A "POWER VALUE" ON TONIO'S STATS PAGE

[Casluerj]

Why people insist in argue with Daniel A its still to be discovered by me. Everyone knows he is always right...

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Havent started reading through the entire thread, but will contribute my own incredibly important view of the situation. While power is hard or impossible to absolutely measure, we can at least through discusssions like this come pretty damn close to the core.

1. Income Should it really be that high? Indeed, income is amazingly important in the early game but after a couple of hundred years, it loses (but is still in the top five) in value. Then, things like MP and number of CCs becomes a great factor. Maybe there should just be one single economic parameter?
3. Army and navy morale Up to something like 1750, this is one of the main factors in the game, but after that, its often maxed out by the main countries and loses importance.
11. CCs Should rise in importance after they are introduced. Should not exist on the list before that.
12. Sliders I think this should be ranked together with or higher than the morale factor, since its pretty often the deciding factor between a well run and efficient nation and an unstable one that cant handle five years of intensive warfare.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

I too disagree with this. If we played a competitive game with this in mind everyone would just tech til late game, fight a few opportunist wars, then end.

No you wouldnt. It would look kind of like it does now. There are certain powers that benefit greatly from the sitting duck strategy and will most likely run away with the game if they are allowed. There are other nations that dont benefit as much and will have to stop the sitting ducks from sitting there.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Why people insist in argue with Daniel A its still to be discovered by me. Everyone knows he is always right...

No I am not. As you can see, if you had read thoroughly, Drake, Arco and FAL all made valueable contributions to the idea. Things I had not thought of.

What is surprising, is that people continuously attack me on views I never have said I have. That they fail to read what has been written but instead fight illusory views.

A better post by you would have been one saying that you as well found ObserverDrone's post illogical as it argued against the view that an exact formula that depicted power could not be done, when we in reality only "tried to portray the actual and potential power"* at a given moment, which of course can be done.

*Yes those words quoted by me you could find in the first paragraph in the first post by me in this thread.

The football and icehockey comparison should have made it easy for you as well to understand what we aimed at: something that to some extent reflected upon the power (or even skill as that concept was defined in post 1). It would indeed be foolish to believe that one could invent a formula that exactly depicted it. As impossible in football as in chess or in EU or any other game where you are playing with and against human opponents.

--------

I have said it many time but I can see it needs to be repeated: this game needs some kind of formula that better than today's VP system rates the performances of the players. Why? Because we are many who like that in games we play. Indeed, in just about any other game, we have and use such a formula.

It is as simple as that. And instead of trying to fight those who try and come up with ideas on this topic you should support and try and help. Even if you yourself do not like it, because if EU got such a system it would sell more copies and we all (you as well Cas, I hope) want Paradox to earn much money so they can produce new wonderful games for us and can afford to spend money on maintenance of the ones they have released - so that we do not need to rely on e.g. Johan to correct bugs etc on his free time - without salary.

It would then be up to the players to decide if they want to use that rating system or not.

Amen.

 

[arcorelli]

He-he, funny that it was FAL, the Master of DU, who was the one that just a few posts above found out an objective method to determine a "true" power value for each nation, not based upon any subjective votes as in DU

Actually, FAL addresses other point (how to calibrate particular values of countries), what I am thinking is about the validity of the measure.

The proposed measure is measuring something, now that something is power? What I said is, since we don't have an external objective measure of power, we should rely to calibrate the validity on subjective measures.

Let say that using this measure we find that Spain is always a lot less powerful than France, even when the 'community' could agree that in such and such game Spain was more powerdul than France. Then, the measure still got problems.

BTW, I think we should use some measure of 'diplomatic power' (some percentage of power of your allies?)

 

[unmerged(55087)]

As you can see, if you had read thoroughly....

That they fail to read what has been written but instead fight illusory views.....

A better post by you would have been......

The football and icehockey comparison should have made it easy for you as well to understand what we aimed at...........

I have said it many time but I can see it needs to be repeated...........

Instead of trying to fight those who try and come up with ideas on this topic you should support and try and help.............

This is just a quote from a single post of yours, but you have made dozens more along the same vein. Simply because someone disagrees with you does not (a) make them retarded or (b) mean they did not read what you wrote. This kind of language is intentionally demeaning to the subject and smacks of extreme arrogance. Did you learn this tactic from G.W. Bush?

ObserverDrone's post illogical as it argued against the view that an exact formula that depicted power could not be done, when we in reality only "tried to portray the actual and potential power"* at a given moment, which of course can be done.

Lets examine this statement, shall we? My post is illogical because it argued against an exact formula. But, BUT, BUT!!!, you are only trying to come up with a formula. Not an exact formula? All these numbers and data points are inexact?

Further (and I just love this), IN REALITY you only tried to portray the actual and potential power at a given moment. And this OF COURSE can be done. Well, how could anyone question it? It OF COURSE can be done. I forgot that you have a potential power meter hidden in your utility belt.

The problem is that power is not absolute. Power is relative across multiple spectrums: temporal, situational, diplomatic, and skills.

.......

In conclusion, any attempt to measure power in EU2 is just as doomed as any attempt to measure power in the real world. Power is not a number you can calculate. The only true measure of power is in its application in a dynamic environment, not some number on a chart.

Who is the straw man here, buddy? I argued that any attempt to measure power is doomed due to relativity. Not any exact measure. Any measure. Rather than refute any of my specific points, you simply declare that I cannot read and that I am making up statements you made.

So please Daniel, stop using straw men to attack my position! And please clearly show where I said you were arguing something. I never said you were arguing anything except for a measure of power. And I argued that power cannot be measured due to relativity. So to borrow from your playbook Daniel, you obviously didnt read my post