Just a quick thought. When I look at the palantir summary of army sizes, sometimes there is an incomplete set of data.
EG Small army up to 700 troops
army 900-1600 troops
large army ?
huge army ?
in theory there must be a relationship between the respective sizes of the small / normal / large / huge armies. So it should be possible to derive a formula to judge the likely sizes of the actual ranges. Anyone cleverer than me ever had a crack at that?
Incase I havent explained myself properly: from the above data i would guess, perhaps, that the actual ranges were
0-800 small
801-1800 army
1801-2800 large
2801+ huge
Now, if the data had said
EG Small army up to 900 troops
army 1100-1600 troops
large army ?
huge army ?
then you would guess that large and huge armies are bigger than in the first example. Geddit?
It fluctuates during the game. The largest fleet and three largest armies are “huge”. The next two largest fleets and nine largest armies are ‘large’, etc.
Very useful information to have. If your ‘large’ fleet, on your own pop center, suddenly becomes ‘huge’ you know the previous ‘huge’ fleet has anchored and you rule the waves.
OK, take Ed’s answer as read (and I remember reading similar in MoS, I think)
So back to my original question: how to relate palantir data which gives incomplete information, plus a bit of statistical analysis, to generate a better set of probable army sizes? This must be possible… Any takers?
Don’t know one end of palantir from the other end. My objections to palantir, xmls and similar erosive ‘services’ include they are crutches which inhibit learning how to operate in ambiguous and chaotic situations. There are persons who can only operate in structured situations and those who can operate outside structured environments. Harley caters to the former while GSI catered to the later.
… and from what I heard of GSI, their catering for ambiguous and chaos seekers included inconsistent GM decisions, uncertain turnarounds and of course the benefits of relying mostly on postal services (I guess no choice on that last point)…
In my experience, people who actively object to structured environments, as opposed to merely preferring flexibility, are generally people who get found out when they are being measured. Dont you agree? :rolleyes:
Person “A” asks a question. Person “B”, trying to be helpful, answers as best he can–but only answers 90% of the question. Person “A” is not grateful and dismisses it as something he has heard before. “A” however, still needs information and asks for the remaining 10%.
If Ed’s theory is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then there is no such relationship. The size descriptor is simply based on where an army ranks on a list sorted by army size, and has nothing (at least not directly) to do with the number of troops in an army.
Palantir just makes it’s guesses based on what it knows about the numbers and descriptors for armies it knows about. If it doesn’t know, then it could literally be any number greater than your largest known value.
In other words, you give us the following example:
Small army up to 900 troops
army 1100-1600 troops
large army ?
huge army ?
Then it would be completely possible (albeit unlikely), that there could be nine armies labeled “large” with 1601 troops and three labeled “huge” with 1602 troops.
So my opinion is that the relationship that you’re talking about just doesn’t exist, and it is not possible to use the numbers that you have to determine the numbers that you don’t, except to say that they have to be “bigger” (by one man or by thousands is unknown).
Ed,
I concur with that analysis. There is one camp of people who want all things to be 100% known and quantifiable with formulas and absolutely no suprises. There is another camp of folks that do like the fog of war and doesn’t need everything to be 100% known. I am more in one camp than the other and see the benefits of both (and the disadvanges of both) sides of the issue. If everything is known why bother playing???
some players already know everything they’re capable of learning anyway. all the analysis and information makes not a wit of difference. archon, palantir, autominister, tracking rumours and enemy characters, charting army sizes, etc. lots of fun for those who enjoy drilling down into the details, not so much handy when allies don’t read the info. i’ll take insight over information any day, ideally they’re combined.
Darrell, I agree up to a point. There is no mathematical relationship as Ed pointed out and as you illustrated. But I have hunch that there must still be a statistical relationship between the information that you have, and the information that you havent got. So if an average turn you have 10 xmls loaded, that in theory should be around 40% of the armies in the game. And if you have say information on 2/3rds of that 40%, then… then… I dont really know were to go from here. Hey ho
As for some of the above debate… well, I see this as a strategy game, and having the best information should help make the best decisions. More than happy to work within the constraints of the game (and I dont think i have ever argued for more visibility on market or combat or agent actions or anything). Infact a few years ago I wrote an article for Bree that tried to liken Automagic/Meow/Palantir etc to the slew of Formula1 driving aids that seemed to be de-skilling that form of motor racing.
I think you touch on a nice fine point for general strategy… But it also leaves you very vulnerable when dealing with land armies… The largiest land armies are simply Hordes of HI no armor not very well trained and normally low moral troops… which can be defeated eaily by a well equiped army of HC in steel… example 1500 HC in steel has the endurance of 4800 HI … It would show up as army on same turn 4800 HI size army would be on the map… In effect hiding this very powerful force… Add in if player could put steel on his HC he is likely able to give it bronze weapons meaning 4800 HI army would be defeated by this powerful yet only army sized force… Also any nation having 4800 HI would have to pay for this force costing him 19200 gold per turn… while the player with 1500 HC costs him 9000 gold per turn… This makes it harder for the Horde type player to ever equipe his troops… While the player who equipes saves gold… fly’s under the radar and toasts players and teams who make strategy decissions based on Army size predictors…
