SMAthical Calculus - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  SMAthical Calculus

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   SMAthical Calculus

ErisDiscordia5 posted 07-07-99 05:36 AM ET
SMAthical Calculus?
What kind of "measuring sticks" do y'all use when choosing one strategy or tactic over another? Here's an example of what I mean:
If we simplify matters extremely, then we can assume that energy's flexibility and easily attainable multipliers (nodes, ebanks) are as good as minerals' zero losses to inefficiency, and that a science or psych point is as useful as a stored energy point, and since a smart player will spend most energy points on purchases, and purchase primarily the cheapest option, that is, buildings, we can say that:
1 mineral = 2 energy,
with adjustments in favor of or (more often) against energy's value depending on the strategic/tactical situation (efficiency level, nation's overall financial/science situation, losses to/investments in psych, and so on).
The value of nutrients (assuming no pop boom is in effect) is much more complex to measure, I would try fudging and intuitively tacking on a value from 0-2 energy, based on how many new resources it will make available how much faster. E.g. "2 energy" value for a nutrient which brings a new forest into play in 2 turns instead of three, but almost "0 energy" for a nutrient which brings a 1-1-0 square into play in 18 turns instead of 20.
With a basic measurement unit (the e-point), it becomes possible to say, "How many energy/turn would this strategy bring me, how soon?" "How many energy will this war cost me, and how soon will it pay off?" "Does it bring more energy to rush building A, or building B?"
Of course, these are only measurement units, and certainly the final unit of measurement is and always will be victory.
What are *your* units?
CEO Devolver posted 07-07-99 03:37 PM ET
I generally determine my moves by deciding these three criteria:
Let a = 2 if my position is better in five turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse.
b = 2 if my position is better in twenty turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse.
c = 2 if my position is better in fifty turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse.
In determining "better" and "worse" position, I use a fair amount of judgement based upon the context of my current position. If I am at peace with my neighbors (or better, have Pacts), it is much "better" for me to focus on infrastructure and research. Obviously, if Yang or Miriam are breathing down my neck (the usual suspects, no?), then I am "better" if I am *coercing* them into not fighting, submitting, or dying by the sword.
So, I determine which is more useful by summing a, b, and c. By default, in the case of a tie, I go for whichever provides the best b, and if that fails, then I go for infrastructure.
RGE posted 07-07-99 10:20 PM ET
I usually go for the highest total sum, no matter what the conditions. The exceptions are when popbooms makes more food useless, when ecodamage makes more minerals too dangerous, and when my tech base pulls in more science than the techs cost, thereby making energy less useful. But when my research is that good, the two previous exceptions are mostly in play already, so I go for energy just to get the extra cash, or possibly to be able to have 10% psych taken out of science so that a few more doctors/empaths can be turned to technicians/engineers to get even more cash
Since I usually play rather small and tightly packed factions, I consider one mineral to be equal to one energy, or to be worth less than one energy in the late game when energy gets a lot of multipliers. In any case, science is my gamewinner, and thus it is more important than just about anything else, including growth and production. I haven't yet figured out how to fight a war with many low tech units vs a few higher tech ones
RGE
Resource Consumer posted 07-08-99 07:28 AM ET
... but what about the tyranny of the present over the future.
Discounting.
How many of any unit are you prepared to forego to get another 1 in say 10 turns?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: SMAthical Calculus
ErisDiscordia5	posted 07-07-99 05:36 AM ET SMAthical Calculus? What kind of "measuring sticks" do y'all use when choosing one strategy or tactic over another? Here's an example of what I mean: If we simplify matters extremely, then we can assume that energy's flexibility and easily attainable multipliers (nodes, ebanks) are as good as minerals' zero losses to inefficiency, and that a science or psych point is as useful as a stored energy point, and since a smart player will spend most energy points on purchases, and purchase primarily the cheapest option, that is, buildings, we can say that: 1 mineral = 2 energy, with adjustments in favor of or (more often) against energy's value depending on the strategic/tactical situation (efficiency level, nation's overall financial/science situation, losses to/investments in psych, and so on). The value of nutrients (assuming no pop boom is in effect) is much more complex to measure, I would try fudging and intuitively tacking on a value from 0-2 energy, based on how many new resources it will make available how much faster. E.g. "2 energy" value for a nutrient which brings a new forest into play in 2 turns instead of three, but almost "0 energy" for a nutrient which brings a 1-1-0 square into play in 18 turns instead of 20. With a basic measurement unit (the e-point), it becomes possible to say, "How many energy/turn would this strategy bring me, how soon?" "How many energy will this war cost me, and how soon will it pay off?" "Does it bring more energy to rush building A, or building B?" Of course, these are only measurement units, and certainly the final unit of measurement is and always will be victory. What are your units?
CEO Devolver	posted 07-07-99 03:37 PM ET I generally determine my moves by deciding these three criteria: Let a = 2 if my position is better in five turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse. b = 2 if my position is better in twenty turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse. c = 2 if my position is better in fifty turns, 1 if my position is the same, 0 if my position is worse. In determining "better" and "worse" position, I use a fair amount of judgement based upon the context of my current position. If I am at peace with my neighbors (or better, have Pacts), it is much "better" for me to focus on infrastructure and research. Obviously, if Yang or Miriam are breathing down my neck (the usual suspects, no?), then I am "better" if I am coercing them into not fighting, submitting, or dying by the sword. So, I determine which is more useful by summing a, b, and c. By default, in the case of a tie, I go for whichever provides the best b, and if that fails, then I go for infrastructure.
RGE	posted 07-07-99 10:20 PM ET I usually go for the highest total sum, no matter what the conditions. The exceptions are when popbooms makes more food useless, when ecodamage makes more minerals too dangerous, and when my tech base pulls in more science than the techs cost, thereby making energy less useful. But when my research is that good, the two previous exceptions are mostly in play already, so I go for energy just to get the extra cash, or possibly to be able to have 10% psych taken out of science so that a few more doctors/empaths can be turned to technicians/engineers to get even more cash Since I usually play rather small and tightly packed factions, I consider one mineral to be equal to one energy, or to be worth less than one energy in the late game when energy gets a lot of multipliers. In any case, science is my gamewinner, and thus it is more important than just about anything else, including growth and production. I haven't yet figured out how to fight a war with many low tech units vs a few higher tech ones RGE
Resource Consumer	posted 07-08-99 07:28 AM ET ... but what about the tyranny of the present over the future. Discounting. How many of any unit are you prepared to forego to get another 1 in say 10 turns?