[Stormbinder]

I disagree Zen. This issue is not really possible to clearly and accuratly define in purely mathematical way, as you suggested, unlike clams for example. The problem is that you are indirectly assuming that any complex strategy in this game have a mathematical "value" that can be calculated and than used to compare it with other alternative strategies. Granted, it can be true with some simple "spreadsheet" types of strategic games, but fortunately Dom2 is way too complex for that.


Here is the example from your own "blueprint" for gathering "proof", step by step:

Originally posted by Zen:
There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

All right, these are obviously a piece of cake to calculate.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ).

However it doesn't really matter, since it'll get "better" later on...

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

First you assume that if you would not build the castle, the province would have to be raided by enemy, resulting in money loss. Which does not nessesarly be the case, since not every unprotected province have to be always raided by enemy, for example if it is located far away from your frontlines and you are waging an offensive war on your enemies. Secondary you assume that once you build the castle your investment is totally safe, which is not the case either, since your castle can still be conquered, especially if it is the "paper one" type as with "mad castling" strategy.


And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times?

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose.

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples.


Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best strategy by calculating it's "value/benefits" and comparing it the *your* own particular strategy, which you calim to be superiour to madcastling. Your opponents in this argument though, can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean?


The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". I agree with you, you can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:34: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]