You should, in fact, follow the kingdom's rankings through one or two clear attacking sprees and check how high the kingdom is *after* those attacking sprees. Pop grabbed himself to first or second with each and every one of those pushes as gobbo, with only YF beating his land size with another gobbo.
Formulas without taking into all variables are worse than no formula!
Isn't that the very definition of a model/theory? You leave out some small variables - which you know affect the outcome - that you regard as so small that it helps making your model/theory easier to manipulate/use?
Actually, you bring up an interesting point; and it's a timely one for me, because a few days ago I had a debate over dinner this very particular topic with a few college friends over dinner.
The main topic of that debate had to do with the validity of Samuel Huntington's (in-)famous "Clash of Civilization" thesis--which I am sure you know about. One friend objected to Huntington on the basis that the concept of "civilization" or "culture" does not explain many major developments in the world as a "meta-theory." For instance, he said, Saudi Arabia seems closer in some sense to the U.S. than its more radical Arab neighbors, in spite of their civilizational affinity.
In response, I referred to Huntington's own defense of his thesis against similar criticisms: A theory or model does not need to explain everything but only explain more--and better--than its alternatives in a parsimonious manner. This appears to me your position, and I obviously do not disagree, as I tend to rather liberally use theories and generalization.
But the problem here with Immor's model/theory is twofold. First, he seems to be outright factually wrong about the most important or primary data as he presents as his "evidence." Second, the "variables" he left out were not "small" or "minor" but "major". So Perhaps I should have originally said:
"Formulas without taking into all major
variables are worse than no formula!"