The Other Domination Limit
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
You're right, but I think I'm going to have to take it a step further and use a randomly generated map and milk it both ways. I can't be certain that I'm subconsciously rigging the map.Dianthus said:
If you're feeling really brave you could take Moonsinger's 10AD .sav and see if you can use this new method to beat her scoresuperslug said:
.
Just take the 2050AD save and use the huge amount of settlers and armies available to do it then.. you just need to see if you can get the internal score per turn higher than it is in 2050..Dianthus said:If you're feeling really brave you could take Moonsinger's 10AD .sav and see if you can use this new method to beat her score
Pentium
Digital Matter
The AI probably don't have many population in 2050 AD.....
The AI doesn't matter too much as the idea is that you gift the fully populated cities to the AI. The 2050AD .sav has 504 workers and 39 settlers ready to go. Probably need a few turns to build some more and get back to the same population level.
You are forgetting the 631 slave workers and 101 slave settlers (140 total settlers)Dianthus said:
Svar
King
I have looked at my Regent high score game and tried to get the numbers to show how to work this strategy. That game had a domination limit of 3756. Near the end there were 3810 happy citizens and 3041 specialists. That yields a score potential of 14,417. I looked at how many tiles I would have to add with a ratio of 1.015 happy citizens per tile to make up for the loss of 3041 specialists, it was 1008. 1008 tiles plus 3756 is 4764, or 83.7% of the available 5693. That leaves 929 tiles for the AI population. If the AI can maintain 1.8 citizens per tile like I can they will have 1672. Assumming I only have 1.015 population per tile on my 4764 tiles I get a population of 4835. 4835 plus 1672 is 6507 and I have 74.3% of the population. In conclusion, to make up for my 3041 specialists I would need to add enough territory that would give me 83.7 % of the available territory and 74.3% of the population. This strategy doesn't seem to work.
I've just had a look at your .sav, and my calculations are open to interpretation.Svar said:
First I calculated the food available and the potential territory/population:
The interpretation bit (unless I got any of the above wrong
) comes when estimating the number of those citizens that will be happy.If all are happy then I make that:
4222 + (2*5710) = 15642 base points/turn
If only 3810 are happy (the amount you had with 66% of the territory):
422 + (2*3810) + 1900 = 13742 base points/turn
I guess the number of happy citizens will be somewhere inbetween. superslug was expecting all citizens to be happy for the figures he used with Moonsinger's game as there was only around 2 food per tile for the remaining tiles. For your game it's 2.71 food per tile for the remaining tiles, so maybe all happy won't be possible? I guess this is down to the difference between pangea/archipelago. With an archipelago map there will be a higher number of tiles remaining after giving 34% of the food to the AI, but those tiles will be of lower quality food-wise.
Svar
King
Dianthus said:
I just looked at my Emperor game and get 1.016 happy citizens per tile so for a traditional game that looks like a good number but probably less than half of the available sea tiles were used. If I use 1.04 happy citizens per tile I still only get 12,784 base points per turn. To get to your 4222 tile number with happy citizens that will match the actual 14,417 base points per turn you will need 5097 happy citizens. 5097 divided by 4222 yields 1.207 happy citizens per tile. A 1.207 happy citizen per tile ratio will require 875 sea tiles be worked. This strategy should work much better on an archipelago world with the AI trapped in the interior.
I've been thinking things over and I think giving the AI 34% of the food isn't enough. Even if they keep their population maxed out, the human can still hit 66% and trigger domination.
Even though the test map was flawed, I did discover that if the Victory Status screen said 65%, there was a very good chance you'd trigger Domination. Since I didn't want to pile on massive numbers of reloads, I stayed at 64%, which seemed to do it.
Another thing to take into consideration is the number of cities and placement. On a huge/pilego, the human player would have hundreds of cities. An Ag city provides three food for that tile, which is an increase for what you would otherwise get on hills, tundra, etc. This may have had some impact on the test map.
For now, I'm going to start assuming the quarantine AI needs 36%.
Even though the test map was flawed, I did discover that if the Victory Status screen said 65%, there was a very good chance you'd trigger Domination. Since I didn't want to pile on massive numbers of reloads, I stayed at 64%, which seemed to do it.
Another thing to take into consideration is the number of cities and placement. On a huge/pilego, the human player would have hundreds of cities. An Ag city provides three food for that tile, which is an increase for what you would otherwise get on hills, tundra, etc. This may have had some impact on the test map.
For now, I'm going to start assuming the quarantine AI needs 36%.
Well, time for my moment of humble pie. The practical application just doesn't match the theory. The initial equations had assumed the AI having 4 food per tile (railed irrigated grassland), but there's problems with actually implementing it. Mountains, plains and hills interspersed throughout. The AI cities themselves only getting 3 food.
Furthermore, giving the AI sufficient tiles simply can't be done internally, away from coasts. Maintaining that long a cultural border exactly where it needs to be is simply impossible. The only bet is to keep the AI in one mass, sharing only a single-sided land border, but that means the AI eats up a lot of the map's coast and sea.
That 20% just kept shrinking and shrinking until it was just a few percentage points. At that point, I gave up. It would have taken well over 100 cities to the AI on Moonsinger's map. Fully quarantined, that would take 800+ units. The units probably would be no problem after a Deity/Sid combat phase, but the loss of those shields for the initial aqueducts?
Meh, I'm just going to load the game and play it however the hell I feel like. I've had enough strategy for now...
Thanks for your input everyone.
Furthermore, giving the AI sufficient tiles simply can't be done internally, away from coasts. Maintaining that long a cultural border exactly where it needs to be is simply impossible. The only bet is to keep the AI in one mass, sharing only a single-sided land border, but that means the AI eats up a lot of the map's coast and sea.
That 20% just kept shrinking and shrinking until it was just a few percentage points. At that point, I gave up. It would have taken well over 100 cities to the AI on Moonsinger's map. Fully quarantined, that would take 800+ units. The units probably would be no problem after a Deity/Sid combat phase, but the loss of those shields for the initial aqueducts?
Meh, I'm just going to load the game and play it however the hell I feel like. I've had enough strategy for now...
Thanks for your input everyone.
Your math about how many tiles the AI will need assuming they receive all their population from grassland carries the flaw that ocean cities for the AI help add pop without burning a grassland tile.... esp. those one tile islands. (In particular your math about the HoF game.) Later comments seem to indicate that everyone understands water=free food for the AI, but my point is your original totals can reasonably be viewed as merely the floor for what is possible.
In theory, the AI could have tons of single tile islands, leaving 90+% of the 'good' tiles for milking.
In ANY case, a very original and thought-provoking read.
In theory, the AI could have tons of single tile islands, leaving 90+% of the 'good' tiles for milking.
In ANY case, a very original and thought-provoking read.
Similar threads
