Startup research strategy

[Blkbird]

risk assesment for pursuing a religion based path compared to agriculture -

[...]

That's a comprehensive list of mostly (but not all) correct, however meaningless statements. I don't know if it was meant to be a joke or your understanding of "risk assessment" is indeed that twisted. Percentages are usefull because they're *quantified* values, but all you provide are *qualified* statements (0%, > 0%, < 100%, 100%), which are all rather obvious anyway.

So no, that was not a risk assessment.

the question should not be 'what is the risk?' it should be 'what is the reward?'

That's correct, but I didn't ask the latter question as I consider myself able to calculate the potential reward, while I'm not so sure about the risk. If someone can provide me credible data about the risk, I would be able to conclude if the reward is worth the risk. It is my duty as Minister of Science to make that conclusion, any way.

personally i think the risk is worth the potential reward.

Again a statement not backed by facts. I already have plenty of those, more wouldn't help.

I don't see the reward of an agricultural pursuit before religion. i would in fact almost prefer picking up hunting before animal husbandry.

Benefits for going agricultural instead of religious include, but are not limited to:

- Having the Pigs pastured early, accelerating growth;
- Having Horses revealed early, improving the decision making process about the location of new cities;
- Being able to build Granary early, accelerating growth;
- Being able to build Cottages early, boosting commerce.

That's a lot of things you don't see.

 

[Blkbird]

we might have an early religion (say, 50-75% chance).

Now that's an interesting number - and useful, too, if it stands. Would you care to explain it a bit?

Also, we can switch to agriculture the MOMENT another civ founds a religion, we don't have to wait until the said religious tech is finished, and we don't lose the research either.

You kidding me. Nothing lost? There is no greater waste than half-researched techs.

I am not sure what you mean "the MOMENT another civ founds a religion". If you mean the first religion at all, I (and I believe many others) can *assure* you Buddhism will be founded by some other civ before we can do anything about it. Consider that > 90%.

Now how do I come up with that number? We have 7 competitor civs, each may come with Myth with a chance of 5/17 (17 possible civs excluding ourselves, of which Arabia, Aztec, Inca, India and Spain start with Myth). That means the chance we have at least one competitor starting with Myth is:

1 - (1 - 5/17) ^ 7 = 91%

Since we know the AI has a speed advantage over us at Prince level, we will even lose to civs who don't come with Myth if they decide to join the race. And those who do come with Myth will go for Buddhism with a very high probability. Therefore chance of losing Budd is > 90%.

Now, that's an example of risk assessment. I would be grateful if someone can do more of the kind.

 

[Flotorius]

1 - (1 - 5/17) ^ 7 = 91%

At a first glance, I'd say that the formula above assumes the possibility of multiple instances, i.e. two or times the same civ.

BTW, I don't know many politicians in a demogame who would rely upon probabilistic data for their decisions.

 

[Blkbird]

At a first glance, I'd say that the formula above assumes the possibility of multiple instances, i.e. two or times the same civ.

You're right. Ruling out multiple instances, the percentage is even much higher:

1 - (12/17 * 11/17 * 10/17 * 9/17 * 8/17 * 7/17 * 6/17) = 99%

So, it's near certainly that at least one competiting civ comes with Myth. And it's practically impossible to beat that civ or those civs regarding Budd, plus any other civ who decides to go religious.

BTW, I don't know many politicians in a demogame who would rely upon probabilistic data for their decisions.

Isn't it refreshing, then, to actually see one?

Btw, real politicians do rely on probabilistic data one way or another. They may not do it conciously, but they have their analysts for those tasks, who then prepare PHB-compatible (google "phb dilbert") presentation sheets for them.

 

[von_Clausewitz]

That's a comprehensive list of mostly (but not all) correct, however meaningless statements. I don't know if it was meant to be a joke or your understanding of "risk assessment" is indeed that twisted. Percentages are usefull because they're *quantified* values, but all you provide are *qualified* statements (0%, > 0%, < 100%, 100%), which are all rather obvious anyway.

they are obvious points and intended to be.

That's correct, but I didn't ask the latter question as I consider myself able to calculate the potential reward, while I'm not so sure about the risk. If someone can provide me credible data about the risk, I would be able to conclude if the reward is worth the risk. It is my duty as Minister of Science to make that conclusion, any way.

its because i get a sense that choosing a religious path is getting thrown under the bus because there is risk involved. 'prove your point' is what is being told of supporters for religion, yet AH is just being accepted. the obvious points should be pointing out that there is no need to rush to AH and that it is worth the risk to pursue an early religion.

Again a statement not backed by facts. I already have plenty of those, more wouldn't help.

it will take approx 10 turns for growth to size 2.
it will take approx 10 turns following that to build a worker if we switch production immediately.
it will take approx 6 turns to build a road to the pigs.
it will take less then 26 turns to research AH.
it would take approx 26 turns to pursue myst, then poly, then AH.

Benefits for going agricultural instead of religious include, but are not limited to:

- Having the Pigs pastured early, accelerating growth;
- Having Horses revealed early, improving the decision making process about the location of new cities;
- Being able to build Granary early, accelerating growth;
- Being able to build Cottages early, boosting commerce.

That's a lot of things you don't see.

- i don't think there would be much delay in getting the pigs pastured by going with a route other then AH right off the bat. our worker still needs to get built and he would still need to build the road.
- again, there would little or no delay by the time we start construction on a settler.
- do we not need a worker, a warrior and a settler in higher priority then a granery? again there is little or no delay.
- again there are other priorities for our worker and there would be little or no delay.

there are alot of things that won't need to be seen until we are capable of taking advatage.

animal husbandry = no risk, no reward (in the sense that it will still be there when we need it)
polytheism = high risk, high reward.

i don't think the risk can be quantified. i think we have some favorable things like food and commerce from the flood plains that reduce the risk. i think we have a better then even chance of getting to polythiesm first.

 

[BCLG100]

I voted agricultural as that best suits are starting location and traits imo

 

[Blkbird]

it will take approx 10 turns for growth to size 2.
it will take approx 10 turns following that to build a worker if we switch production immediately.
it will take approx 6 turns to build a road to the pigs.
it will take less then 26 turns to research AH.
it would take approx 26 turns to pursue myst, then poly, then AH.

These numbers are wrong. It takes longer than 10 turns to build a Worker at size 2. But no Road needs to be built to pasture the Pigs. Please get your facts straight.

Animal Husbandry may be finished earlier than the Worker, but then we can start Pottery earlier (if we go agriculture, that is). It's a chain of events, while you consider each of them singled out.

Nobody is taking Animal Husbandry for granted - at least I'm not. The reason we don't talk much about it is because the benefits and costs of researching it are so obvious it requires no discussion.

animal husbandry = no risk, no reward (in the sense that it will still be there when we need it)
polytheism = high risk, high reward.

I roughly agree with that, though I'd say Poly is high risk with high reward if succeeded and high cost if failed. The potential cost and the potential reward cancle out in my opinion (this is rather a subjective judgement, not backed by facts, I realize that, and I don't think I'd be able to deliver any proof), in which case the risk needs to be at most 50% to be worth trying. I have serious doubt that we have a 50% chance at Hinduism.

 

[Blkbird]

Thank you all for your participation. The official instruction of the Ministry of Science for the Game Session 1 has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592902#post3592902

 

[Swissempire]

For Agriculture, what exact path will we be taking? Will it be Animal Hus, Pot, Writing, then Alphabet, or somehting different after Writing. I personally vote the alphabet method! Then on to Confucianism!!

 

[Black_Hole]

Thank you all for your participation. The official instruction of the Ministry of Science for the Game Session 1 has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592902#post3592902

As Swissempire stated in the TCIT, we never voted for an exception if Mysticism iis popped from a hut.

In the rare case a Hut gives us Mysticism within the first 10 turns, switch research to Polytheism immediately.

If this were to happen, your instructions would violate Article C of the Constitution

Please remove this

 

[Blkbird]

An explaination of the official instructions has been posted:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3592942#post3592942

 

[Blkbird]

If this were to happen, your instructions would violate Article C of the Constitution

Please remove this

First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.

Second, this poll clearly states it asks for general directions, not precise implementations. An exception clause like the one you're questioning is an implementational addition that doesn't change the general direction.

Third, the poll result does show a strong support for religious direction, and the discussion shows there is no general, unconditional aversion against the religious direction, instead the most disputed issues is how to assess the risk of the religious direction. If this risk varies from our current point, the most relevant assumption under which this poll result is achieved would be changed, therefore demanding an adjustment of the decision.

Fourth, Article C of the Constitution is not violated in any way at any time. I will show this later when I have more time.

 

[Black_Hole]

First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.

Second, this poll clearly states it asks for general directions, not precise implementations. An exception clause like the one you're questioning is an implementational addition that doesn't change the general direction.

Third, the poll result does show a strong support for religious direction, and the discussion shows there is no general, unconditional aversion against the religious direction, instead the most disputed issues is how to assess the risk of the religious direction. If this risk varies from our current point, the most relevant assumption under which this poll result is achieved would be changed, therefore demanding an adjustment of the decision.

Fourth, Article C of the Constitution is not violated in any way at any time. I will show this later when I have more time.

I didn't notice that informational part until just now, I just didn't you would do that, but owell

and still informational polls still have power

edit: From Article C.3:

Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.

I don't want to get into a huge argument over this, I just don't like it when a leader sneaks an extra instruction in

 

[ravensfire]

First, this poll clearly states it's informative and non-binding, and that the Ministry reserves the right to make deviating decisions.

Minister Blkbird,

Will we soon begin to see official, binding polls from your ministry then?

-- Ravensfire

 

[von_Clausewitz]

I just wonder why we would switch immediately in the first ten turns for getting mysticism from a hut, when we could research it in about 10 turns.

 

[Blkbird]

edit: From Article C.3:

Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.

That's right. But my instructions did not contradict the poll result, but rather *implemented* it. You may disagree with that implementation, but I did have the power and the duty to do it.

As for "sneaking in", it's ridiculous to call something "sneaked it" that has announced in advance in bold letters! Why do you think I did that? For better "sneaking"? Pay some attention before you raise such nonsense accusations, would you?

 

[Blkbird]

I just wonder why we would switch immediately in the first ten turns for getting mysticism from a hut, when we could research it in about 10 turns.

We couldn't have researched it within the first 10 turns.

Quantity does matter, even in small amount. You're ignoring that over and over again, I don't know how many times I have to stress it to you.

 

[Black_Hole]

That's right. But my instructions did not contradict the poll result, but rather *implemented* it. You may disagree with that implementation, but I did have the power and the duty to do it.

As for "sneaking in", it's ridiculous to call something "sneaked it" that has announced in advance in bold letters! Why do you think I did that? For better "sneaking"? Pay some attention before you raise such nonsense accusations, would you?

Could you please direct me to where you posted that exception at (before it being posted in the TCIT)?

 

[ravensfire]

Black_Hole - it is posted in the middle of a paragraph, and is bolded.

As Blkbird once chastised someone else in another poll, that's information that should be seperated at and the top.

Blkbird, I'll repeat my question - will we soon see official, binding polls from the Ministry? What I'd love to see is a discussion on a more general research direction, say one that targets not the next two techs, but the next 7 or 8. That would give you latitude in achieving that goal, and not have to poll all the time.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

Minister Blkbird,

Will we soon begin to see official, binding polls from your ministry then?

I'm not sure what kind of poll you mean by that. As I've explained in the intial post of this very poll, it was simply impossible to poll over every research path including every possible game event that may have an influence, and every response towards those events.

The next poll will probably be more specific, because after we've agreed on the agricultural path and researched Animal Husbandry, there are much less sane options now to choose from.

I guess Black_Hole was right that it didn't really matter if the poll was binding or not. It stills has precedence over my Mandate.

However, I will continue to execute my power and fullfil my duty by complementing the general decision of the citizenery with implemtational details, specially responses towards possible eventualities (Plan B, C, etc.) like I did this time. I won't be able to publish most of those details in advance for voting, because I usually form those response plans from inputs I receive during the discussion of the general decision.

If anyone feels my complementary instructions contradict the general decision of the citizenery, I suggest he files a Judiciary Review. Otherwise I'd appreciate you letting me do my work.

As a final word, I can honestly tell you I do honor citizen inputs utmostly and I always actively seek them, too. If you take a look at the poll subforum, you can see I am indeed the only Government Official who has posted a poll for Game Session 1 - even though I didn't have to.