GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!

9,811 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
15 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

7 Wonders» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Ranking the civilzations special abilities: Ephesus B rules! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I found Ephesus (Artemis) B to be the worst amongst the B sides.

I've developed a general strategy around each of the 7 B sides, and my strategy for Ephesus pretty much involves my not using its special abilities. I use them as cheap bail outs when I have nothing better to play on a hand. What I do take advantage of with Artemis B is its starting Papyrus and try to go Green. The cheap bail outs work with a Green strategy because when one goes Green, he won't have a lot of Browns so the cheap wonder plus 4 coins for flexibility work nicely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flame Bird
msg tools
What is this comparison you have developed?

I think the A-sides are weaker because fewer abilities provides less variance that a perceptive player can exploit. Also, I don't like how several A-sides require double manufactured goods for the last Wonder stage. With no other cards requiring doubles of the same manufactured good they are cumbersome.

The B-sides however are all interesting in their own right. I've won games with all and lost games with all. Personally I find Rhodes the hardest to play, and like Ephesus, but overall the B-sides are close enough in power that the hand distributions are more important than their inbuilt biases.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evil Roy
United Kingdom
Sutton
Surrey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sthrjo wrote:
I have developed a way to compare the civilization special abilities during realistic game conditions, and like to share the results here.


I'd be interested to know what your way of comparing the wonders is. It very easy to be subjective (and my subjective opinion on the strengths of the wonders differs sharply from your results in places).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Speaking of subjectivity, I find the OP's evaluations to overvalue money a bit. 4 dollars is less than 2 points at the end of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
sthrjo wrote:
Evil Roy wrote:
sthrjo wrote:
I have developed a way to compare the civilization special abilities during realistic game conditions, and like to share the results here.


I'd be interested to know what your way of comparing the wonders is. It very easy to be subjective (and my subjective opinion on the strengths of the wonders differs sharply from your results in places).


This is my objective evaluation method: I have developed a variant to play the civilizations one by one, see Solitaire exercise play, using two passive left and right opponents, otherwise by the original 3-player rules. Then I have developed a software that execute such solo-civilzation games, using an exhaustive search for the optimal solution that produce the most VP, and coins for tiebreak. The software tries each card in each order, and also tries to sell them or build wonders in all combinations.
Then I have selected 18 random draws of 7+7+7 cards, and let each civilization find its optimal play of 6+6+6 cards. This gives a variation caused only by the civilization's built-in resource and its wonder stages.
I then post-process these 18x14 sub-results, and scrutinize some of the games by hand to look for bugs. The outcome is clear: Ephesus B gets the highest result a lot of the time.
I am not convinced.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evil Roy
United Kingdom
Sutton
Surrey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sthrjo wrote:
This is my objective evaluation method: I have developed a variant to play the civilizations one by one, see Solitaire exercise play, using two passive left and right opponents, otherwise by the original 3-player rules.


Your method sounds interesting and is certainly not subjective. However, I would be wary of drawing conclusions from this as your solitaire play is significantly different from a multi-player games of 7 Wonders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Levine
United States
Clinton
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem is that the solitaire exercise is too different from the real game to make the results comparable. Your example has Giza discarding 3 times for money [including twice in the 3rd age!]; while perhaps valid for solitaire, that would be horrid in an actual game. Because in the solitaire game the passive players never give you money for resources, and with the passing hands [vs the static hand] more likely to get a chance to build a yellow card for money or money/points, the money from Ephesus is going to be relatively more powerful.

This is also why Rhodes B does well, and Alexandria B should do well because it guarantees you access to resources you might not get with the static draw and should save money. The static hands also make science / the 7th card worse, so it makes sense Babylon does badly, but I'm surprised Giza B does well given it's rather expensive, especially if Giza A is doing badly. I'd also expect Zeus A? (3/free building/7) to do well (about the same as Ephesus A) because of the cheap wonder costs, and the free building is nice in this format.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Also, side As are shit. I'd only compare side Bs with side Bs.

I am pretty sure there are other issues with this excercise as well. I doubt real games would play out like your simulations.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Levine
United States
Clinton
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's certainly valid for the simulation/solitare version. But it's horrid for a real game because discarding for money is a 1 point play, when in age 3 you want everything to be 5+ points. Sometimes it's unavoidable [don't get a useful yellow card in the first few turns, get passed a bunch of useless red/yellow/green cards], but if it happens twice you're not going to win. And then there's the fact you're discarding your first two cards of the age for money; if you did that in a real game, you're probably not going to get a chance to build the university/pantheon after that, as the other players built the best stuff already.

The big differences between the simulation and the resourceless victory are that the discards for money are at the end of the second age, the player is able to play a cards for points+money, and science is actually viable in the resourceless victory since all the science cards are in the game [simulation only has expected value of 4 science cards + the odds of the science guild].
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Okay I just read your method of simulation as linked.

Any conclusions drawn from such a method is pretty irrelevant. It is not realistic. At all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
The optimal play that my evaluation method find is not a guaranteed win in a real game. But it is the best you can do under the circumstances! So discarding twice early in age 3 gives you the most VP you can get, not a guaranteed win.
I'll take your word for it. Which is why the simulated situation is unrelated to reality because, unlike the simulation, that is not the way to net the most VP in an actual game.

Quote:
I'm quite pleased myself with the achievement so far
As long as you've convinced yourself.

Quote:
in reality the computing process sets a limit to what can be done.
Pretty much.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave F.
Netherlands
Schelluinen
Zuid-Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The majority of strategy from the game comes from interaction with other players and your simulation is severely lacking in that aspect.

In a live game, you may receive $ for your resources and spend some of it to gain resources with a positive VP expectation. Your opponents may also make decisions which are sub-optimal for themselves, but hamper you too. If neither of your opponents builds any resources you can use, you're pretty much done. I don't see bots making trade alliances easily too. It may happen in a game that you are constantly buying X from a player while that player is constantly buying Y from you, providing a sort of symbiosis. You might go an undeniably hard all green strategy and your opponents could notice this and start chucking greens,

I think the finesse of the game is in spotting these little things and acting and reacting accordingly. An algorithm which only maximizes your own VP count is too limited, you need an algorithm which also limits your opponents' VP counts,

For expert players, B boards will most of the times be better because it gives them more choice. An A side will only give you something average, while a B side may give you something wonderful or something awful.

Besides, I highly value winning in any game. I'd rather get 1st and 3rd than two 2nds, even though they average the same. I'd rather get 1st and 4th than two 2nds!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A Goldman
msg tools
mbmbmb
I like Eph B because it puts coins in the game early. Eph B is particularly powerful if player can build wonder steps I and II in age I, for no more than 2 coins per step.

But I think that some of the other wonders can be powerful. Rather than view wonders as stronger or weaker, I view them as delivering a greater or lesser variety of scores. I think Babyl is extremely variable, and Halicarnassus would be too. Note that Halic is more powerful with more players.

In a 3 player game, as one of the higher ranked strategy posts noted, Olympus B and Alexandria B may be the two most powerful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.