How Do You Balance Growth?

[incognito]

In reading some of the Posts about early game progress from some of the more experienced players, I am always amazed at how quickly they are able to make progress against their strategies.

One person posted the ability to build 20 castles by turn 21. Still others are fielding at least a SC or 2 by that same stage. Still others have completed significant research in several fields. In most of these cases, I get the strong sense that they are not horribly unbalanced at these stages ie they did not sacrifice any hope of winning the game to accomplish these objectives.

While one could write this off to luck/initial placement/availability of magic sites/etc, I suspect it is a question of balance. When a beginner plays a game following some of the strategies detailed on this board, they usually don't start with a perspective for how they balance the mix of each element for maximum success. As a result, they generate too much gold and not enough resources; lots of early gem income without research in spells; mass territory expansion with poor defenses; etc. The chances for imbalance are numerous and can often result in waste/outright loss when another player attacks and exposes this imbalance. It's almost the equivalent of knowing the ingredients for a good recipe, but not knowing the proportions of each ingredient and the timing of when to add for maximum effect.

While the specifics of any one game will cause good players to adjust their strategies, I would appreciate it if people can share their basic formulas for early game balance. If you are a player that likes to risk imbalance for a grab at power, share that too. (intentional imbalance is different from unintentional imbalance).

Thanks in advance for the good feedback. This board is consistently a source of great insights.

[ July 27, 2004, 12:20: Message edited by: incognito ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by incognito:
In reading some of the Posts about early game progress from some of the more experienced players, I am always amazed at how quickly they are able to make progress against their strategies.

Rather than read what people claim they can do, instead read ALL of the AARs and see what folks actually do. Keep a very careful and critical eye towards the mistakes they make. Once you've accounted for what mistakes they may have made, and why, then look again at the AARs and see what they did right in trying to accomplish whatever goals they may state they are/were working towards. Then think about whether you can find a better way for them to do what they did. (If you can, be sure to let them know, assuming you aren't playing them in some MP game. )

If someone says they intend to do such and such, and they fail to do so, and you don't understand why they failed, ask them why. If they make certain moves or do things and you don't understand how it fits into their stated strategy, again be sure to ask them. (Perhaps they're making a mistake and don't know it.)

IMO, it's better to see how strategies work in a given context than asking for general strategies that often do not apply to specific situations.

Expansion/growth is a delicate subject. Some people feel that a strong offense eliminates the need for much (if any) defense. Others prefer a slow, methodical expansion. Still others prefer to sit back, assemble an overwhelming force, and then explode outwards. Then there's magic ...

Finally, expansion strategies that work in SP often don't in MP. And what works well in a 'normal' MP game won't work so well (if at all) in blitz MP games, especially ones needing VPs.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by incognito:
One person posted the ability to build 20 castles by turn 21. Still others are fielding at least a SC or 2 by that same stage. Still others have completed significant research in several fields. In most of these cases, I get the strong sense that they are not horribly unbalanced at these stages ie they did not sacrifice any hope of winning the game to accomplish these objectives.

The thing you're missing is that some sort of "horrible unbalance" is the key to winning in the first place. You generally *NEED* to focus on a subset of the to-do list in order to be successful. Otherwise, you end up being average in all categories at best, having no real strengths to leverage off of. Thus, when we veterans cite having accomplished some monumental task earlier than you'd have thought was reasonably possible, that's because that was our objective, and it likely represents an important element of the strategy we're pursuing. If there's some shortfall in another area....we're not going to tell you about that. Instead, we're going to hide it while bludgeoning you over the head with the thing we're strong in. While we pummel you ruthlessly using the strength we've rushed to develop, you're in no position to exploit any weaknesses we haven't told you about, and are forcing you to find on your own....if you can get out from under being bludgeoned. The "veteran" thing to do is often to intentionally rush for some key instrument at the expense of some other thing....and then bludgeon the nearest victim over the head with it brutally before he can develop an effective countermeasure to it, by which time we'll be larger and healthier, and able to easily rectify the imbalance we created by our initial rush for some instrument. It's much easier to do one thing right, then use that as leverage, then it is to try to do everything at once, have nothing to use as leverage against your opponents, and thus get bludgeoned.

[ July 27, 2004, 19:33: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[LintMan]

Arryn's AAR was a great help in me getting a feel for the game "balance" as you call it. Most other AAR's are less detailed and more fiction-oriented, which is fun/interesting, but can be less useful as a learning tool.

Other thoughts:
Here's a thread with some Posts that might touch on some of what you're asking about.

Order of Expansion thread

If someone has 20 castles at turn 21, they probably have the cheapest castle type and are building a castle in every province; this is a very specialized strategy I wouldn't recommend unless you know why you're doing it and what the tradeoffs are (and there are some)

Getting 1 or 2 basic SC's by turn 20 isn't so hard, especially if that's your targeted goal. Bane Lords don't take that much research, and neither does construction of a few items to start them off.

You might also find some other worthwhile discussions here is you search on particular aspects of your question, ie: research and site searching strategies, super combatants, "castling".

[tinkthank]

One example could be (with some tradeoffs) to slap a wraith sword on a Niefel Jarl; you can do this multiple times by turn 20; with the right randoms, you can toss a pendant of luck and some sort of etheralizer on them too, plus ditto on your pretender, and/or any other little gadgets you can construct, and hence by turn 20 you can have a bunch of SC-type units, if that is your goal. You won't have much of anything else, however, but that isn't the question.

If however the question was: How can I get mulitple SCs (or tons of castles) by turn 20 and simultaneously either a) have a great economy or b) have a kick-butt army or c) have a multifaceted research schemata or d) have lots of neat casters or e) have at least 2-3 mercs or f) have scouted the majority of the map so you know who and where your enemies are and what their weaknesses may be or g) site searched to achieve good gem income or h) conquered strategically significant provinces or i) be able to play in a style that suits me well and is fun for me or j) any or all of the above
then that is a different kettle of fish altogether. The answer may very well be "you cannot".