https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=how+to+deal+with+delusional+patients+nursing&btnG=only thing i can get for now is that the author seems to be more or less advice resistant. math, meta and experience point agianst it, not sure what is left to do...
Advice and meta resistant yes, but the math remains firmly in my corner. My fairly simply google doc shows 14 minutes where the wood chopper has more resources including and most importantly gold until the trader breaks even with him and starts to pull away. I have been and continue to be receptive to the idea that many on here such as Trirem have pointed out which is that the resource edge may not be the death blow to the enemies in time to beat them before they have the gold revenue advantage to overtake you. Two equal players, all things equal, if you give one of them 35 Mangudai worth of power at say 35 minutes, I think it ends the game before the trading advantage can allow the team without the Mangudai to come back 10 minutes later. I challenged Trirem who I will assume is vastly superior of a player to a free boom to around that time and then tribute me half the wood and gold resources and we duke it out. I don't know of any other way to simulate this.only thing i can get for now is that the author seems to be more or less advice resistant. math, meta and experience point agianst it, not sure what is left to do...
Posting a graph where it shows everyone up to people over 2200 Voobly ELO are arrogant is the definition of presumption. In the course of this argument, I haven't once said I'm right because I'm better than them at this game. But I've had 100 people aim that logic my way.
But that isn't keeping everything else equal. It's been mentioned before that if you use your 3000 gold advantage over the trader to buy Mangudai, the enemy can beat that with skirmishers. That is both obviously true, but the point is completely moot. Saying one can squander a purchase of an expensive and powerful unit like Mangudai because someone can counter it is like saying someone can squander an Ivy League free ride education because they can die drunk driving. I'll take the 3000 gold advantage (and the Ivy League education) over the first 10 minutes, and assuming I use that wisely and all things are equal, I continue to believe and have experienced that that is a decisive amount of resources to put into a big battle. As you say it doesn't have to be Mangudai. It can be Mangudai and a few Siege Onagers. Mangudai and a few Heavy Camels. Etc. 3000 gold goes a long way.Surprised this is still going.
A good team can force the game down a path where trading will pay off. That's basically all there is to it.
You state that having earlier Mangudai (for the record there are many other units which will give a stronger power spike for the same amount of resources...) will allow the non-trading team to gain a significant enough advantage to outweigh the earlier trade.
This assumption is just false unfortunately. Through counter units, scouting, walling, team-play, castle placement etc. you can prevent the opposing team from taking advantage. If you don't understand now, you will if you keep playing (and understand the concepts enough to improve.)
The 35 mangudai don't just appear out of nowhere. The cost of making carts from 3 markets is equivalent to the cost of 4-5 mangudai per minute.Two equal players, all things equal, if you give one of them 35 Mangudai worth of power at say 35 minutes, I think it ends the game before the trading advantage can allow the team without the Mangudai to come back 10 minutes later.
Of course many games will end in the (approximate) 35-50 minute time window. Point is, it is pretty unlikely that the cost of setting up trade with be a decisive factor toward losing a game, whilst full trade vs no trade is very likely to decide a game after that time.Why don't experts caveat that advice to new players by saying that the investment may not pay off for them given it opens a fairly long window where they can be beaten? That on easily raidable maps like Arabia, trade is a pretty big risk that it will be raided?
I wouldn't really say the maths is "in your corner"... yes you made a few calculations, and you may indeed be correct to conclude that trade takes 14 minutes to pay off, but you've got nothing but speculation when it comes to concluding that this cost/payoff for setting up trade is unreasonable.Advice and meta resistant yes, but the math remains firmly in my corner. My fairly simply google doc shows 14 minutes where the wood chopper has more resources including and most importantly gold until the trader breaks even with him and starts to pull away.
Ah - now I understand what you were trying to get at when you described my reasoning as "flat earth argument"! 11I can't believe the meta was once that the earth was flat.
Perhaps, but quoting from here...In the course of this argument, I haven't once said I'm right because I'm better than them at this game.
My responses are in the quoted text above. I guess you could say Im better at irritating people than I am at responding logistics.The 35 mangudai don't just appear out of nowhere. The cost of making carts from 3 markets is equivalent to the cost of 4-5 mangudai per minute.
Only you are limited by your number of Castles. 5 castles producing takes about 70-75 villagers by my calculation. So you should be able to just make as well (and then you can make mangudai forever!)
Even with another unit such as paladin, you are limited by population, and the idea with trade is you gradually transition to this and maintain a good military population, whereas by selling, your paladin numbers will reduce to very little.
By the way, keeping a market producing trade carts takes about 7 villagers. So producing them from, say, 3 markets should take less than 20% of your eco. Going 3 TCs against someone staying on 1 is much tougher to hold out against.
Of course many games will end in the (approximate) 35-50 minute time window. Point is, it is pretty unlikely that the cost of setting up trade with be a decisive factor toward losing a game, whilst full trade vs no trade is very likely to decide a game after that time.
From the time the trader buys his first cart, assuming consistent production from 4 markets, hes out 3000 gold vs the seller 7 minutes later which is just before the FIRST cart returns with his first trade revenue. Its as close to being an instant 3000 gold advantage as it gets. Trader pays for 32 carts before the FIRST gets back with revenue batch one. I offered to simulate this effect by booming to say 40 minutes vs trirem and then having him tribute half the wood and gold that he would be behind by if he invested in trade carts. He declined. Im up for the challenge if anyone is game. The best way to test this would be someone of equal skill. Im currently 1860 ELO on HD, but I hope that doesnt stop people from dismissing my arguments because I used to be 1700 HD when I made the vid/argument nearly a year ago. Btw I rarely trade and only play BF team games.
And the advice to set up trade goes hand-in-hand with the advice to protect trade. You could make a similar argument about villagers - why make villagers if there is a pretty big risk that they will be raided?
I wouldn't really say the maths is "in your corner"... yes you made a few calculations, and you may indeed be correct to conclude that trade takes 14 minutes to pay off, but you've got nothing but speculation when it comes to concluding that this cost/payoff for setting up trade is unreasonable.
Hence the idea to test this vs an equal skilled player. I tried challenging a player I assume is way better than me but he declined.
Ah - now I understand what you were trying to get at when you described my reasoning as "flat earth argument"! 11
But no. The meta exists as a result of many 1000s of games/experiments. Whereas your argument is that you reckon that you can get a big advantage by ignoring trade despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Overwhelming evidence sure doesnt look like math to me. Overwhelming crowds of people saying Im wrong? Yes. Overwhelming people who resort to telling me Im wrong cause theyre better at the game? Yes.
Perhaps, but quoting from here...
"I stopped arguing because the responses were childish, basic, insulting, and lacked any mathematical argument, ie typical of internet dorks with zero business or real world expertise."
Its abundantly clear that you do actually think you are a cut above us in your intelligence, mathematical ability, "real world expertise", whatever. Consider that plenty of people here and in the community may be just as capable of putting a few numbers together (maybe more so!), whilst also having the game experience and knowledge to make meaningful conclusions from them.
Saying their responses were childish and lacked math is much different than saying Im better at aoe2 or smarter than them. I apologize if calling responses for what they were offended people and gave you all the impression Im elitist in my viewpoints. I guess Im just disheartened that an entire group of calculating individuals like aoe2 players is so ingrained in trading that they cant so much as open a google doc and say "wow I had no idea it took 14 minutes to break even, but I still consider it a worthy investment rather than relying on an early push with a big eco edge." Like, 100 people responded that trade pays off in the first return trip. Everyone agreed with them. Its like 1000 people over 1000000 games never noticed that you plunk a boatload of resources into trade before the first cart returns around 6 minutes later.
This. At 1700 HD its often simply about who gets his ressources on the map. In the end you are arguning with this exact maths for a level of 1700 HD, where the player with a bit more ressources wont win the game simply.I think another problem here is that setting up trade isn't really game breaking at all at 1700 HD level. I know most people at the 1700 level boom up, float huge amount of resources while imping, and then try to set up an army. I'm not that much better at the game at my 1850 rating, but even I have this problem. Most teamgames on black forest on 1700 level are not decided by the small surplus of gold you may get by selling res, as most people are floating like 3000 gold anyway. The games are decided by the one who is ultimately a few minutes earlier with setting up their production buildings after the boom and completely overwhelming the opponent, who has all the res in the world but not yet the production buildings. So math doesn't apply here at all, it's just the pure mechanical skill of 1 player on your team that can flip the odds in your favour.
To add to this, if someone doesn't completely overwhelm the enemy and win right there, there is either the chance for a base race to decide the winner, or it will end in a stalemate, where the one team with better trade has the upper hand.
Click on the map to enlarge
Immobile Units (1744)
King Bahram (1744)
I think what could be a big difference in our experience is that team BF on hd is played typically with 300 pop. I convert all my gold into units by 40 mins. And my food / wood into units also. I could see how with 200 pop this wouldn't be possible and as you say youd have a surplus so why not trade. My experience is that an extra 3000 gold would be decisive. In 200 pop it would be more of a speed thing, ie 3000 gold lets you tech into SO and FU Mangudai sooner.OK, I think maybe the main thing that is missing here is that 3000 resources make just about 0 difference in BF. Everyone booms, everyone has plenty of resources; its how to push effectively is all that matters. I guarantee that if you sling your pkt every BF game for 3000 res at min 32, you will see 0 correlation between doing this and winning more.
It all comes down to having a sustainable push.
That being said, yes there are definitely scenarios in BF where things are open and you can avoid trade (arabia style) to finish the game fast, but these are rare. In any fully walled game, a sustained push is whats needed.
Also, I should mention that I dont know why you assume that setting up trade destroys your economy.
When I do trade boom, I'm pretty much on unlimited resources by min 34. Based on this I can already say its useless to put off trade; cause if you can get to unlimited res before SO is in the game then why not 11.
Maybe what you are missing is that with very efficient boom/trade set up you can have things rolling much much faster than you think. 3000 resource difference should be very much over by min 38 imo. And if it isn't I would say its negligible.
Also you shouldn't value 3000 res as a big number; rather it should be taken as a percentage of your current income. By minute 38 3000 res is actually very very small as a percentage compared to your net income per few minutes.