Individual Civ full booming times (according to my mathematical approach)

Looks like you just took it too personal. What I was talking is just plain math and that’s not mine. You mentioned it yourself how Cumans get the lead and it doesn’t matter if they add 3rd and 4th tcs later because they add the second a lot earlier and that’s what I referred as concept. Anyways if you don’t want any comments that don’t fully agree with your analysis, why post about it?

Its not me, your post is about the potential for a civ to get to a fully boomed state which you yourself mentioned as approximately 120-130 vills. Obviously its not the “only” thing that counts but its one of the most important factors for a boom comparison. When you’re measuring the time needed for each civ to hit a certain state which you mention as roughly translatable to 120-130 vills in a no-military situation, why wouldn’t it be the most important criteria?

1 Like

I think there is only one solution here.
Each of us posts some buildorders which he thinks are the best to set up for a super boom. Then we let peopple vohich are the best.
A good old competition.
You could start with the claimed 23+2 franks including all techs, directly adding 2 TCs and no idle time. It sounded like you know what you’re talking about. Let’s see if you can backup your claim.

They do get hand cart early too.

You’re assuming that I’m trying to compete with your builds and prove that mine are superior. I’m not doing that. I’m simply questioning if its the best way to compare all civs except Cumans by doing the “same” build. If the goal is just to boom, certain civs can start adding tcs sooner. Similar to Cumans, it felt the earlier villager lead should have a more profound effect. Just wanted to know whether you tried that or why you didn’t want to consider that.
I can do a 23+2 or some other boom build and send a rec or post the build but my intention is not to prove anything. I myself watch builds posted here or on YouTube, try to follow them and see if it works in ranked. When I started playing again in 2020, a lot of the old boom builds I used seemed outdated and I’ve adopted the fast paced deer push builds in closed map TGs. All of such builds are about 14 min or sooner castle age into 3 tc and 27 min imp with fast civs. So I was wondering why choose the same slower build for all civs.

1 Like

You spill big words all the time but when it comes to back them off you pull away.

If you claim stuff, you must be able to proof them. That’s how it works.

Don’t play the coward game now.You claimed something. You now have to show that it wasn’t just hot air.

And don’t forget you used your claim in an attempt to disprove me (but only with words). I actually showed that I was right, I made the build with Tatars you claimed wasn’t possible. Now it’s time for you to at least show that your initial claim wasn’t just hypcrite bogus.
You claimed that Franks boom would be better cause it would give a better headstart (which I disagree with but whatever). I showed that Tatars can make a completely viable 23+2 build with no idle time. With the Sheep TC bonus they from then on have an advantage over franks that is indisputable. So the only way your claim that Franks boom would be better can be hold if you make a Franks 23+2 BO. Otherwise you must acknowledge that my calcsgave the right result with putting Tatars ahead over Franks.

Awful and poor understanding of my comment. You shared a link to a post which had the youtube video of Viper booming with Tatars, played during the time they got extra sheep in Feudal age. I assumed you were referring to that build. Not a single place I mentioned that Tatars can’t do a faster castle age build nor I did a comparison between Tatars and Franks. I said “some” civs like Franks and a few others can hit castle age faster and don’t need to do a generic slower castle age into 4 tc boom. A 14-min FC with 3 tc is better than a 16 min FC into 4 tc build is the only thing I’ve been mentioning.

I was questioning the reason behind your choice of baseline for a mathematical analysis. And lets say I do “prove” that Franks can do the 23+2 boom with bow saw, What am I going to get? A “yes you’re right. Franks are better” comment from you? Wow so valuable. Grow up and learn to read alternate perspectives on your post. Not everyone has to agree with you and if they disagree, that doesn’t mean they have to “prove” themselves to you. My disagreement hasn’t been on Tatars or Franks, but rather the premise of doing a direct slow fc into 4 tc build as a baseline for comparison.

1 Like

The derailing of this thread can be a nice lesson in how to get better discussions…

Reading this line from you is so funny and just made my day 11.

However, its wrong no matter who says it. Proving everything is the standard in academic writing, but thats because you can’t ask questions there. If i read a paper from 20y ago and some claims are not proven, I can’t just write a comment “hey, not really sure if thats correct, care to post your source?”.

But in this forum, we absolutly can. So proving every last thing right away is not needed; if people have questions about sources, we can still post them a day later and if they don’t, then we saved ourselfes a lot of time because anyone who has ever written anything academic will tell you that referencing sources is an endless amount of work.

What our claims should be, however, is falsifiable. We should make statments that are clear enough so that other users can test them; both because that way wrong data gets called out but also (and more importantly) because falsifiable claims make for more interesting discussions. If we only have vague statments (“TURKS ARE OP”) its kinda unclear what to discuss. If we have a clear statment the discussions will be more focused (“Turks are too strong on Arena”).

And I think this thread is great prove of this. After a lengthy OP and 26 (sometimes also lengthy) replies, we still dont know what the baseline build is (as Pulikesi25 pointed out) nor what the timestamps that are the central piece of the OP actually mean (120 vills? 130? 140?). Basicially, we know nothing other than under some unknown circumstances, some civs reach an unknown goal faster than others. This is a statment so increadibly unclear that misunderstandings and increasingly hostile reactions are basicially forced.

2 Likes

@Pulikesi25

I dont see what others can take away from this mess tbh. I tried to make the best out of it by making it a challenge. Was the last attempt, but you played chicken. Stand up to your claims buddy. Proof they aren’t just hot air. That’s what grown-ups do.

Who are “They”? Burgundians?
I’ve actually just assessed that. They are better off with not getting it before adding more TCs.
Do you thik there are other civs that are worth an evalueation regarding “getting Hand Cart”? (I mean ofc with the exeption of Vikings :wink: )

One factor of Hand Cart is not only it costs so much, but that it actually “hurts” your boom. It might be counterintuitive but the extra carry capacity of 7 means when you got it your ressource income will be basically 0 for about 15 seconds. So if you don’t have banked up enough food then your TCs will go idle. Unless ofc you manually garrison the vills, but then you lose almost all effect of HC, so it was a useless tech to get. The same can also happen with wheelbarrow, but it’s less cause it’s only 3 carry capacity.
That’s why I advise to only get HC when you’re not planning to add any more TCs and already have more than enough Farms to sustain the production. In most effective cases in games I actually recomment not getting HC before you have clicked up to imp (ofc there are exceptions). Because when you getting HC it will have a “passive” cost of on average 3.5 res in the “pockets” of each of your villagers, further delaying your Imp timing. If you have like 100 vills, it’s another 350 res “índirect” cost of the tech.
Doen’t mean the tech would be terrible, it’s actually a very strong tech. But it comes with a hidden extra cost.
When you’re on the way up to imp it might be the best “timimng” for hand cart as imp takes so long it gives the tech some time to catch up that initial disadvantage with higher efficiency. But this ofc depends on a lot of factors like also what you want to actually do in Imp.
At least if you try to be super efficient, if you have lots of floaring res and don’t kow what to do with it you can aswell just get Hand Cart. It’s at least better than floating res.

That’s what I said. Its not a big deal to play a game against AI and do the 23+2 Franks boom and share the rec. But its useless and not my claim in the first place. And you’re not even someone who reads through the entire message someone has posted. In a different thread about the new pup, you’ve posted a lot of comments about several of the changes. Are you going to play a ton of games with each of those civs to “prove” your opinion?
Its a forum. People discuss ideas and express their opinion. No one goes around “proving” it. Some will agree and some won’t. And the topic goes like hey this is why I think this change is bad or is not as good as it might seem to be. What you’re doing is just bullying. “Oh you’ve expressed something that I don’t agree with, so prove it.”

Exactly. And we also don’t know the reasoning behind choosing that build as baseline and the so called fully boomed state.

Whilst I decided it’s not worh to discuss with you anymore.

Anyone who is interested in this can look this up. I explained something in the opening post but also later.

Only cause @Pulikesi25 decided to ignore it doesn’t make it vanish. But the fact that he ignores it is one of the reaosn why I decided it’s not worth discussing with him anymore. Besides the weird thing that he so often speaks in plural and objective tones when he actually is only a single person.

Yes my reply was to the person who asked if burgundians got hand cart early.

They were asking if burgundians could actually research hand caet earlier and i was confirming it could. Still bad idea but they can.

Its difficult for me to communicate something to you since you’ve taken a very early comment of mine personally.
So at least read through this comment from @Temudschinn

Everyone including myself are interested in “knowing” more about your methods and not proving or disproving something about your favorite civ or build.
Simple questions

  1. What is the fc 4 tc build you used?
  2. Have you considered a comparison to a faster baseline build like 14 min into 3 tc with 4 tc addition at a later point?
  3. What’s the final endpoint? Is it a resource limit or villager count or tech count? Where does the clock stop for each civ?
  4. Similar to how Cumans benefit from their unique situation wouldn’t it be the case for some other civs? An example would be Malay fast feudal.

What you’ve been doing in the rest of thread is “Oh this civ is better than Malay. Malay isn’t even strong. Prove that Malay has a better boom than my favorite civ. You’re a chicken because you’re not proving it”
Malay or Franks or Tatars or any particular civ is not the point of original discussion. That was cited as an example to explain a question.

And we still don’t know the details about the original topic - the decisions/parameters behind the analysis.

1 Like

oh ok. Yes, I checked that and got to the conclusion that they are better of with not getting it early. At least based on my mathematical model.
Saving the 100 F doesn’t make it a good investment at that stage, You’re better off with getting up earlier and just taking the 2-3 more vills you get from that, depending on your initial build.

I also thought about making wheelbarrow earlier than castle age for burgundians. But it’s not worth it, 3 vills always outperform having wheelbarrow at that low eco stage.

I just added the new PUP changes into the Sheet.
I changed Chinese so it’s now assuming you make the start with vill-loom-vill production. This translates in Chinese losing a lot of places, but it makes it more “realistic”.

I also needed to adjust Persians a bit, there were mistakes. Interestingly it didn’t really change their performance.

But I figured out several thinks I want to implement in the future:
A) A better, more sophisticated system to estimate the improvements by “adjusting the buildorder” and then also sort the civs after the blue bars when I got it.
B) Include the potential benefits of market abuse for all civs, so far I did it only for Saracens.
C) Exchange with an experienced Arena player to shift the baseline build into a 3 TC start. This might hurt the overall performance of some civs significantly as then some of their Bonusses can’t be applied. For those I might give an additional indicator what could be done with a 4 TC boom. But maybe not, it’s a lot of work.
I will then completely transition into arena Buildorders at this is probably the one map where this actually can be “useful”.
D) Make an alternative evalueation method that may be more easy to comprehend.
E) Make a list of various bonusses and how much they impact the results for better transperancy. EG the new Goth bonus improved their Booming time by 10 s.

Edit: I’m not sure if I applied all changes of the PUP. There are different lists out there. I heared somewhere HIndustani vill discount had been changed again, but it’s not confirmed by others.
I changed Goths, Malians, Chinese, Spanish and Lithaunians according to the notes I found.

1 Like

Nice ! Niw they end up roughly where I initially had expected !

What kind of mistake ? Earlier TCs thanks to earlier castle age uptime ?

So is it a pure 3 TC boom for most civs ?

  • I am surprised that Britons didnt go down, I would expect the saved wood for the 4th TC to have a bigger impact.
  • And why are Bulgarians so high ? Is it only by selling the extra 100w ?

I actually though it was already based on an arena map. I kind of assumed the simulation was the 4TCs boom from the Cicero build order…What is the difference to previously ?

I guess you didnt add any sort of fish boom or extra natural food like in BF/Yucatan/land madness/…

1 Like

It isn’t applied yet 11. I just thik of changing it. That will be a lot of work.
And ofc the TC number is also just the “initial” one. It’s assumed TCs will be added every time they can be supported by the eco.

Bulgarians safe 50 S on each TC. It’s not so much, but it brings them somewher in the middle of the pack, yes. (meaning they can build 4 TCs with the initial starting stone)
That also means Bulgarians build their TCs with 4 vills instead of 5 which gives a portion of the advantage which Sicilians and Britons get from their lower Worker Count. (like spanish who also make it with 4).

I made it on Arabia. The difference is actually not that big, but I think it jsut makes more sense on Arena.

Nope. Only Arabia with the base res.

1 Like

Sorry then. I missread you. I thought it was already the result of the 3 TC boom… Then everything feels right with the Bulgarians and Britons results.

Agreed.

But now that I think about it, the Cicero build order map only provide 3 deers, if I remember well. I this is really the case, this would make a difference.

1 Like

I made it already with 3 deers, 2 boars and 8 sheep. So that isn’t a difference
The difference will be that it’s a 3 TC buildorder. And I have to find the best one first. I can’t just pick one and assume it’s the best.

Oh and I forgot one point. I want to aslo include a better implementation of “floaring” ressources. Like if you have # ## # ## gold it takes longer or shorter to get to the number needed to buy another 100 F. This difference in floating time needs to be assessed more accurately. Won’t make a big difference in most cases, but it’s a challenge to get that right.

With the new patch Sicilians got a small buff, but the other civs seem unchanged from the PUP.
Sicilians are now no3 “Booming” civ after Cumans and Lith.
I’m curious how the new lith will play out in TGs, cause it now looks like the ideal pocket civ with the 2nd best boom and super strong Paladins (even the option for Leitis). And opposed to cumans Lith don’t need to stay in a vulnerable feudal to do this.

2 Likes