- May 25, 2017
An interesting claim on the 2,000-3,500 science number, considering in your own game within the timeframe that I'm talking about - the time between Satellites and nanotechnology - you have about 750 science as you finish Satellites, and around 1500 when you finish Nanotechnology which seems to be about in line with what I said - especially considering I usually don't have globalization when I hit those numbers. I hadn't even checked all of your screenshots before hand but upon review they seem to be very much inline with what I said, only being inflated by about 25% on the high end, again due to the massive size of your empire from going to war which is easily the most powerful "exploit" used in this game which you still haven't addressed and is the most important point I'd like you to respond to. I tend to hit the 800-1200 number on less than 10 cities in teh same timeframe for reference.
Considering you ended with about 2,000 science in this game compared to your 3,500 number, I'll assume this was just a bad game and you could easily hit a 180 turn win with a real science civ and no war + the other exploits?
I would consider conquering the AI far more powerful than chopping, plundering, trading or neighbourhood gold, so its interesting that you didn't ban them and would be highly interested in seeing you run a game without war?
Might be a reading comprehension failure here, and in fact the more I read the more I'm convinced we're having simple communication errors.
The extra support of this is because I'm trying to talk about general cases, with experience from many games, where you might not always get the good great scientists in games where you're not going to war but you keep bringing it back to this specific game, which is not the point I'm trying to make at all because I don't think this specific game is representative of what you claim it to be representative of.
The fundamental criticism here is that your performance while impressive is not perfectly repeatable, scientific, or consistent and cannot be used to generalise about how quickly every civ in the game can win a SV because there are so many variables to consider and "RNG" can quite easily affect your game.
All your critics are simply focusing on the "no war" setting, which is unreasonable as it is not stable at all. If players only play "no war" setting, why does it exist so many different types of units and so many techs that provide nothing but combat bonus( e.g. unlock a unit )
Sure you can claim that this thread doesn't prove that ban exploits+no war shall yield below T200 on random maps. Yes I admit that. However, I never tried to prove that, I just said with "ban exploits" you can still win SV below T200 on a random map with random Civ (which is an below-average-strength SV Civ, according to your tier lists), that's exactly what this thread is talking about.
About the "tier list" thread,
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/science-victory-gs-elimination-thread.654506/, Scythia rates 42th among 46, and many people here are criticizing Scythia for "they already know" Scythia being overpowered in SV, interesting.
And what will you do if AI declares on you following your "no war" setting(like what Canada did on me)? Just abandon the whole game?
As for your 800-1200, your assumption is that science output in future era shall be the average between your science output between Satellites and Nanotechonology. If that's your game, I have nothing to say. I guess we're talking about how many turns the future era tech placement shall affect victory time, and I guess we shall refer to SPT on future era, not the "average SPT between satellites and nanotechnology".
Do you stand still at 800-1200 even on future era?
As for me, I usually triple my science yield on future era than that when I research satellites, so SPT on future era shall be 2000~3500.
That's what I have said, discussing with you will only cause misunderstandings between both of us, as 1: you don't have a systematic view of how ~T170 SVs (or ~T195 ban exploits SV) shall be, and also, 2: I don't have an idea of what your games are like.