An alternative Deity Tier List (a.k.a. 'Don't Forget About Conquest')

[Sessy]

I would make an argument against putting Arabia and Persia as tier 1.
If we consider a tier 1 civ as something that is almost like playing on a lower difficulty level, I don't think these 2 civs have enough of a bonus.

Arabia: the bazaar is good to allow for lux trades with the AI and getting a bit more happiness, but I don't think its gamebreaking. the camel archer is indeed one of the best UUs in the game, but it requires you to build that unit and go to war with it. I admit that going through a bit of war is quite common, but you're forced to play with that plan in mind which some players don't like to do. their UA is not exceedingly impressive either.

Persia: 50% longer golden ages is equivalent to 1 wonder/social policy. the +1 movement is great but only for war as well. immortals are good but I don't think even with +1 move and 10% combat bonus it's that great as a unit because so many battles are won with ranged units. satrap's court is about the same level as the bazaar, more happiness and more gold is always nice, but it's not as blatant as the other bonuses we see tier 1 civs have.

Those 2 civs are very good, but they don't offer strong bonuses that you would benefit from regardless of your game plan and style. the 50% longer golden age is great, I admit, but the other benefits from these civs are not on the same level as poland babylon etc. for tier 1 civs I think the benefits should be strong, and accessible every single game regardless of your start or how you choose to play.

 

[consentient]

I've played several games using a three city Honor Opening with Austria and its much better than a neutral civ with no UA.

I concede that I could be underestimating Austria slightly, but your calculations of 'the price of a settler' discounts what you have to do to make the ally. You could of course be lucky and have a CS ally with you when you've done nothing out of the ordinary, and it could be in a really great position, and could have decent troops, etc. But I've just never seen it happen. Seeing would be believing. Maybe post some screenshots, etc.?

Also, you talk about getting a 5th city, etc, etc. Seems like you're wanting to add a cherry to a cake that is already quite good. My understanding is that three or four cities is enough
to win SV easily, assuming all the other conditions that would make SV easy. I don't really think the extra city, especially not bought this way, would make enough of a difference to warrant calling it making the game easier. Likewise you can already make a big mid game push. Extra cannon fodder is overkill really. Either you're really good at manoeuvring troops in which case you don't need more and your cities build wealth, or you are sloppy like me and your cities are already building units. 5-10 more units is not going to change the game, is it?

But I'm open to changing my mind if I saw something that you want to put forward.

I would make an argument against putting Arabia and Persia as tier 1.
If we consider a tier 1 civ as something that is almost like playing on a lower difficulty level, I don't think these 2 civs have enough of a bonus.

Arabia: the bazaar is good to allow for lux trades with the AI and getting a bit more happiness, but I don't think its gamebreaking. the camel archer is indeed one of the best UUs in the game, but it requires you to build that unit and go to war with it. I admit that going through a bit of war is quite common, but you're forced to play with that plan in mind which some players don't like to do. their UA is not exceedingly impressive either.

The UA is excellent for CV and DV, especially on Pangaea. If you have a religion, and you're much more likely to have one playing as Arabia, it really helps to spread it. CAs are so good I think the developers actually messed up and didn't realise what they were doing. One of, if not the best land units. And faith and money are really useful for fast Freedom SVs, so I can't see the problem about considering them as making the game much, much easier. Harun swims in gold, and gold is really great.

Persia: the +1 movement is great but only for war as well...immortals are good but I don't think even with +1 move and 10% combat bonus it's that great as a unit because so many battles are won with ranged units.

The bonus is for all your units, including ranged. It means that your XBs can move and fire twice Or move, fire, move back. Sick. It also makes workers work much faster, since they can move 2 squares and begin improvement

Also, about the 'only for war' thing. I tried really hard to show you that whether you go peaceful or conquering, having a good army is really important. When I played DCL #3 and went for a peaceful game on a continent with 3 psychos, having endless GAs and troops that could manoeuvre that way was actually one of the times that the game has MOST felt like a different difficult level. And when you go aggressive with them using Liberty, well, it's incredible.

satrap's court is about the same level as the bazaar, more happiness and more gold is always nice, but it's not as blatant as the other bonuses we see tier 1 civs have...for tier 1 civs I think the benefits should be strong, and accessible every single game regardless of your start or how you choose to play

I didn't even consider Satrap's Court in my decision to put them up top. If you do things right, Persia are definitely god-tier in my book. Next time you're playing, think about what it would be like if you were in a permanent golden age or if all your units had 1 extra movement.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

it's a good list but I would not put Persia in tier 1. they are excellent but I find them to be more in the tier 2 level, particularly at deity when you have little chance at CI for their awesome UA. and I would put Japan up one tier purely for the warmongering ability with Bushido. that UA is seriously strong and the civ never gets much credit. your combat strategy at deity can really change on times to heal/sacrifice units if you know they will get full dmg capabilities at low health. their UUs arent good but their UA is great, enough to make up for the UUs, imo.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

It's not a list for warmongers, it's an overall list that recognises the fact that conquest as a dynamic should not be ignored as an either/or strategy. In fact one can war and then win by other means. Hence why some people write 'Not entirely peaceful SV' when they win on the DCL, for example.

Then we agree on this
From the quoted bold text it looked like you were giving much more value to war ability than anything else. This would have put Mongols in the God Tier and i see it's in tier 3 so i guess i didn't fully understood what you were doing.
My bad for throwing an answer before you had finished your work

 

[kb27787]

Srsly Persia being ranked in god-tier? Persia by no means turns deity into immortal (they are utterly useless if your empire is in single-digit happiness); you have, what, maybe the first two golden ages to make your move with CBs that can fire and move afterwards, but after that, esp. if you conquered or went wide, the next golden age will take forever once those cities start costing unhappiness; I cannot comprehend why they would be above England (1 extra spy and 2 dominant UUs, one of which does not need a golden age to be able to fire with impunity) or Aztec (UA + UB)

Granted, I do not think many civs make it such that it feels you are playing on immortal... only Korea/Babylon and Maya

btw I roll deer and forest citrus with Celts pretty often (forest bias usually means lots of deer actually); I would put Celts by far above Sweden. (Who the heck builds lots of melee Caroleans anyway at that era where you beeline artillery? OTOH pictishes which pillage without movement cost is pretty much "march" anyway and they are strong for their era)

Germany in 2nd tier must be a joke, right? You get, what, brutes most of the time early game, and barb camps don't last long mid to late game anyway.

Btw what did Portugal do to be in bottom tier? You get much more gold on TR, even if the TR is with a CS AND a whole of extra luxes if you ever decide to go for frigates/battleships on water maps the tech is just right up there on the way. Putting them below trash like India is a joke. They are very similar to Morocco (I would say even better) which you've put in the 2nd tier.

 

[consentient]

if you conquered or went wide, the next golden age will take forever once those cities start costing unhappiness

I don't have happiness problems in my games. In both peaceful and warring games with Persia I'm able to enjoy almost constant GAs, with only a maximum of a few turns in between. Try Satrap's Court + Protectionism + Meritocracy/Military Caste, etc, etc. And in my peaceful game I used ALL my GAs for Golden Ages just to keep everything beaming.

Who the heck builds lots of melee Caroleans anyway at that era where you beeline artillery?

Who says you build them? You upgrade warriors into them And once upgraded, I use them to great effect, thanks.

OTOH pictishes which pillage without movement cost is pretty much "march" anyway and they are strong for their era)

So you don't see the point in building something that can turn into Infantry and Mech Infantry if needed, but you want something on the Lancer path?

Germany in 2nd tier must be a joke, right? You get, what, brutes most of the time early game, and barb camps don't last long mid to late game anyway.

Again, I'm not sure how we're playing differently but I never have a problem completing more than a few barb quests and building an army almost for free, comprised mostly of archers, actually (those terrible units, right!) which then costs far less to maintain, and if I end up in the Modern Era, I have THE best UU to finish the game with.

Btw what did Portugal do to be in bottom tier? You get much more gold on TR, even if the TR is with a CS AND a whole of extra luxes if you ever decide to go for frigates/battleships on water maps the tech is just right up there on the way. Putting them below trash like India is a joke. They are very similar to Morocco (I would say even better) which you've put in the 2nd tier.

You're comparing civs with civs again. I see Portugal's advantages as being really mediocre. Caravels suck, I have to send settlers halfway across the map to get Luxs I can just take by force or trade for, and I waste my military being some kind of aquatic GM? Weird and not great, IMO.

Also, I put Morocco in the Middle (3rd) tier because they have a desert bias and we all know how OP the ol' DF can be. Without the desert bias (if they were for example called Burkina Faso) they would be lower. But their UA gives a bonus to the AI which I have proven can make the difference between an early DoW or not. Portugal don't get that.

Oh, and you know, if you don't like my thread, you can just not post in it rather than call it a joke. I've been really outspokenly kind and positive about your ideas of no-bribe peaceful play, and grateful that it taught me a lot. You could return some of the humility if you wanted.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I didn't want to get into this too much. I don't understand why you would make a list like this and expect everyone to agree and be nice about what they think. When you put yourself out on the a limb like this you are going to get some positive remarks but most players that post will start pointing out what they think is wrong with the list/post. The same goes for strategies.(Just look at all the hate for the "Small Piety Strategy") You have to be willing to take harsh comments when you post up your ideas and beliefs. So what if someone calls a part of this list a joke? It is your list and you just have to be able to let the negativity slide right off your back. I also do not think any player is trying to be harsh or mean. They are just expressing an opinion. Nobody will every be able to agree 100% on a list like this because a lot of the Civs are too close to be able to move from tier 3 to tier 4... etc.

Not everyone agreed on the original list to begin with which sort of started this new list!

I think the list is very good and I think that consentient has done an outstanding job posting ideas and helping the community but I find that he gets a little too offended or defensive too quick when another player attacks his idea or map or post. You can never have a post that is going to be all positive, since this game is very subjective... that is just life.

One example is in the General Forum Post... "Liberty Does Not Work For Deity" ... almost all players have bashed the OP for posting this idea that it does not work and he has pretty much took it all in stride.

 

[DocRock]

I like your list. In my oppinion, there is no 100% peaceful game in civ. Such a game would be too boring I guess. Therefore, I always value Domination abilities pretty high. Going for an early conquest trip with 1 or 2 additional capitals seems to ne the best way to get an easy victory, regardless of the type you are aiming for.

But, I am only playing on Immortal so I have no idea how the Civs behave on Deity and therefore I will not comment on the list itself.

 

[stormtrooper412]

A list like this is very ungrateful a job, to say the least. Especially since everyone has different affinities and such and such. I for example can only agree/disagree on civs I played. So, I guess putting down Persia as top tier is surprising to most people, me included, I really can't say anything about it because I've never played Persia and I don't really find their traits and perks that much appealing, as in, I doubt I'll ever have a shot at using them optimally

 

[consentient]

I don't understand why you would make a list like this and expect everyone to agree and be nice about what they think.

Of course I don't expect everyone to agree!

But KB could have disagreed more politely, IMO, that's all.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

On the note of Austria, I've played a game with them and the ability was...alright. If you're me and bad at keeping an up to date army the 4-5 units who are a couple of turns ahead of your own army is pretty neat. I won't say it's that great though, it costs a ton of gold and it's probably better to keep the city state allied (especially if it's Mercantile) unless you need a landing point, in which case it would be pretty good, I'd imagine. However, I think the Coffee House is actually pretty good, and pulls it up a bit. +5% production towards everything is good if you want to get out units, which let you win wars, and +25% great people generation can be pretty nice in a city with guilds and such. One thing I like about it though is that it can be built in cities on a hill. See, Austria's hill bias means you can settle on hills early, which boost production handsomely, which lets you get out a bigger army. The drawback is that you're trading the late game advantages of a Windmill. But Austria doesn't need to worry about that, so it ends up with some pretty strong hammer output. The Hussar is probably a good thing to have around to, it has extra movement and sight over the Cavalry, which I think is pretty good. It's flanking bonus isn't worth much though, but I'd hardly say Austria is a bottom tier civ.

Anyway, moving on, I'm assuming the Huns aren't first tier despite this being more war-focused because they aren't quite as versatile as Babylon and the like?

 

[nickytootricky]

Interesting post, consentient, as always. I don't always agree with all you say, but sooner or later you will have to stop being so humble about your status as a top level Civ 5 Deity player.

Now I've said that, let me offer my penny's worth.

I think that what's actually needed are tier lists for the different victory types. And I guess that what we also might need (or find interesting) would be tier lists for quick victories vs. more guaranteed victories.

I generally don't have the time to go through with dom victories (exceptions are quick games like with Attilla which can be pretty fun). Again it goes back to why we play. I play Deity because otherwise it isn't fun, but in general I play civ to relax and switch off from stressful things in my life.

I don't know about others, but I start a game with a set VC in mind and go there regardless. If we're talking about diplo or science victories, in terms of win % they're very easy. So maybe tier lists for winning CVs, DomVs, and QUICK diplo and science vics would be meaningful. General lists are pretty meaningless.

 

[kb27787]

Of course I don't expect everyone to agree!

But KB could have disagreed more politely, IMO, that's all.

My apologies, it was not in my intentions to be rude. Btw I did not mean the whole thread was a joke (I mean most people would agree with 60-90% of the list), I only meant that Germany being higher than very good civs (IMO anyway) is, to me, inconceivable.
But you know, the point of opening threads like these are for discussion, is it not? So naturally we should just let people debate it out and see what the general consensus is without taking things personal. If everyone already agrees then there's no point of the thread.

That said, you mention protectionism, and honor tree (means you commit pretty much to full-blown domination or bailout diplo/SV/etc. and not just partial conquering, as that is a huge price to pay in terms of SPs); Satrap's court... well...

On the contrary I build Celidh halls pretty much every game (aesthetics policy speeds up their building dramatically) I really don't build that many banks that often for one thing. (which perhaps is also why I find Germany's Hanse to be quite underwhelming as well)

Dunno but I think lancers with free pillage and a 20% combat bonus is really good no? (when you have a bunch of ranged units you just need horses to deal the finishing blow to the city; ground infantry are too slow and cumbersome); I have yet to see infantry be used in any mass amounts in your domination games TBH (precisely because they get choked up and sometimes just get in the way), but I've seen landships/tanks in mass amounts.

But, anyway, Portugal does not need a settler (what are you talking about? Feitorias are built by WORKERS, and if you go domination, you have a huge excess of them); and it provides you a free copy so if you already have the lux, well, you can sell your own copy that is in your lands and not sacrifice any happiness. Not to mention that in peacetime they fulfill WLTKD quests which might otherwise cost you an arm and a leg to obtain)
Naus, while weak on their own combined with 25% cheaper buys from commerce and Big Ben and whatnot can actually create a perpetual rush-buy loop resulting in free gold every turn (if you don't mind all the clicking).

Anyway, sure, if you value DF that much Morocco is better (meh; Morocco's gold/TR bonuses are early game; the 2 culture helps in some circumstances; whereas Portugal's is mid to late game once the cargo ships start arriving; and frankly Portugal's is much more powerful in magnitude)... but if we are taking bias into account, then Sweden definitely needs to be lower (tundra is weak even with the pantheon, it's still a one food tile which cannot be farmed unless next to water)
(still, I'd say why don't you put Portugal above India?)

btw in the Germany DC all I got from camps were a stinking brute and a handaxe. I was delighted to find a lone archer sitting in the barb camp on t5 or so, when my warrior killed the archer, I got nothing... (I mean you get 22% brute (ugh), 22% handaxe (dunno why but to me they kinda stink with just one range...), 22% archer (the one people want) early, and there's a 33% chance you get nothing); I dunno the jury is out on this one, but I don't think you can expect to get a whole army for free with just barb camps.

 

[InDubioProReo]

I think you need to put China in Tier 1. The extra attack not only means your conquests are faster, but also your units gain experience faster. It is really quick to hit Range and then you just steamroll 1-2 more civs after your initial conquest, which leaves you in a good shape for the rest. I've said a lot of times in these forums that I had trouble with Deity Dom, and I did not like fighting before Artillery. First game I tried it with China, I got a DomV on Pangaea (t.322, not the best time because India was persistent and my land route to Washington was a choke point)

 

[Manpanzee]

I think you're really underrating Siam. Naresuan's Elephants are SERIOUSLY buff -- they're stronger than Musketmen! And they have 3 moves! And +50% against mounted! They're basically Renaissance Era Tanks. The Elephants are also well-positioned on the tech tree -- they don't require any techs that you aren't picking up anyway on the way to Scientific Theory. Basically Siam gets midgame Tanks for a minimal tech cost.

And the UA is very good, too. So what if it doesn't directly make City-State alliances easier? It makes City-State alliances BETTER, and City-States are already great. It's a bonus to something you would be doing anyway.

 

[consentient]

anyway, Portugal does not need a settler (what are you talking about? Feitorias are built by WORKERS, and if you go domination, you have a huge excess of them

A slip of the tongue. Of course I mean workers. If I go Dom with Portugal, compared with the Neutrals, then I would have a little bit of extra gold, which I don't need, since my GPT goes to over 200GPT very quickly. I would have a bit of extra happiness, which I also don't need, assuming I'm prepared to take workers halfway across the world to waste maybe 20 turns total (including the return journey) building some kind of fort. Instead, I could use those workers for roads, pillage repair and baiting/blocking/reconnaissance, and make far more gold from them.

Of course I created this thread so there could be a discussion. But calling someone's choice (I also knew you didn't mean the whole thread) a joke is not part of a discussion. There are far better ways of saying it, in my view.

For Celts, I don't think it's practical to waste 2 policies in Aesthetics just to have happiness in a Dom game, since happiness is not needed. And in a peaceful game I don't need happiness either. Like I said, I'm open to changing my mind slightly on the Celts. Maybe if and when they turn up in the DCL, it will be a good opportunity for testing.

Re: bailout: If you look at my T220ish screenshot you can see that bailout VCs of any kind are generally available, if I can't complete the domination sweep or get weary of it.

I'm also open to Germany going down, since, as I said, this is not just a DomV list, and I guess they don't have much else going for them, but the early army is really easy to put together. Maybe I can show you how if I ever get my screen recording software to work properly?

 

[Lord Yanaek]

OK. I'll try to be constructive this time. Don't take anything personally thought. If i don't agree with something, i don't have anything against you, just different views of some civs (and i know you are much better to war than i am so some civs can have powers hidden to me)

1st Tier ('God tier')
The Inca
Persia

Persia is a very good civ, but i'm not sure it can make god tier. Sure +2 on a building you want in all cities is great, immortals are good for early defense and some offense (but upgrade into a not so useful line) and the UA is good (but not easy to control until you have GAs). I think this would make them Tier2.
Incas can have great games (like the DCL) or not and depend so much on the map generated that there is not much you can do. I've had games where i ended in areas with a few hills and only a single 3 tiles mountain patch. On such games they mostly have reduced road cost. That's nice, but not great. They might range from Tier1 to Tier3 depending on map, so either i would put them in both with some notes explaining why, or put them in Tier2 with some notes explaining why.

2nd Tier ('Upper Tier')
The Huns
Germany
Sweden

Huns? They have a better production and fast razing help with wars but the rest of their advantages are short lived. Horse archers are really nice but why are they higher than Mongols?
Sweden. I like them, their UA is good for various games and victories (not only Diplo) and Caroleans are a good, if somewhat late, UU, but their second UU is sort of worthless and would drop them 1 rank in my view.
Germany. Well, i would consider them Tier3 or maybe lower. They can have a slighly bigger army but only slightly. Panzers are nice but come late in the game and Hanses, while giving a good bonus require that you send your TRs to city states, something you don't always want to do. Barb camps capture is highly unreliable (esp on Deity where you might end up with no camp to capture at all) and i tend to rank unreliable abilities lower.

3rd Tier ('Middle Tier')
America
Denmark
Spain

America. I might be over evaluating them, but maybe i would put them in tier2. Early scouting with Manifest Destiny is always better making their early game stronger. They have a game long military advantage thanks to their vision. They have one of the very best UU. Their second UU comes very late of course. They are definitely stronger than Germany for me.
Denmark? Really? I'm curious to see your detailed write up. I don't disagree here, i don't have any direct experience with them.
Spain Tier 3? They are Tier 1-Tier5 depending on map so yeah, probably tier3 is the middle point

4th Tier ('Lower Tier')
Songhai
Assyria

I'm surprised to see you ranked Songhai and Assyria so low considering your warmonger "flavor". I hope to see a Songhai DCL in the future as i've never played them on Deity but i remember lots of early gold from going honor/barb hunting early (this is not random like Germany) and taking cities later. Mud pyramid helps you with culture and will give you faith even if you don't have a good pantheon without gold cost.
Assyria is a bit tricky but UA can help catch up on tech you neglected while going for wars and they can produce ever slightly more experienced units.
Those 2 would definitely not go to tier2, but maybe tier3. Would need a DCL to test them probably

5th Tier
Iroquois

Why does everyone hate Iroquois
They can have free roads on the right map. Of course they are map dependent but Incas are also map dependent. Well, it's true that they are not very good most of the time.

 

[kb27787]

Now that I actually take a look at it...


5th Tier - These civs have almost no relevant advantages at all, or have actual disabilities in some situations

Byzantium -YES
Iroquois -YES (I mean Carthage gets free harbors which are essentially free roads, whereas these guys NEED the forest/jungle to be in their own borders... UU loses to the jaguar and UB is worse than a real workshop because you lose the 10%)
Venice -YES
Austria -well... (as I said, while warmongering is considered in this list, it does not exclude playing peacefully, so selling cities is kinda... broken in some games... dunno about this one)
Indonesia -YES
France -(actually... France is not completely worthless... esp. since you did not put the likes of India in this tier; if anything chateaux are mini-moais of a sort)
Portugal -(I'm sure I've said everything already)
Carthage -YES

@OP
Perhaps why don't we do something like a poll of some sorts, ask people to post a list of the civs, with a rating from 1-5 for each civ (and we can tally up all the scores and average them?)

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

The Huns are probably higher than the Mongols because they war for very cheap very early. They're short lived, but their impacts are massive. The cities you can take with Horse Archers and Battering Rams leaves your foes crippled and yourself with a ton of extra land. You can spam these out, rush someone, destroy them before you meet half the civs in the game, and have their land for yourself.

Dunno but I think lancers with free pillage and a 20% combat bonus is really good no? (when you have a bunch of ranged units you just need horses to deal the finishing blow to the city.

I don't think that Sipahi are any stronger than lancers, but if they are...it doesn't matter much. Lancers are honestly pretty useless. Cavalry aren't much farther along and are noticeably stronger.

 

[consentient]

Those 2 would definitely not go to tier2, but maybe tier3. Would need a DCL to test them probably

I agree a test is in order for those two. The reason Assyria and Songhai are so low down is that their units come at the wrong time. The best time for UUs is either really early (Attila) or mid game (Renaissance/Industrial). I find that by the time I have Siege Towers my opponents have too much defines against them. Maybe I am playing them wrong by not beelining Maths quite enough? Also, ManCavs are nice and all but since I drain the cities' health with XBs anyway, I don't WANT knights with no city penalty. Again, maybe I'm not playing them optimally and there is a way to use them to hideously powerful effect. Maybe we should lobby Acken for a Songhai or Assyria map, maybe in a few map's time, as we just had The Huns.

Now that I actually take a look at it...
Austria -well...so selling cities is kinda... broken

I would never do it because it doesn't suit my style AND I think it's too gamey. If the best you can say about a civ is that it can buy CS only to sell them for a profit which shouldn't be so high because the game code is wrong, I don't think that salvages them. I want the CS to give me quests and love me and pour their tributes into my coffers. Not have to actually administrate them. I'm a conqueror, not Paul Bremer.

France is not completely worthless... esp. since you did not put the likes of India in this tier; if anything chateaux are mini-moais of a sort)

Chateaux are, IMO, a waste of farmland/hammerland, and I have a higher opinion of India than you do because of what India's UA does even though it doesn't say it does. Maddjinn explained it very well in his LP for those that don't know what I'm talking about (not saying YOU don't know, KB).

@OP
Perhaps why don't we do something like a poll of some sorts, ask people to post a list of the civs, with a rating from 1-5 for each civ (and we can tally up all the scores and average them?)

I'm not really a fan of democratically-produced lists in this context. I'm open to argument on my list, but it's in no way a communitarian project. Just because someone says something or votes doesn't make it so. Look at the world of politics IRL!

The best solution I can offer is this. If people think a civ is badly placed on my list, they can demonstrate (in a DCL play through write-up, or in-depth article or Acken-type mathematical treatment, or VidLP) how a certain dynamic is undervalued/overvalued, and I'll certainly take it on board. As of right now, I've already indicated that I'm willing to listen to arguments about a number of civs that have been brought up in this thread.

Now that I've finished the Huns map I'll return to the detailed analysis part so you can guys can see precisely where I'm coming from.

[EDIT: I've started the process of fleshing out the analysis, but it will obviously take some time. Please feel free to post comments in the meantime, but I'll refrain from further response until I'm done with the comments, for the most part.]