Post by mrgametheory on Nov 14, 2006 12:15:24 GMT -5
lol, If it was only that simple, but due to the tec disadvantages, and other stratgic issues, a new strategy had to be designed which is a hell of a lot more complex than that.
The biggest problem with the 11v1 is that I designed my empire based off of a 11v1 tec ratio, thinking I had twice as much time to do what i needed in terms of tec. When I realized how fast you guys got liberalism i realized that the tec ratio was different, apon reloading under one of your players, I broke down the ratio and its 5.5 to 1. If it would have been equal ratio, I would have been very interested to see my empires strenght, at the time I resigned ( due to seeing how fast astronomy was attained ) I had 18 cities and was stable at 20% tec, up from 0% tec and in strike for 1 turn. This dip that was taken was calculated and fine because I had 1 worker per city and I would see exponential increases in MFG and tec in every turn. Before the game I mathematically broke down the 11:1 tec ratio scheme and you should of been at philosophy at that point if you guys were tecing perfectly. In reality due to it being a 5.5:1 tec ratio you guys were tecing twice as fast and were at astronomy at that time. THe strategdy I designed made it so I would barly beat you guys to liberalism in a 11:1 tec ratio, and have astronomy, around 15 turns before you guys, and achieve new tecs at an alarming rate. but keep it mind that it would still be extremly difficult to beat 24 - 34 cities on your contient, and a simple choke would not prove to be the right strategy, even if it was 11:1 ........
Now that I have a figured out some things, my entire strat for this 17v1 has to completly change and that is why I don't mind sharing part of my original overal strat with you all, but in order for me to even have a chance to win, I had to design new strat that is rediculously complex, even for me.
I am going to have to test several things before I am ready for a 17v1, but if the tests prove a failure I wont even ask for a 17v1, but if it proves a success, than exspect to see a 17v1 challenege in the lobby.....
The biggest problem with the 11v1 is that I designed my empire based off of a 11v1 tec ratio, thinking I had twice as much time to do what i needed in terms of tec. When I realized how fast you guys got liberalism i realized that the tec ratio was different, apon reloading under one of your players, I broke down the ratio and its 5.5 to 1. If it would have been equal ratio, I would have been very interested to see my empires strenght, at the time I resigned ( due to seeing how fast astronomy was attained ) I had 18 cities and was stable at 20% tec, up from 0% tec and in strike for 1 turn. This dip that was taken was calculated and fine because I had 1 worker per city and I would see exponential increases in MFG and tec in every turn. Before the game I mathematically broke down the 11:1 tec ratio scheme and you should of been at philosophy at that point if you guys were tecing perfectly. In reality due to it being a 5.5:1 tec ratio you guys were tecing twice as fast and were at astronomy at that time. THe strategdy I designed made it so I would barly beat you guys to liberalism in a 11:1 tec ratio, and have astronomy, around 15 turns before you guys, and achieve new tecs at an alarming rate. but keep it mind that it would still be extremly difficult to beat 24 - 34 cities on your contient, and a simple choke would not prove to be the right strategy, even if it was 11:1 ........
Now that I have a figured out some things, my entire strat for this 17v1 has to completly change and that is why I don't mind sharing part of my original overal strat with you all, but in order for me to even have a chance to win, I had to design new strat that is rediculously complex, even for me.
I am going to have to test several things before I am ready for a 17v1, but if the tests prove a failure I wont even ask for a 17v1, but if it proves a success, than exspect to see a 17v1 challenege in the lobby.....