[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by archaeolept

how about the actual basis, which is that it was part of an artificial mechanic for the distribution of nation choices, through the allocation of 10 nation choice points. And the right place for disagreeing with these initial point ratings would have been the relevant game thread, as it has nothing to do with any proper analysis of Jomon.

This is a thread for analysing Jomon. In the course of that discussion Jomon was presented as very weak. As evidence of that I presented the fact that Jomon was rated a one on a scale of 1-10, in a recent game mechanic.

Throughout the discussion I have maintained that I believe that jomon is weak. I do not believe under any reasonable analysis of jomon that the nation should rank as a 1 on a scale of 1 - 10.
Jomon is simply not that bad.

In the last few threads you've attacked my word choice, and now belatedly, the rating example I gave. Neither of which really are relevent to the topic either. It seems as if you are more interested in starting and winning a flame war.

From my perspective, any nation that has 3 or so viable pretenders from which to choose is 'fine' and playable.

Any race which has reasonable access to thug/sc chassis is fine, good playable. And I do think Dai Onis are fine SC chassis -although too high up the research tree.

I think we agree that Jomon's troops are mediocre.

I *would* put jomon in the bottom three or four races. I dont' however view that national mechanics are 100% deterministic of game outcome. Hence my argument that I would rate them 10-15% weaker than an average race.

I might rate victory as being about

35% diplomacy
30% luck (starting location, dropped turns, actions of other players)
20% Knowledge of the game, tactical skill
15% National mechanics.

So, while you've attacked various posts, you haven't really said anything about my contention. On a relative power index, normalized to 100... where would *you* put jomon. And comparing to other nations would be useful.