I wrote a paper on a 650 AI Game data analysis (VP 4.5)

[L. Vern]

Some of you may be familiar with the AI autoplay game analyses I have been doing in this forum in the past. This semester, I expanded the scope of this initiative to a graduate data science course project where I explored additional topics and provided a written analysis that I hope you will find interesting!

As it is already formatted in a PDF, I hope you will forgive the lack of a formatted forum post as I have customarily done in the past. The preamble on pages 1-3 can safely be skipped by members of this community.

I would be honored if you gave it a read through and would love to hear your thoughts on the analysis, whether you agree, disagree, have ideas for further exploration that may be visited in future posts or just want to comment or add to something

 

[Phosphoraptor]

1 thing that stands out is the part about the disproportionate GP handicap yields, meaning that civs in AI games that are stronger due to GP focus may not be so strong for a player. This needs to be considered more for balance proposals regarding GP focused civs.

 

[N.Core]

1 thing that stands out is the part about the disproportionate GP handicap yields, meaning that civs in AI games that are stronger due to GP focus may not be so strong for a player. This needs to be considered more for balance proposals regarding GP focused civs.

Also, another thing to note is that Austria's GP modifier was applied twice. That's why Austria was always the leader in the chart. This bug has been fixed and now waiting to be released as an update. This will nerf Austria a lot.

 

[hokath]

From an academic presentation standpoint, I would encourage more complete figure captions that tell the reader more directly what they are meant to see (even if it repeats some things in the text).
It's a general truism that students undercook the captions.
E.g. in Figure 2 you could say what the vertical green line means. You might also tell the reader how many civs are statistically above average, average, and below average and what we're meant to think about that (grammar: "on winrate" in first sentence is redundant)
Figure 12 is better. Avoid being overly colloquial with "fun fact" etc., usually doesn't come off well in marking

I'll read over the actual content later. Looks great. I was amazed religion founding time had median=mean. Do you have an explanation for that?

 

[L. Vern]

From an academic presentation standpoint, I would encourage more complete figure captions that tell the reader more directly what they are meant to see (even if it repeats some things in the text).
It's a general truism that students undercook the captions.
E.g. in Figure 2 you could say what the vertical green line means. You might also tell the reader how many civs are statistically above average, average, and below average and what we're meant to think about that (grammar: "on winrate" in first sentence is redundant)
Figure 12 is better. Avoid being overly colloquial with "fun fact" etc., usually doesn't come off well in marking

I'll read over the actual content later. Looks great. I was amazed religion founding time had median=mean. Do you have an explanation for that?

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback and suggestions! My PhD colleague had many of the same criticisms when reviewing an earlier draft regarding figure captions lol - I added a bit of info after that but clearly still an insufficient amount, good to know. I like your suggestions for additional clarifying information, this is definitely something I'll keep in mind for future technical writing!
Regarding colloquialisms: In this case, as its more of an informal report rather than something being submitted for publication I decided to keep the fun facts as the instructions for the project were verbatim "do cool data science" and my prof that will be marking this likes fun facts LOL. For similar reasons, a lot of wording is a bit clunky and "unscientific", I am aware that words like "certainly" and "clearly" usually don't have any place in an academic publication of this nature but rewriting a lot of sections to sound nicer was just not something I prioritized particularly highly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[N.Core]

For similar reasons, a lot of wording is a bit clunky and "unscientific", I am aware that words like "certainly" and "clearly" usually don't have any place in an academic publication of this nature but rewriting a lot of sections to sound nicer was just not something I prioritized particularly highly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, it's better that you don't affirm the data with words like "certainly", "definitely", or "clearly". Let the data itself affirm the analysis and conclusion.

 

[azum4roll]

Domination Victory in VP is defined differently. You and your vassals need to own all original capitals to win.

 

[Chippy Smith]

do you have policy pick rate by civ in the logs?