I'll quote your earlier post: Here is what I meant when I said "mistake": When considering the decision to go for the Oracle, your Cost and Risk should be combined in the case of a failure. For example, let's use the %s you listed above: Success probability: 80% cost: 1st and 2nd settlers are delayed by 15 turns gain: research and GPP are improved Failure probability: 20% cost: 1st and 2nd settlers are delayed by 15 turns gain: none The "Failure" bracket is a big liability here. Clearly, in that 20% bracket the net result is negative. For the "Success" bracket, sure you have some compensation with faster research and GPP, but even simple observation shows that by delaying AH and BW you suffer in this situation. Does the positive effect cancel out the negative? Maybe, but the risk in the Success bracket is still significant, since you have sacrificed many early hammers to get there. All in all, you stand to lose a lot for the 20% chance of failure in exchange for a questionable gain for the 80% chance of success. It's a great prize if he gets the Oracle, I'll admit, but my point is that it will cost him whether he succeeds or fails (see my comments above). I don't deny the positives in the case of success. But the chance of failure is not trivial, and this will open up the possiblity of throwing away a very good game had a different plan been taken.