Keep in mind in Steam you can very easily change your name. If someone gets a bad reputation for themselves all they have to do is make a quick edit and no one will really be any wiser unless they dig into the actual Steam profile itself.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
MrGameTheory Strategic analysis of Civ 5
- Thread starter MrGameTheory
- Start date
- Status
Keep in mind in Steam you can very easily change your name. If someone gets a bad reputation for themselves all they have to do is make a quick edit and no one will really be any wiser unless they dig into the actual Steam profile itself.
I have analyzed MGT's analysis and found it not totally lacking merit.
EVERY Civ game has rewarded a turtle strategy followed by a breakout, rinsed and repeated. Civ4, with its emphasized SOD was the least rewarding to this strategy, as one simply kept up a constant rush, but as MGT states, the balance between building and expanding has been somewhat restored and one must now build up superiority to overwhelm defences, or suffer crippling losses.
I'm not as completely certain of the scout theory, but in many games of this type, it is more important to have any unit in a space than the quality of the unit, as long as that unit is not overwhelmed by a single attack. In other words, the scout is there to keep the enemy off the ranged units, not to do any damage. However, IF the scout is not upgradeable (I don't think it is), then the loss of production in creating a dead end unit is (possibly) not worth it.
Also, it seems infantry whilst good on the defense, as MGT states, will suffer losses on the way in against ranged. It might be better to execute a mobile defence so that the defending units can be used to attack with, when coming out of the turtle, rather than having to build an entirely new attacking force. I'm not sure how MGT plans to expand his shell, with only scouts and ranged to attack with?
EVERY Civ game has rewarded a turtle strategy followed by a breakout, rinsed and repeated. Civ4, with its emphasized SOD was the least rewarding to this strategy, as one simply kept up a constant rush, but as MGT states, the balance between building and expanding has been somewhat restored and one must now build up superiority to overwhelm defences, or suffer crippling losses.
I'm not as completely certain of the scout theory, but in many games of this type, it is more important to have any unit in a space than the quality of the unit, as long as that unit is not overwhelmed by a single attack. In other words, the scout is there to keep the enemy off the ranged units, not to do any damage. However, IF the scout is not upgradeable (I don't think it is), then the loss of production in creating a dead end unit is (possibly) not worth it.
Also, it seems infantry whilst good on the defense, as MGT states, will suffer losses on the way in against ranged. It might be better to execute a mobile defence so that the defending units can be used to attack with, when coming out of the turtle, rather than having to build an entirely new attacking force. I'm not sure how MGT plans to expand his shell, with only scouts and ranged to attack with?
bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
I'm still laughing hard that anyone thinks they can make a good strategy for a game without playing it or even knowing all the information about it. Saying that it's the "only" dominant strategy is even more laughable. Don't get me wrong,
I love speculating about strategy. But trying to claim "right" or "wrong" strategies at this point is ridiculous.
Pure hammer-base strength ratio has never been a good indicator of power to begin with, so I don't understand the scout speculation. Because damage is calculated by comparing base strengths+modifiers, then doing damage based on the difference, 2 scouts won't be able to kill a warrior unless the warrior is unprotected on open ground. Actually, they'll end up dead themselves.
I love speculating about strategy. But trying to claim "right" or "wrong" strategies at this point is ridiculous.
Pure hammer-base strength ratio has never been a good indicator of power to begin with, so I don't understand the scout speculation. Because damage is calculated by comparing base strengths+modifiers, then doing damage based on the difference, 2 scouts won't be able to kill a warrior unless the warrior is unprotected on open ground. Actually, they'll end up dead themselves.
LoopyGinJuice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 5
There is no game theory in the original post. Just whining and idiocy.
Here's an example of how idiotic this "analysis" is:
So a scout has 0.16 strength per hammer and a warrior has 0.15. A Janissary has 16 strength and costs 120. That's 0.133.
By his logic, even after you reach the Renaissance, you should be building all scouts and no higher level units. What's wrong with this interpretation?
[Edit] There's also no "strategic analysis" whatsoever. Stealing and misapplying terms from game theory doesn't make you a game theorist.
Here's an example of how idiotic this "analysis" is:
So a scout has 0.16 strength per hammer and a warrior has 0.15. A Janissary has 16 strength and costs 120. That's 0.133.
By his logic, even after you reach the Renaissance, you should be building all scouts and no higher level units. What's wrong with this interpretation?
[Edit] There's also no "strategic analysis" whatsoever. Stealing and misapplying terms from game theory doesn't make you a game theorist.
, for example, even if it does have a good hammer to strength ratio, a tank will never get killed by a scout, assumeably anyway.JoeHollywood
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 235
Hammer per unit efficiency would be the way to go assuming a few things
1) As long as 2 units of 1/2x strength had a 50/50 chance of beating a unit of x strength.
2) Overflow worked with 100% efficiency, allowing full hammer overlap to the point of allowing multiple units per turn/per city where the appropriate hammer count exists.
3) Unlimited units could occupy any one tile
4) The only way units could meet would be on 1 tile wide battlefield where flanking was eliminated.
5) All units had equal movement rates/restrictions.
6) Terrain was not a factor.
Since none of this is true in Civ5, I don't think that strength per hammer ( especially when they're only marginally different ) is going to be the best determination for unit selection.
1) As long as 2 units of 1/2x strength had a 50/50 chance of beating a unit of x strength.
2) Overflow worked with 100% efficiency, allowing full hammer overlap to the point of allowing multiple units per turn/per city where the appropriate hammer count exists.
3) Unlimited units could occupy any one tile
4) The only way units could meet would be on 1 tile wide battlefield where flanking was eliminated.
5) All units had equal movement rates/restrictions.
6) Terrain was not a factor.
Since none of this is true in Civ5, I don't think that strength per hammer ( especially when they're only marginally different ) is going to be the best determination for unit selection.
LoopyGinJuice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 5
DavesWorld334
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 5
While I haven't run !SCIENCE! analysis of play styles, I'm reasonably sure the single-player market for Civ is larger than the multi-player market for Civ. After all, the game began as a single player experience. This is not to belittle those who enjoy/prefer MP Civ, but absent considerable evidence to the contrary, I feel calling Civ a Single Player focused game with MP tacked on is largely accurate.
It's a good thing they've focused on the SP experience, assuming that's in fact what they've done.
But fear not. With 2K's voracious appetite for extra$ and DLC focused releases, you can probably hold out hope for a MP oriented DLC/Expansion to snap another wad of cash off you.
Ahriman
Tyrant
There were also no Game Theory terms in there.
No mention of Nash equilibria, Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibria or Perfect Bayesian Equilibria.
No backward induction, iterated elimination of strictly dominant strategies, mixed strategies, information sets, coalitions, Shapley values, or anything.
Doesn't sound like a game theorist at all.
Churchdown Yank
Cyber Caesar
I think you just killed me with your brain.
LoopyGinJuice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 5
Maybe the mods could change his name to "MrTrollTheorist" or "MrGameTroll"?
(Actually, I'd consider "strategic analysis" to be a game theory term, but that probably means I've been studying too hard)
Moderator Action: The thread started out trollish and deteriorated from there. Thread closed. And please everyone refrain from trolling or flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
- Status
Similar threads
