophet is an exception -- all that was in that post was confirmed in game.

Why is the Great Prophet an exception? Who knows. It was decried as a bug long ago, but there have been patches since then, so Firaxis either doesn't think it's a bug or has given it a lower priority. I suspect they did it on purpose, to give Maya a slight nerf.
 
So, why is everything calculated in gold? Well, that's because it doesn't matter WHAT we use as the baseline. I can just as well use hammers, or food, or science. We just have to compare everything. When it comes to resources, this is easy, just pick one as the "currency" of comparison. Gold happens to be the currency of this game, so it's less steps removed than most other things.

Saw this a few days ago, and I wanted to respond.

Obviously, ranking civilizations entails comparing them. But I resist the idea that the game gives us a wholly robust metric to assess everything. Raw inputs like Hammers, Gold, Happy, etc. may have been designed around some proportional idea, but you simply cannot trade one input for another at that balanced rate. For example, even though you can trade Gold to CS's to get Culture/Happy/Food/etc, Gold gifts are woefully inefficient relative to using that Gold to rush unbuilt buildings, which is also extremely inefficient relative to the natural use of Hammers on those buildings. Other examples are more absurd. You can build units to delete them within your territory for Gold, but the exchange rate is just a token amount. You can also produce Gold in cities with Hammers using "Build Wealth", at a slightly less absurd but still very irrelevant rate.

So by comparing everything to Gold in the first place, you're going to make the mistake of undervaluing abilities that give you an input that you need more than another at a given stage of the game. You're also going to be unable to weigh abilities that are more flexible within the confines of the exchange alternatives the game presents. All that's on top of needing to make the assumption that each ability is going to be going at 100% all game, which others have brought up.

So in the Sweden v. Russia example, you have to equate Russia's Strategics to Gold then to Influence to even make the comparison. Beyond taking that whole process for granted, Gold is actually worth more than an equal amount of Influence bought with said Gold, precisely because it's more flexible. So, what's the point? To borrow the old cliche, you really are comparing apples to oranges.



Still though, that's not the main hangup with all the analysis Sweden is getting. Everyone is still missing the 400lb Gorilla hiding in plain sight. Sweden gets +10% to GP generation for each Declaration of Friendship. In peaceful, ideal games, that bonus can easily be equal to Babylon's Scientist generation, a UA that with the extra Academy is enough to justify the top tier. Minus that, factoring in the contingency of peaceful play, and you've got a great ability, plus the usefulness of generating 30-50% more Artists/Musicians/Writers. On Deity with whatever VC, you have to have plans for Influence issues, and that's easy for Sweeden. Also, there are maybe about 4-5 civs on Deity that I feel 100% comfortable with doing a Culture VC - Korea, Austria, possibly Poland and Maya, then Sweden. That's a pretty short list of really top civs. I can understand why you're not too hot on the Swedes if you're all about the Prophet/General gimmick, but really in BNW, this is a powerhouse Science/Culture civ. It's second to a few of the tops on those metrics, but not much lower.
 
I've actually addressed (as in anticipated those exact questions and preemptively answer them) all of those points you brought up... From the gold vs gold saved issue, to the why there is no supply and demand issue with gold food and hammers, to how Sweden's +gp% was factored in, esp for GWAMs...

Like I said before, irony not lost, I am not going to repeat myself on my points on Sweden and the value comparison until they are actually addressed (really impractical for me to keep typing out 3 page essays saying the same things about Sweden and having them ignored instead of addressed).


edit: Also, I hope you realize that in no world would Sweden generate 50% MORE GWAMs. A +50% bonus is additive to the +75% bonus you already have (+50% until ideology). So, Sweden gets +28% actual effect (compared to typical culture routes), which hits diminishing returns due to rising cost per GP. And that's assuming 5 friends, even past ideology. Your real results at best are something like 1-2 more of GW and GA.

Math. I've done the math very very favorably for Sweden. For culture victories for a semi wide civ, say 6-8 cities, which Sweden needs to be to take advantage of its extra GPs, India has a comparable total bonus tourism output. India. Where most people don't even count its UB as doing anything.

This is the difference between feelings and real math. Play a Sweden game, then play a Mongolia game. See how much extra GWAMs you get.
 
I've actually addressed (as in anticipated those exact questions and preemptively answer them) all of those points you brought up... From the gold vs gold saved issue, to the why there is no supply and demand issue with gold food and hammers, to how Sweden's +gp% was factored in, esp for GWAMs...

Like I said before, irony not lost, I am not going to repeat myself on my points on Sweden and the value comparison until they are actually addressed (really impractical for me to keep typing out 3 page essays saying the same things about Sweden and having them ignored instead of addressed).

Unfortunately, your quantitative analysis and 3-page essays do not change the fact that Sweden is top-tier *in my experience*. I go by the "it feels like easy mode when I play this civ" measurement, which is impossible to quantify, but it applies to Sweden, just like it applies to to Attila, and Shoshone, and a number of other civs that don't meet your criteria numerically I think. It applies to the Maya (the "WTF it's turn 90 and I'm already finishing Education??" reaction) and it applies to Sweden for sure. The +50% to EVERY GP generation, not just Great Scientists, makes SV go crazy fast. The Great Musicians that you normally delete during an SV run? Boom instant CS Ally anywhere on the map. The Great Prophets you sometimes have no choice but to spawn? (lots of faith, not at Industrial yet) Boom, instant CS Ally anywhere on the map. Grats me, I have every Cultural CS allied and I just completed Rationalism in record time. Later on, it's "Grats me, I own the World Congress vote".

I intentionally avoided Sweden for ages until I was going for achievements. After winning with them a few times, I changed my tune for good reason. They're good at *every* VC. But, I recognize this is a thread about math, not anecdotal results. Still, you're wrong. :p
 
I've actually addressed (as in anticipated those exact questions and preemptively answer them) all of those points you brought up... From the gold vs gold saved issue, to the why there is no supply and demand issue with gold food and hammers, to how Sweden's +gp% was factored in, esp for GWAMs...

Like I said before, irony not lost, I am not going to repeat myself on my points on Sweden and the value comparison until they are actually addressed (really impractical for me to keep typing out 3 page essays saying the same things about Sweden and having them ignored instead of addressed).

I've never really argued that your analysis of Sweden was wrong, although I think some of your static valuation of certain great people is offbase it probably all averages out in the end. My problem is your valuation of Russia. Russia does well when you have access to all the AI, you can sell nearly all of your strategics. Some for 2 gpt most for 1.5 got but on Continents maps Russia can't sell all their strategics in the early/mid game without diverting heavily from an already diverted tech path. That to me isn't worth delaying Education.

In the end though and what I've learn since playing five various settings for Russia since our last discussion Is that you really have to consider the flexibility of the 2 civs and I think that's where Russia has Sweden beat. To get the most out of Sweden's UA you have to be aggressive, sure you can have a few friends that mutually hate the Zulu or Mongolia but you have to be aggressive to generate your generals and admirals in the early and mid game.

You can go wide in a hurry with Russia if you have horses or iron in your capital and get the extra gpt to maintain a wider empire earlier. In short you've convinced me not to move Sweden but I still disagree with your total number on Russia. I think it should be closer to 12K-15K Gold that is more flexible than Sweden's Gold.
 
Sorry, my math was off. 75% extra GP pre ideologies, 100% after, without Sweden's UA. Looking worse and worse for Sweden's UA.

Sweden is flexible, but it is sub par at everything. CV, tourism compares to India, short of France. SV, it's in tundra, India's seriously comparable (think of it as a +5/10 food per city bonus for grass), even with the 1-2 GS bonus, and def worse than Aztec. DV, it falls far short of Greece, and even Portugal on resource value. Conquest, it has no inherent military bonuses at all (with just two mid tier UUs), so any bonus it gets is almost pure resource value.

I have also played many games with Sweden since BNW came out (and India and Austria and France, and Brazil, and Maya, and Poly). Sweden is at best comparable to India and significantly worse than the other civs in my experience at CV, which, not shockingly, fits with the math.
 
Here's another piece of anecdotal evidence regarding numerical analysis missing the point:

Shaka: t139, 300 beakers. Because he's such a great science civ. :p

A well-played map has vastly more impact on the outcome than the numerical value of a civ. Did you put a numerical value on Shaka's ability to bully other civs and win CS quests? Shaka has zero advantages for SV that Attila doesn't have... and Attila gets better production. Conclusion: Warmongers are better at SV? :p

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=370090&d=1392240111
 
I would be willing to wager that a lot of civs could do well in BPT on a map with 5 observatory-possible cities and large patches of Jungle, yes.

I don't see what this is supposed to prove.

Conquest, it has no inherent military bonuses at all (with just two mid tier UUs), so any bonus it gets is almost pure resource value.

If Caroleans are mid-tier I don't know what you consider high tier outside of Chu-Ko-Nu and Camel Archers.
 
I would be willing to wager that a lot of civs could do well in BPT on a map with 5 observatory-possible cities and large patches of Jungle, yes.

I don't see what this is supposed to prove.



If Caroleans are mid-tier I don't know what you consider high tier outside of Chu-Ko-Nu and Camel Archers.
i like them but ad is responding to my comparison of Sweden to Russia where I basically throw out Sweden and Russia's UU and UB to compare Siberian Riches with Nobel Prize. Seriously though are Carleton's better than Minutemen for example?
 
adwcta can you clarify your comparison between Sweden and India? I think I am missing something. It's hard for me to wrap my head around quantitatively comparing them, different as they are. Also, Sweden has been strong in my experience, and I can't imagine India competing with them for any VC, let alone the one I believe Sweden excels at (cultural, supplemented by domination of competitors). Maybe I need to give India a shot? I probably have prematurely written them off as worthless.
 
I've actually addressed (as in anticipated those exact questions and preemptively answer them) all of those points you brought up... From the gold vs gold saved issue, to the why there is no supply and demand issue with gold food and hammers, to how Sweden's +gp% was factored in, esp for GWAMs...

Like I said before, irony not lost, I am not going to repeat myself on my points on Sweden and the value comparison until they are actually addressed (really impractical for me to keep typing out 3 page essays saying the same things about Sweden and having them ignored instead of addressed).



Spoiler :
Well, I value by 300 turns. Game almost always lasts that long if you want it to, without losing.

Fine, snow day over here, so here's the math:

Russia = 10(avg value of horse/iron tile) x 6(avg # of such tiles in a 6 city empire, my compromise between tall and wide play) x 250 (turns) = 15000 gold (not savings, but actual flexible gold) over the course of the game (in this game, raw gold is worth at least double gold savings, at it's worst valuations, and is usually worth 4x); and

2.5(avg hammer gained per city) x 6 (cities) x 150 (average of turns remaining in game after obtaining resource) = 2250 hammers.

Total = 15000 gold, 2250 hammers.

Greece = 5x8x250 (250 turns for 8 CS of gold savings) + 5x8x200 (200 turns for the rest, because you actually have to find them, and then complete a quest; actually optimal CS play to wait for consulates to clear at this point, so that's 25 turns after discovery) = 18k of gold saved over the course of the game.

Total = 18000 gold saved.

Sweden:
In mid game+, 90 influence = 1k gold (or 1.25k gold without the quest). You should also be using your spies, to knock down the competitor's influence too. In any case, even if coups were not an option, you're basically selling your GWAMS for 1k gold each. I'm going to assume you open Honor, and ignore how bad the tree is. This is the most beneficial calculation for Sweden.

So, what's the worth of extra GGs? They're not worthless, as they expand your territory, and provide defense. How much would an aggressive game pay for a GG (once you already have 1)? I'd say 500 gold (would cost 250 gold each for ~6 tiles in the outter ring/unbuyable area; assume you only want 2 of those tiles, for 250 gold). Admirals are a bit more worthless, maybe 300 gold. Prophets are certainly not useless, especially with your faith pantheon, but let's say you found and enhance a religion, then gift the rest. Prophets are worth at least the gold/faith it takes to get them (or else you wouldn't), so 500, 800, 1200, 1700 faith. Faith is worth more than gold (e.g. they trade on a 1:4 ratio with gold when used to purchase faith buildings), I'm going to be generous to Sweden and say they're only worth double (since you'll be getting a ton of faith anyway). Next, you get to spread 3 times before gifting, so the value lost is 25% of that. I'm going to gift all four. 250, 400, 600, 850 = 2100

So, the total cost of gifting 5 GGs, 2 Admirals, 4 Prophets = 5200 gold.

Now, GWAMs. Let's say you generate (with your UA) 9, 8, 7 of W, A, M in the course of the game and gift all of them. Note that this bakes in the UA (I'm basically taking my stats from games I play with Aesthetics opener, presuming that Sweden won't be able to go for Aesthetics early while doing Honor Patronage and Rationalism). Anyway, the value of a golden age is going to surpass 1000 gold (it does so on just 4 cities, and gets ridiculous with more cities), so gifting artists is bad. Quite frankly, you're not going to finish Honor, Patronage, Rationalism and Autocracy tier 3 in a timely manner without some great works. We're ahead of your 20-GP curve anyway. So, let's say that you pop or GW the writers to have enough culture to finish this. Your first and only gifted writer is You have 7 GMs, which are worth whatever +2 culture / +2 tourism is worth to a war civ (not much). Since you would probably still build a 2 culture building that costs 2 gold upkeep in your cities, I think it's worth at least (150 turns x 2 upkeep = 300 gold + 300 gold for discounted hammer cost equivalents; to being worthless at the end). So, we'll set the value of the average GM over the course of the game at 300 gold.

7 musicians = 2100 gold.

Subtotal = 7300 gold.

Your CSs will send you random GPs. Out of 9 options, at a once per 20 turn clip, starting turn 160 = 6 GPs. Out of 9 late-ish game options, the only ones you'll keep are GSs, GAs, GWs, GMs (you'll get a better gold/influence total by actually using the thing) and GEs. The other 4 will be gifted. Trust me on the math on this, you'll end up with 1200 total gold cost and ~3 gifted GPs.

Total GP gifted = 21
Total gold value from gifts = 21000
Total opportunity cost of gifting = 8500 gold.
Net total gold saved= 12500 gold saved on CS influence.

Remember, Greece is at 18000. It also gets the bonus that CS influence recovers at twice the speed, which makes stealing a worker and failed coups less painful for Greece.

So, played by warring the ENTIRE game, and not taking into account any costs of war, Sweden gains 67% what Greece does. It will also generate GSs, GAs, GWs ~30% faster. (assuming you war with 1-2 civs, and still manage to be friends with more than half the other civs, because you own diplo hard).

To sum up:

Russia = Clearly better, in almost every way compared to Sweden and Greece. My math was for 6 cities to match Sweden's lowest diplo cost play style, but more cities means more benefits, and even at 4 cities, Russia's bonuses would still crush Greece/Sweden.
Greece = Pretty bad overall, but no tundra start.
Sweden = Has bonuses that cumulatively outrank Greece, very very slightly. But, starts in Tundra. And, is also premised on starting Honor, and fighting all game, while keeping good diplo. Only with this very specific strategy does Sweden get a tiny bit better than the absolute (by a mile) worst civ in the middle tier. This strategy Sweden needs is also comparatively difficult to pull off in BNW's war and diplo mechanics. On the other hand, you can start Tradition/Liberty, and lose out on a couple of GGs, which then basically makes you a worse version of Greece who is forced to fight all game to grind GG/Admirals. This is also all heavily premised upon actually getting a religion, which is not a guarantee, even with the tundra start (although, very likely). Sweden without the Great Prophet trick is awful.

So, I get that Sweden looks very similar to Greece, and as you see from the math above, it IS very similar to Greece. But, that's because Greece sucks, and is by far the worst civ on the mid tier. You can't really compare either to Russia. It's like when you do Rome math. Russia doesn't ever look powerful, but everything adds up to be a rather huge bonus.

Now, instead of moving Sweden up, is anyone convinced that we should move Greece back down? It's UA basically gives less than half the bonuses Russia's UA does for 6 cities, and about 2/3rds Russia's bonus for 4 cities.

I assume this is what you mean by a 3 page essay. I mean, posts stick around forever, so there's no reason to repeat yourself in the first place, if that were the issue. So consider for a moment that people might be disagreeing with you for reasons other than just failing to read what you wrote.

One reason for disagreement is that this sort of attempt at direct quantitative comparison makes no sense for this game in the first place. And no, the caveat that you admit some impracticality to the comparison doesn't just leap to the rescue and validate your approach. You seem to be saying that because your line of reasoning is a quantitative comparison, no one else's is, and no one has attempted a refutation following the same quantitative analysis, that your conclusion wins by default because you like quantitative data. When someone says that's not the right approach, you insist instead that they address your point, as if there is no approach other than quantitative. Not to psychoanalyze anyone too much, but you can write page after page modeling the inconsistencies, accounting numerically for different variations, and be 100% accurate on the arithmetic. That may even be the only way to objectively show one civ's benefits against another. But all that exercise in statistics shows zero unless people agree with the premise that the approach is actually valid. Which they don't. It just ends up showing nothing because people's experiences may not match.


And as for not reading the content of people's posts, I've explained several times how Sweden's UA can perform well in peaceful games with 4+ DoF's to go around. Another poster said, even before you started your net Gold per 300 Turns analysis, how the gift for 90 influence on Sweden could be considered "poop text". But I've highlighted above the places where you've analyzed Sweden in terms of the value of GP gifts only, under an Honor opener(??), and warring the entire game. I remember exactly one LP by the LC where that was done, and it was in G&K, not BNW. So even if that were optimal play with the Sweden in G&K, for the sake of argument, it's still possible that the style isn't current, or that another alternative is situationally just as good.

My sense of playing Sweden, which still hasn't been addressed, is that they're a civ with considerable mid and late game bonuses to both Science and Culture, which can be leveraged into game-defining bonuses in peaceful conditions. They also got a lot better in BNW due to GP generation being more important. Care to explain how the actual benefit of a 30%-40% boost to GPP during peace is worse than any of the civ's in mid tier?
 
edit: Also, I hope you realize that in no world would Sweden generate 50% MORE GWAMs. A +50% bonus is additive to the +75% bonus you already have (+50% until ideology). So, Sweden gets +28% actual effect (compared to typical culture routes), which hits diminishing returns due to rising cost per GP. And that's assuming 5 friends, even past ideology. Your real results at best are something like 1-2 more of GW and GA.

Math. I've done the math very very favorably for Sweden. For culture victories for a semi wide civ, say 6-8 cities, which Sweden needs to be to take advantage of its extra GPs, India has a comparable total bonus tourism output. India. Where most people don't even count its UB as doing anything.

This is the difference between feelings and real math. Play a Sweden game, then play a Mongolia game. See how much extra GWAMs you get.

To your edit, your math assumes Garden and National Epic in same city as all 3 Guilds. I want to play the civ that has river start bias.

Otherwise, just what Cromagnus said. We invented math. Math didn't invent us, buddy.
 
To repeat myself.

Trade routes directly exchange food hammers and gold at a 1:1:1.5/2 ratio. That's how you trade those 3 resources. You can't say we can't compare those values. That's false, you can have whichever you want. A food bonus is just a hammer boys is just a gold bonus, you just structure the game diff. As I said, less true for scare resources that are not easily tradable (e.g., you can't buy faith/culture). But food hammer gold? Perfect trades.

Gold and gold savings are calculated differently.

I would love to see the maps where you can't expand to a single crappy river. Does it happen? Sure, then you're at 50-75. But that's rare. And really? You can't put two guilds in one city? For CV musician guild is usually better saved, see deau's long CV thread math.

India has +2 tourism per city. Justice is arguing for Sweden CV due to the extra 2-3 GWAMs (or 3-5 if he runs musician guild all game Inadvisably). Since tourism is a scarce resource, this would be an important point if it were significant. I'm calculating how much extra tourism that's worth. Running a full culture game, Sweden's bonus is pretty much India's UB plus a free scientist or two (at the cost of a grass start AMD a ton of happiness). And this is all assuming 5 friends all game long and able to work specialist slots in the tundra (possible, but wrecks your science and growth). I use India as an example because people tend to think little of them, and I am trying to show why you should think little of Sweden too. I guess I should bring in France too. They also get so little love, despite a UI that generates more tourism than Sweden can dream of.
 
To repeat myself.

Trade routes directly exchange food hammers and gold at a 1:1:1.5/2 ratio. That's how you trade those 3 resources. You can't say we can't compare those values. That's false, you can have whichever you want. A food bonus is just a hammer boys is just a gold bonus, you just structure the game diff. As I said, less true for scare resources that are not easily tradable (e.g., you can't buy faith/culture). But food hammer gold? Perfect trades.

So because you get equal yields from one limited input, that indicates those yields are directly comparable across all sources in the game? You can see why the rest of us are banging our heads.

Let's add a little economics to your arithmetic. Marginal Cost. What's the cost of an ITR's worth of Hammers to an Empire full of Food ITR's? Answer - one Food ITR. What's the cost of a Hammer to an Empire full of Hammer ITR's? Answer- not known, but it is probably more expensive. Point is, UA's/UB's are more useful than their arithmetic measurements how because they leverage inputs in ways that go beyond the design of the standard civ without that UA.

But why are we comparing Gold in the first place? Oh yeah, because we made the assumption that we're dumping Gold to buy CS influence....



India has +2 tourism per city. Justice is arguing for Sweden CV due to the extra 2-3 GWAMs (or 3-5 if he runs musician guild all game Inadvisably). Since tourism is a scarce resource, this would be an important point if it were significant. I'm calculating how much extra tourism that's worth. Running a full culture game, Sweden's bonus is pretty much India's UB plus a free scientist or two (at the cost of a grass start AMD a ton of happiness). And this is all assuming 5 friends all game long and able to work specialist slots in the tundra (possible, but wrecks your science and growth). I use India as an example because people tend to think little of them, and I am trying to show why you should think little of Sweden too. I guess I should bring in France too. They also get so little love, despite a UI that generates more tourism than Sweden can dream of.

The point is, Sweden gets both Tourism and Science bonuses. On Deity CV's, you will make great use of both, since you need not only Tourism, but also not fall too far behind in tech so doing to hit Wonder techs on time. In all other games as well, you will need to hold your own in both the tech and culture races so you don't fall apart at the seams. So shooting down the benefits to Culture still leaves the Scientists, while every other civ with a tech bonus is top tier, and every civ with a pop bonus is at least middle, to my eye. I'm wondering just how highly you value Babylon's UA for the extra GS generation and how much for the Writing GS. A math person would want to rate each one at a certain value, and Sweden's UA is conditionally just as good as the second half, after all. I'm not saying that I value them as high as Babs, just that the benefits of that advanced Academy are much higher than arithmetic would show.


You're also making your own counter-argument with the India run-around. The reason India is disfavored is because of a trait that doesn't soundly fit into an arithmetic model - the drawback of the UA. If I could open 4-cities by Turn 50 and somehow slingshot into 10 pop each, then the Indian UA is an over-performer arithmetically. It's probably on Poland-level at that point. But, India is India. I'm not saying they're terrible, and I actually think that they're better than shoptalk paints them, but they are conditionally unable to take advantage of certain map conditions. France is also not terrible on raw input, but they get no Science/Happy/Expansion boost, and this is Deity. If it's me, I want one of those three. See that reasoning? It's intuitive and subjective, but it's not as if the list is entirely without intuition as it is. It's the nature of complex systems.
 
i like them but ad is responding to my comparison of Sweden to Russia where I basically throw out Sweden and Russia's UU and UB to compare Siberian Riches with Nobel Prize. Seriously though are Carleton's better than Minutemen for example?

I'd consider Caroleans equal to Minutemen. They are the two melee UU's that get bonuses that make them really good at melee's role. March is what you're looking for with your melee units; you need them to be able to heal back because their purpose is to sponge damage for your squishier but deadlier ranged units. Caroleans get this from the start, which means that you don't have to spend promotions on terrain based attacks for a unit that is generally going to be either fortified or sacking a city. You can get Medic instead. A Brandenburg Gate Carolean comes out of the gate with the ability to get 25 health back every turn if it stays fortified. That's a lot of damage you're not worrying about.

The Minuteman is a phenomenal UU as well of course. Getting to the front line faster than anyone in rough terrain makes swapping out injured units simple and easy. They're both better at the same job in different ways. Of course, in some instances you can get Minutemen that will upgrade into Caroleans, but that is rare enough that I probably shouldn't include it in tier discussions. :mischief:
 
There's a difference between complex systems and refusing to accept their parts as basic. As someone with an ivy league PhD in complex logical systems... I understand the limits of math and analytical logic on complex systems. I also understand their value. Refusing to acknowledge the game's ready (key word, as it builds in your economic scarcity argument) ability to trade on those three resources is quite silly. As I've explained before, it's not just trade routes, it's tiles too. It's selecting religious beliefs. It's everywhere you get these 3 resources. No one's running all hammer routes. A hammer bonus let's me maximize hammers when I want to, but for efficiency, I would almost never want to do that. I would turn my hammers into food or gold.

Certain things can be valued almost exactly. Now, the marginal value of getting all your scientists 25% earlier, and 1-2 more overall is calculable. This is unlike Austria's UA, or the Hun's early military expansion. India's UA can actually be calculated when you time value things, as I explained in my initial post, but that's a second order valuation with happy like culture and faith (it is less exact, as the resource is scarce by design).

Bab's early scientist is most of the value of the civ. You can hit writing by turn 15. The value for having that much science that early is off the charts. Babs is also explicitly NOT tundra, which is a very valuable start bias for science. Sweden is in tundra. That means at least half the food tiles in the capital and possibly other cities is 1 food (and resource) less than it should be. The science provided by the quicker and ultimately more GS will barely offset the loss of pop in the capital (which also significantly affects gold generated by city connections). Sweden is as much of a science civ as the Dutch are without polders. Try it. Seriously. Just load up a prince game, spread to 4 cities (or more, keeping the same number), keep 5 friends, run all science stuff, and see who finishes the tech tree first. You won't buy the math, so I have to ask you to experience it, but spoilers: it's the Dutch. India would beat them too, but you're going to argue for the slower city placement of your 4th city, so I'm not using them as an example.

I'm surprised you think they're good at science. Your experience should show you otherwise. But, having an extra GS or two does FEEL powerful doesn't it?
 
There's a difference between complex systems and refusing to accept their parts as basic. As someone with an ivy league PhD in complex logical systems... I understand the limits of math and analytical logic on complex systems. I also understand their value. Refusing to acknowledge the game's ready (key word, as it builds in your economic scarcity argument) ability to trade on those three resources is quite silly. As I've explained before, it's not just trade routes, it's tiles too. It's selecting religious beliefs. It's everywhere you get these 3 resources. No one's running all hammer routes. A hammer bonus let's me maximize hammers when I want to, but for efficiency, I would almost never want to do that. I would turn my hammers into food or gold.

Certain things can be valued almost exactly. Now, the marginal value of getting all your scientists 25% earlier, and 1-2 more overall is calculable. This is unlike Austria's UA, or the Hun's early military expansion. India's UA can actually be calculated when you time value things, as I explained in my initial post, but that's a second order valuation with happy like culture and faith (it is less exact, as the resource is scarce by design).

Bab's early scientist is most of the value of the civ. You can hit writing by turn 15. The value for having that much science that early is off the charts. Babs is also explicitly NOT tundra, which is a very valuable start bias for science. Sweden is in tundra. That means at least half the food tiles in the capital and possibly other cities is 1 food (and resource) less than it should be. The science provided by the quicker and ultimately more GS will barely offset the loss of pop in the capital (which also significantly affects gold generated by city connections). Sweden is as much of a science civ as the Dutch are without polders. Try it. Seriously. Just load up a prince game, spread to 4 cities (or more, keeping the same number), keep 5 friends, run all science stuff, and see who finishes the tech tree first. You won't buy the math, so I have to ask you to experience it, but spoilers: it's the Dutch. India would beat them too, but you're going to argue for the slower city placement of your 4th city, so I'm not using them as an example.

I'm surprised you think they're good at science. Your experience should show you otherwise. But, having an extra GS or two does FEEL powerful doesn't it?
1. Tundra starts typically give you 3-5 Deer which give you 2 hammers once you've built your camp Tundra capitals typical aren't in the early game its in the mid-game where they start to suffer.

2. Its ironic that you cite Babylon's early scientist and claim that there's a quantifiable value to that GS but completely neglect to value Sweden's GG gift on turn 20.
 
2. Its ironic that you cite Babylon's early scientist and claim that there's a quantifiable value to that GS but completely neglect to value Sweden's GG gift on turn 20.

cause no1 with a brain bigger as apes d compare something coming free with something with HUGE oportunity costs.

I do thnk it doesnt have to be discused (again) that not going usual tradition/liberty route is very bad gameplay for sweden
 
Top Bottom