An expression in the Random event FAQ

[unmerged(6147)]

In the skilfully written random event FAQ an expression regarding explorer events says

"The various tech requirements are easily met by 1550 and 1600, so the only thing to do is put the DP-sliders to low LAND and low MERCANTILISM."

This is not true in general. If you play a muslim it is a joke, if you play a pagan it is an insult...

Being somewhat experienced myself I played a glorious (well, I at least thought is was glorious ) England game the last month. It was the economically most succesful game I have ever played maxing the economic techs in 1690 and ending with a BB war phase of slightly less than 31 years - a personal record initself based upon the good economy.

But now to the point: in 1559 my techs were 10-3-4-5. Thus far away from the Naval tech 11 that is required for the 1550 explorer events and not even on par with the trade tech.

In fact, I cannot recall a single game where I reached x-11-5-x in 1550.

No doubt I could reach it if that was what I wanted - I would then play a more peaceful game focussing singularly on these economics but I never have nor ever will play such a game and I believe very few EU players do.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Well, they can be easily met if you work at them. Your England was obviously powerteching the whole time and thus you had invested nothing into naval tech. One can get the required naval tech by 1500 if they start in 1419 and work at it.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, I suppose reaching both naval 11 and trade 5 can be tough, if you want to have land and infra too, but naval 11 by 1550 is no problem and very common occurance in MP where you have to invest into both war techs to survive.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

I believe the point to the comments in the FAQ is that, if you want explorers, this is how to get them. I don't usually see Austria focusing on explorers.

 

[ForzaA]

In fact, I cannot recall a single game where I reached x-11-5-x in 1550.

Fortunately, you need only x-11-3-x or, at the worst, x-11-4-x in 1550...

which makes it a LOT easier to reach, if you want it.

But indeed, the "easily reached" is not really true...

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I think it depends also rather much on scen. Starting in 1492 your economical techs in 1550 are much worse than when starting in 1419.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Fortunately, you need only x-11-3-x or, at the worst, x-11-4-x in 1550...

Correct ForzaA. (Look, I spelled your name correct

But it doesn't change the fact that I have never made it to Naval 11 by 1550.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Well, they can be easily met if you work at them. Your England was obviously powerteching the whole time and thus you had invested nothing into naval tech. One can get the required naval tech by 1500 if they start in 1419 and work at it.

If you read my post again you will find that I agree with this. But it is beside the point.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Correct ForzaA. (Look, I spelled your name correct

But it doesn't change the fact that I have never made it to Naval 11 by 1550.

But that's because you haven't wanted to. I've just reached Naval 11 at more or less exactly that date as Granada. It's the Trade that's taking me so long.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

As figured and written by robin74 lately, threshold years for ahead-of-time penalties are for naval 11 year 1492, and for trade 3 year 1419. As any latin, as well as most orthodox or muslim, techgroup's country, developping techs may easily be done following the threshold for ATP. By 1550, assuming you don't powertech any tech, and so avoid all ATP and follow the "normal" progression, you should be 17-17-6-6. In my most recent games (true, all with latins), I actually have to put barely half (at most) of my income in techs to keep up the pace of the thresholds after 1550-1600 (and avoid all ATP).

Really, I wonder how you Daniel can't manage to attain such low techs as x-11-3-x in 1550.

But I agree that starting in 1492, it's a bit harder to get the same techs than starting in 1419. That's why I always start the GC (more fun too- Europe often gets weird).

 

[unmerged(6147)]

As figured and written by robin74 lately, threshold years for ahead-of-time penalties are for naval 11 year 1492, and for trade 3 year 1419. As any latin, as well as most orthodox or muslim, techgroup's country, developping techs may easily be done following the threshold for ATP. By 1550, assuming you don't powertech any tech, and so avoid all ATP and follow the "normal" progression, you should be 17-17-6-6. In my most recent games (true, all with latins), I actually have to put barely half (at most) of my income in techs to keep up the pace of the thresholds after 1550-1600 (and avoid all ATP).

Really, I wonder how you Daniel can't manage to attain such low techs as x-11-3-x in 1550.

But I agree that starting in 1492, it's a bit harder to get the same techs than starting in 1419. That's why I always start the GC (more fun too- Europe often gets weird).

There is a difference of games played a master like you and the rest of us. We are very far away from 17-17-6-6 in 1550. I always hypertech and I am satisfied if I reach infra 5 by 1550. I usually go for trade 4 before infra 5. And then all money into Land because wars at that stage are very difficult since I am typically at Land 3 and my neighbours much, much better.

If we were to ask non-cheating players in general to post their stats in 1550 and I'd give you £10 for everyone that has those stats (or the equivalent) in 1550 and you me £1 for everyone that has not I'll be a millionaire.

Why not listen. Is it anyone out there who

a) has never reached 17-17-6-6 (or something similar) in 1550?

b) has done it and if so how often?

c) BTW, are there anyone who in practice has reached naval 11 in that year, in should we say a "normal" game where you may well powertech but not e.g. putting all military investments into naval instead of land?

The threshold years says very little about when you shold reach those levels. In any game the rest of us play we are lagging behind in the beginning and getting our speed up after a while. The more peaceful and the more same religion/culture provinces we have and the more "christian" and "latin tech" we have the better we do. I rarely play a catholic/protestant latin tech nation with almost only same religion and "correct" culture. The only game I can remember is my Rhodes game - as you probably recall - in which I sat on my ass for 100 years doing nothing (just owned Rhodes and Malta). By 1543 in that game I had 12-6-4-4 which is a kind of personal record.

The basis of my complaint is that a sentence as this may create a feeling of inadequateness amongst intermediate or even better players and thus diminish their joy of playing. Encouragement is a prime virtue when helping people to progress. This sentence is the opposite of that.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

But that's because you haven't wanted to. I've just reached Naval 11 at more or less exactly that date as Granada. It's the Trade that's taking me so long.

Of course one can reach an individual tech such as naval 11 in 1550. As I have written twice in this thread now. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about a FAQ intended for helping players not that accustomed to the game. It exists to help people play better. And then you cannot say: "it is easy to reach those levels". It is not easy and it is certainly not advisable if you want to maximise you performance in the game, a focus of infra and trade early on is paramount.

A sentence as "You will have great difficulty to reach the asked for levels that early, and if you play a non-European it is almost impossible" would enhance the quality of the FAQ, both because it more truthfully represents reality and because it does not dimininsh the joy of gaming for those who fail to reach these levels.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

All right. Many players may have difficulties, if they're not focusing on naval instead of land (why do you want naval explorers if you focus on land ? :wacko: ). But I can't edit it without asking some Mod (FAQ is closed ), and I won't do it unless I've much more to edit (like flagrant mistakes). I'll put it in a corner of my mind, to change it when standards update to 1.09.


But I maintain it's objectively easy to follow the threshold with any latin techgroup country, and even hardly harder with orthodox or muslim techgroup countries.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Of course one can reach an individual tech such as naval 11 in 1550. As I have written twice in this thread now. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about a FAQ intended for helping players not that accustomed to the game. It exists to help people play better. And then you cannot say: "it is easy to reach those levels". It is not easy and it is certainly not advisable if you want to maximise you performance in the game, a focus of infra and trade early on is paramount.

A sentence as "You will have great difficulty to reach the asked for levels that early, and if you play a non-European it is almost impossible" would enhance the quality of the FAQ, both because it more truthfully represents reality and because it does not dimininsh the joy of gaming for those who fail to reach these levels.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

By 1550, assuming you don't powertech any tech, and so avoid all ATP and follow the "normal" progression, you should be 17-17-6-6.

Holy smoke! lawkeeper. In my current GC as AGCEEP Muscovy-Russia, I am at 1513 with 2-2-3-3 (soon 4), and I have been putting all my money in tech research (100% infra or trade) except when building refineries (2 + 1 by event), FAAs (1 + 1 by event) and some conversions. Inflation is hovering around 5%.

You do have to give us a class on how to handle our economy like Peter Ebessen used to do on WC. I am not sure I can make 17-17-6-6 by 1550 unless I try with France.

Next time you do a GC, post a year by year account of your investments and technology costs and everything related, and I will pick the same country and try to match it. Clearly I still have a lot to learn, and I thought I was proficient already :wacko:

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Why are you rolling your eyes? Do you have a difficulty to grasp my fairly easy to understand message?

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Why are you rolling your eyes? Do you have a difficulty to grasp my fairly easy to understand message?

I consider your "complaint" to be without much merit.

 

[kurtbrian]

lets just close this one down before people start to get angrier...

*closed*