Simpson's paradox from Wikipedia.
posted by Tim at 8:58 PM

The Dev Diary article at 1UP.com has some interesting comments around their selection of the tribes for use in T&P.

Looking continentally, we found a preponderance of European and Asian nations; our own North American continent was sadly underrepresented. Since governments were going to be a major part of the expansion, and since the Iroquois nations are attributed with a strong constitutional form of government, they were an obvious choice. Likewise, the Lakota are probably the Native American tribe most strongly recognized in the imaginations of Americans today, due in part to the movie "Dances With Wolves."

WHAT?! Call me ignorant, but I'd never heard of the "Lakota" before T&P. Yea, I've seen Dances With Wolves, but I, along with everyone else (except the designers at BHG), never paid attention to the tribe's name.

So if you asked people to name Indian Tribes (an example of unprompted brand recognition), they'd probably say: Cherokee (Cherokee People!), Navajo, Sioux, or Apache. But never Lakota.

Pause.

Okay, on my way to get a soda, I queried several colleagues. Just to prove the point. "Name 5 Indian tribes." Cherokee and Sioux always came first. Along with a smattering of Apaches, Navajos and Iroquois, plus the occasional wacky tribe that was from an area where someone grew up. But no one mentioned the Lakota. So it's not just me, BHG:

NO ONE KNOWS THE LAKOTA EXCEPT YOU AND KEVIN COSTNER!

So here's my advice: Change the Lakota name to Sioux. Your product will resonate better with customers. Better resonation = better sales. Well, ... maybe. Besides, the Lakota were really part of the Sioux Nation, so you can console yourselves with that.

UPDATE: Okay, when considering this, perhaps the Sioux name isn't the best idea. So why not use the Cherokee? They're actually more populous than the Sioux.

UPDATE II: Don't get me wrong. WE are the ones who are ignorant in Indian history. However, you can take one of two positions. You can pander to the popular wisdom, or you can educate the masses. My position is that pandering gets you more sales. More sales = more players, and (to be selfish) more players = more readers. ;-)

If we were to use the prevailing logic, you'd might rightly complain about the French. They were originally the "Gauls." Or better yet, you'd pick an equivalent Gallic tribe, like the "Averni." No one's heard of the Averni, either.

UPDATE III: ROFL.

Chances are, you have probably never heard of the Native American tribe, the Haudenosaunee, nor of their favorite game, called -- in their language, Ga-lahs. You might know the game better by its French term -- lacrosse -- and the people better by the great confederacy of which they were an honored member, the Iroquois. Actually, the name "Iroquois" is also a French title; a derivation of the Algonquin insult of "Irinakhoiw," to which the French "ois" was added. You can hardly blame the French for having trouble pronouncing "Haudenosaunee" though, can you? On the other hand, this derisive term could explain why the Iroquois were stubbornly hostile to the French for decades.

I can be pretty dense sometimes. So explain to me again why we're using the Iroquois name and NOT the Sioux name?
posted by Tim at 2:04 PM

I have not figured out why yet, but the computer keeps ROLLING me when it plays India. (This is on the toughest AI setting, and I am purposely NOT rushing, so as to give it a chance to build up.) So, I am going to take a deeper look at India. I think it mostly has to do with the non-ramping cost of buildings. We'll see.

UPDATE AFTER LOSING 5 IN A ROW: Maybe I just suck. I get my head handed to me whenever I try to play Indians. Maybe I have bad karma.
posted by Tim at 1:36 PM

A report entitled Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science has been released by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION
1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda. These actions include: appointing underqualified individuals to important advisory roles including childhood lead poisoning prevention and reproductive health; applying political litmus tests that have no bearing on a nominee's expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist to a senior position in the president's scientific advisory staff; and dismissing highly qualified scientific advisors.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics. In this context, "sensitive" applies to issues that might provoke opposition from the administration's political and ideological supporters.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

It's an astonishing document. If you are concerned for the integrity of scientific research, then I suggest you take a gander. Better yet, print it out and visit the "reading room."
posted by Tim at 2:40 PM

I have a simple idea to solve all of this.

Why don't we just call homosexual people "heterosexual." We can call one of the partners "male" and one of them "female." Then there won't be any impediment to them both calling themselves "married."

Okay, so I'm joking. Sort of.

At its heart, this is really a semantic argument. Most people aren't offended by "civil unions" for homosexuals, wherein the couple obtains legal benefits equivalent to those that married couples receive. Some states have this, but most don't; however, we could get there pretty quickly. There's no real justification for not extending legal marriage benefits to civil unions. So it's only partially an issue of legal oppression. I'd argue it's really a form of linguistic oppression. Homosexuals are rightly disgruntled at not being able to say, "This is my spouse," or, "We're married." Why should they have to use inferior terms to describe their relationship, regardless of legal status?

But let's look at the other side of the equation. For most people (and yes, despite the hoopla, I firmly believe this is what most people believe, based on polls AND actual votes), marriage has a sanctity that is special -- and well-defined. They prefer that the word keep it's traditional definition: union between a man and a woman. They're not really concerned about "legal" rights as much as they don't want to besmirch the word and change the definition. Otherwise they'll have to start saying, "This is my traditional spouse," and, "Yes, we're really married."

So, if we assume that homosexuals obtain the right to be called "married," what will the heterosexuals want to be called instead?

And while we're on the subject, we might as well start now with this: females rallying to be called "husbands" because the term "wife" is linguistically oppressive.
posted by Tim at 7:36 AM

I felt pretty dumb after EC asked if Lakota could make use of captured farms. They can't build them, but can they farm ones they capture. My response was that it hadn't occurred to me at all. "I'm so ashamed." Here's why.

When you capture an enemy city their farms disappear!

Well no wonder I never tried farming before. The granary is a different story. When you capture an enemy city, the granary remains; you can research the food tech but it does NOT increase the +5. It probably helps with fishing, but I didn't test it.

This farm disappearing bit can have a pretty big military impact. Now you can raid by taking cities. Even if it is suicide and you cannot hold it, he loses all his farms which could put a pretty big damper on an economy, even if he fends you off. Can't really tell from SP whether those farms COMPLETELY disappear or just don't show up for the Lakota player. More research is needed.
posted by Tim at 10:02 PM

Here.
posted by Tim at 12:36 PM

Latest results

1 - AU_bird *80* (5097) Mongols.
2 - Stiff *75* (5112) Mongols.
3 - Readyman *75* (5101) Mongols.
4 - Dyers Eve *73* (5613) Mongols.
5 - aaccee *73* (5266) Mongols.
6 - Beechworth *68* (4700) Mongols.
7 - Out4Blood *66* (4976) British.
8 - Tren *63* (4542) French.
9 - AU_Floater *62* (4300) Japanese.
10 - AU_niDe *61* (4786) Germans.

HOLY HORDE, BATMAN! 80!!
posted by Tim at 11:57 AM

I previously laid out my ranking of the new nations. I had placed Persians ahead of Americans, merely because I had been unable, in a few tries, to beat the Toughest AI without rushing. (By rushing, you can beat MULTIPLE teamed Toughest AIs with just about any civ.)

However, I think I have "cracked the code" on the Americans, and I now move them ahead of the Persians on my favorite civ list. They gather knowledge incredibly fast and can maintain a very large barracks army. You may want to get the Colossus instead of the Hanging Gardens for that reason.

With the advent of governments and the Republic (+50 to commerce) almost any civ can be an economic powerhouse. You can have a +200 econ by the 5:00 mark. Keeping it capped will be the hard part.
posted by Tim at 7:12 AM

I've found a weakness in the Lakota: Water maps.

While I'd originally postulated they might be good for fishing. They are not ... sorta. Because Lakota do not get farms. They currently do not get a granary. So there is no way to upgrade the fishing fleet. Normally, getting a granary and the first upgrade (for +50% food) is critical to keeping food capped in a fishing boom. However, Lakota can't get that. Also, there seems to be no way to upgrade the +5 food per villager, either. (Note: I have plans to research this in more detail, but just haven't done it.)

However, in practice, fishing is best in the early ages where it provides quick food and wealth. In normal games, I'll eventually transition to farms as the fishing fleet becomes vulnerable. It just requires too much micro (for me) to adequately defend fishing. So I rarely get to enjoy the full benefits of +30 fishing. Not being able to upgrade the Lakota fishing fleet hurts, but not so much that I don't want to play them.

Secondly, on water maps with new continents, Lakota have the same restrictions other civs do. COM2 required to settle new continents and your first settle must be near the shore. On maps like West Indies or Warring States, their bonus becomes all but useless. It's no wonder they call it the Power of the Plains.

They are still my favorite so far because of their unique style of play.

UPDATE: Another "weakness" they have is that they cannot immediately build in the "neutral" territory surrounding a city that has been recently taken, but not assimilated. So this throws out the capture-the-capital-and-tower-it-up-before-reinforcements-arrive strategy. Evidently there are four different types of territory control: friendly, enemy, neutral, and contested. Contested being the uncolored territory surrounding a city being assimilated. Makes sense.

But DARN!
posted by Tim at 7:03 AM

So I've been sparring mostly with the computer. Unfortunately, not very many real players have the beta (except the MOFOs) and so getting an actual game going will probably take some time. So here are my rankings after playing each civ a few times versus toughest and tougher (when I couldn't take them toughtest one) AI

1. Lakota. Against the computer, Lakota roxor dood. Toughest AI can't handle any serious border grabbing, with which the Lakota just rule. That and their free-wheeling raider style makes them tough to deal with. Easy to beat toughest. However, a human opponent might be more difficult: 1) He'll be better at raiding. 2) He'll know you're going to forward build a and take you out with some HI.

2. Persians. I don't like the ellies, but the extra food, cheaper civic and automatic caravans make them easy to keep going. I love the auro-caravans. If there is one I thing I always seem to forget, it is making caravans. Persians will be difficult to hurt by raiding, if played correctly. Can beat toughest, but it's hard.

3. Americans. They are definitely rush-capable civ, since you earn resources while you are building up. However, they are also great knowledge boomers with the free scholars and the instant wonder (Hanging Gardens). So they are a great versatile civ, similar to Japanese, but stronger on the booming side and slower on the rush. Have not beat toguhest yet.

4. Indians, & Iroquois don't get me as excited. I have not played them as much, but when I did I was not overwhelmed. It will take some time to make use of the Iroquois bonuses, and the government bonus has not been implemented in beta yet. Computer seems to cruise when playing Indians, so maybe I just suck.

5. Dutch. The Dutch probably require a completely different build path from what I have been using, but the bonuses sound better than they are actually worth. At least to me. So far... Free merchants are worthless until you scout some rares. Cheaper commerce is nice but not killer. Armed merchants is kind of goofy. Just makes you "slightly" more difficult to raid. In a boom fest, that doesn't help. And in a real battle it doesn't help, either. The "interest on deposits" bonus is only for people who don't know to spend their money. The dock bonus means I have to research MIL1 before docking on a water map, else I don't get my ships. I've gotten owned by toughest every time I've tried them.
posted by Tim at 10:27 PM

I have focused primarily on the multiplayer strategy aspects of the new expansion. That's because I only play multiplayer. (Note: I do use the quick battle feature to test and refine strats.) However, a HUGE MAJORITY of the people who play computer games NEVER play on-line. They only play the single player campaigns. RON took some flak for only having one single-player campaign. However, in the expansion, they have FIVE. Huge difference. So single-player fans should rejoice. Lots of cool stuff for them. And a few things for the multiplayer fans to give them an incentive to upgrade.

And who won't? I mean, if you are still playing RON now, then you must be pretty hard-core.

And if you are reading THIS, then you are REALLY HARD-CORE. (You could even say "elite.") Suggests I am preaching to the choir. Going out and buying T&P should be au-to-ma-tic for you.
posted by Tim at 4:57 PM

Onimusha 3 - Game Intro. For PS2. Looks sweet.
posted by Tim at 10:51 AM