View Full Version : The fact about hurry production cost (a bug?)


predacon
Dec 03, 2005, 09:42 PM
Hi, everyone, I have tested the production hurring of civilization 4 and drawn a striking

conclusion. As far as I known, no post have mentioned this on this forum.
This test is carried out on version 1.09.
In civilization 4, there are two methods to hurry production. Universal suffage enables the

hurry production by spending gold and slavery enables it by population.
The amount of gold and population spent are multiples of the amount of "hammers" to finish the

production. That is

Gold = a * hammers or Population = b * hammers

Here after, we call the coefficient "a" the hurry coefficient.
Basically b = [a/90]+1 . The "+1" term is noticable and you should wait for one more turn to

save 1 population when the gold cost displayed is a mutiple of 90 gold. (it is always displayed

when you move your mouse over the button even such a hurry is not enabled and the button is

greyed out.)
The hurry coefficient "a" is determined by several factors.

1> The base hurry coefficient is determined by the sum of all "+xx% production" factors

EXCEPT forges, factories, power and ironworks.
These factors include:

a> Orgnized religion +25% for all buildinds.
b> Some leader trait adds +100% for some buildings i.e. finacial for bankings,

industrious for forges and so on.
c> Industrious trait add +50% for wonders.
d> Police state civic add +25% for military units.
e> Dry docks add 50% for navy units
f> Hero Epic add 100% for military units.
g> Stone +100 for pyramid, walls, Hanging Garden ..., marble +100% for Oracle, Great

Library ... and so on.

2> For a world wonder the base hurry coeff is multiplied by a factor of 2, for a national

wonder, the factor is 1.5 .
3> The hurry coefficient is multiplied by a factor of 2 when the production is just started.
4> Normally, the hurry cost is reduced by world wonder Kremlin by 50%. If the production is just started, the cost is only reduced by 25%.

The relation between basic hurry coefficient and the sum of all +XX% proction" factors are

listed as following.

Sum of factors -- Base hurry coefficient
0% -- 3
25% -- 2.5
50% -- 2.25
75% -- 2.1
100%-- 2
125%--1.928
150%--1.875
175%--1.833


For an example , a city of QinShiHuang try to build a pyramid , it have access to stone, the civic is orgnized relgion and the city is with the national religion.
The hammer cost for pyramid is 450, and the sum of factors is 175% ( 100% from stone, 50% from industrious trait, 25% from orgnized religion civic ). So the base hurry coefficient is 1.8333, and for a world wonder it is magnified to 3.6667. It is magnified to 7.3333 for the first turn of building. So the cost for first turn is 7.33333*450 = 3300 gold conis and it is reduced to a bit smaller than 3.6666*450 = 1667 gold coins for the next turn. (The exact number is a little smaller or bigger in real games, the error comes form rounding in calculation and is very little however.)

The coefficents list above is in Normal game speed.
Finally, the surprising thing is that the coefficients in Epic games are 1/3 smaller and in

Quick games 1/2 greater than Normal games!
So a settler cost 67, 100 and 150 hammers in quick, normal and epic games respectively, but

for hurry producing it costs 600 gold coins for any game speeds ( i.e. less than 300g after 1

turn passed).
The conclusion is that hurry production with gold is cheapest in Epic games and most expensive

for quick games and the differences is great. So if anybody hurries production with gold a lot,

builds cottages everywhere possible, adopts univeral suffage, free speech very often, the epic

games are much easier. The reason is in slower games the hammers costed to build unit and

buildings, beakers to research technologies, breads for cities to grow up, turns for workers to

build improvements and even turns for cottage/hamlet/villiages to grown up are all 150% more than

an adjacent quicker level, BUT the money spent to hurry producing same unit/buildings is the

same. That is you hold 150% or 225% more gold coins and still spend the same for a hurry

production.
Is this a bug? I think so. Any ideas?
(sorry for the re-post, but i think it is more suitable to this board and i can not remove the one posted on str&tips board)

KrikkitTwo
Dec 03, 2005, 09:47 PM
Well the hurry bonus for gold is definitely a bug, although I'd imagine the same thing applies for population, where it is not a bug.

Summing up
its not: b=[a/90]+1 (that would means something that cost 10 hammers would need at Least 10 population units)

its: Population cost=[Gold Cost/90]+1

Also the 'Gold Cost' formula
Gold Cost=Hammer cost*3*Kremlin*Wonder*Startup*(1+s)/(1+2s)

where s is the special production bonus
Startup, Wonder, and Kremlin are the modifiers for those.

predacon
Dec 03, 2005, 10:24 PM
Good formula ,
But the kremlin and startup factor should be added up first,
that is:

Gold Cost=Hammer cost*3*(Kremlin+Startup)*Wonder*(1+s)/(1+2s)

Khaim
Dec 04, 2005, 07:48 AM
Also, are you sure that all the bonuses are mutliplied? Nearly everywhere else in the game, all % modifiers are additive and only the sum is applied to the base cost. The difference is usually small, but it might be something to check.

Nice information to have in any case. The key point is probably that 1 shield is roughly 3 gold.

KrikkitTwo
Dec 23, 2005, 12:20 PM
May need to be revised with 1.52 (there are undocumented changes perhaps they caught the gold rush bug) It would also help to know which bonuses are added and which are subtracted.

LordTerror
Jan 01, 2006, 08:12 PM
This is patched in v1.52.

DaviddesJ
Jan 04, 2006, 02:10 AM
In v1.52, the extra cost for rushing construction on the first turn is only +50%, not +100%.

The adjustment for game speed looks right, now; e.g., for Epic speed, pop cost = [gold cost/135] + 1.

DaviddesJ
Jan 04, 2006, 06:52 AM
Although the cost of pop rushing seems to be correct in v1.52, the results after pop rushing don't seem to be correct.

E.g., in an Epic game, I was building an Axeman, with 10/43 completed so far. The game correctly told me that it would cost 1 pop to rush it. I clicked on the button, and then, after losing 1 pop, I had 70/43 completed on the Axeman. I.e., 1 pop can only rush a unit with less than 45 hammers needed, but, it's giving +60 hammers when I do rush it!

In a different town, I have a Worker with 72/75 completed. When I pop rush, I lose 1 pop and I go to 102/75 completed; i.e., I'm only getting +30 hammers!

My guess, from the above two examples, is that it's a rounding problem that shows up at Epic speed because of the fractional 1.5 multiplier. I.e., you're supposed to get +45 hammers from pop rushing, but sometimes you get +30 and other times you get +60. This can happen because it's rounding off an intermediate result, to an integer.

It appears that you get +30 hammers if you need 30 or less. If you need more than 30 (but less than 45), you get +60 instead!

ancestral
Jan 04, 2006, 10:26 AM
As far as I know, in Civ IV, it's 1 population point sacrificed for every 30 hammers. So if your production has between 31 and 60 hammers left, that will be two people sacrificed. The extra hammers, as you experienced, are eaten up. (Yes, the fraction is greater than 1, but really it's inconsequential. The important part is the hammers don't roll over to the next item in production when production is hurried.)

The number of hammers per turn shouldn't change between game speeds; otherwise, hurrying production in slower game speeds would certainly be faster. The idea is that it takes longer between epic and normal speeds to build everything, but the production doesn't change to compensate (as there actually is no compensation :)

DaviddesJ
Jan 04, 2006, 10:32 AM
As far as I know, in Civ IV, it's 1 population point sacrificed for every 30 hammers. So if your production has between 31 and 60 hammers left, that will be two people sacrificed.

As I said in my posting, that's not how it works. If you are going to claim that I'm wrong, you should first try it for yourself.

The number of hammers per turn shouldn't change between game speeds; otherwise, hurrying production in slower game speeds would certainly be faster. The idea is that it takes longer between epic and normal speeds to build everything, but the production doesn't change to compensate (as there actually is no compensation :)

I don't really understand what this means. As discussed above, 1 pop is worth 30 hammers at Normal speed and 45 hammers at Epic speed, in v1.52. This is as it should be: it costs 1.5 times as much food to create 1 pop; it should be worth 1.5 times as many hammers, in return. Before the patch, 1 pop was always worth 30 hammers (before adjustments for production multipliers), which was a bug.

It's plausible, though, that it's effectively using the code from Normal speed to decide how many hammers to add. So, the number of pop used to rush is computed differently at different speeds, but the number of hammers added is always the smallest multiple of 30 that is sufficient to bring the total up to the target cost. That would mean that in Quick games, rushing with 1 pop would add +30 hammers, when it should only add +20. I did a quick test, and that seems to be true.

Zombie69
Jan 05, 2006, 02:24 PM
The important part is the hammers don't roll over to the next item in production when production is hurried.

Actually, they do carry over in the overflow.

DaveMcW
Jan 07, 2006, 01:35 AM
Edit: This post applies to patch 1.52. All bugs were fixed in 1.61.

Here is a table of pop rush results. I assume you have at least one hammer invested, to avoid the 50% penalty when rushing from zero.

Column 1 = Hammers needed to finish production
Columns 2-5 = Citizens killed ... Hammers gained


Needed Quick Normal Epic Marathon
1 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
2 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
3 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
4 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
5 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
6 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
7 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
8 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
9 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
10 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
11 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
12 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
13 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
14 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
15 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
16 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
17 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
18 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
19 1…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
20 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
21 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
22 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
23 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
24 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
25 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
26 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
27 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
28 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
29 2…30 1…30 1…30 1…30
30 2…30 2…30 1…30 1…30
31 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
32 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
33 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
34 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
35 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
36 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
37 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
38 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
39 2…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
40 3…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
41 3…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
42 3…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
43 3…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
44 3…60 2…60 1…60 1…60
45 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
46 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
47 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
48 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
49 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
50 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
51 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
52 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
53 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
54 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
55 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
56 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
57 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
58 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
59 3…60 2…60 2…60 1…60
60 4…60 3…60 2…60 1…60
61 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
62 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
63 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
64 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
65 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
66 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
67 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
68 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
69 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
70 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
71 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
72 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
73 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
74 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
75 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
76 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
77 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
78 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
79 4…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
80 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
81 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
82 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
83 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
84 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
85 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
86 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
87 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
88 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
89 5…90 3…90 2…90 1…90
90 5…90 4…90 3…90 2…90
91 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
92 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
93 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
94 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
95 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
96 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
97 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
98 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
99 5…120 4…120 3…120 2…120
100 6…120 4…120 3…120 2…120


It looks like the pop cost is modified correctly (20, 30, 45, 90), but the result jump points are not modified at all!

Another issue is that for round numbers of hammer needed, an extra citizen is needlessly killed.

Zombie69
Jan 07, 2006, 05:04 PM
Conclusion : unless you play at standard game speed, you're playing on a buggy, yet to be complete game mode.

DaviddesJ
Jan 07, 2006, 05:12 PM
Conclusion : unless you play at standard game speed, you're playing on a buggy, yet to be complete game mode.

So, you think that paying 2 pop for 30 hammers, at Normal speed when you have exactly 30 hammers needed, is a "non-buggy, complete" game mode?

Zombie69
Jan 07, 2006, 05:22 PM
True, even standard speed is somewhat buggy, but the others are totally out of whack!

Qitai
Jan 18, 2006, 10:08 AM
Did some test and would rather have a formula the other way around due to some micro-management so as not to waste hammers.

I am more interested in pop-rush, so here it is for hammer per pop.

Hammers per pop = speed base hammer * Kremlin bonus * Zero Penalty * National Wonder Penalty * World Wonder Penalty * (1 + Sum of all production bonuses as appear on the screen)

Speed Base hammer = 20, 30, 45, 90
Kremlin Bonus = 2
Zero Penalty = 2/3
National Wonder Penalty = 2/3
World Wonder Penalty = 1/2
Production bonuses includes resource, civ traits, forge, factory etc.

E.g. Epic game with Kremlin Bonus building a National World with the required resource and only a forge would give you

45*2*2/3*(1+0.25+1) = 135 hammers per pop

The total hammers generated is always remaining hammer required round up to the nearest 30 hammers. So, it is always more profitable to have the remaining hammers as just a little above a multiple of 30 so you get the extra overflow hammers. So, in the above case, it would be optimal to hurry at say when there is 121-134 hammers remaining in order to get 150 hammers out of one pop.

syndicatedragon
Jan 18, 2006, 11:18 AM
You guys should post this over in the bugs forum

DaviddesJ
Jan 18, 2006, 12:57 PM
E.g. Epic game with Kremlin Bonus building a National World with the required resource and only a forge would give you

45*2*2/3*(1+0.25+1) = 270 hammers per pop!!

Your math is wrong; this is only 135 hammers.

Qitai
Jan 18, 2006, 06:14 PM
Your math is wrong; this is only 135 hammers.

Getting old :blush:

Original text corrected.

Woebearer
Feb 03, 2006, 12:01 AM
I did some experiments on poprushing and was coming up with some very strange results.

I had results from 30, 45, and even 60! hammers per population killed. In one instance I decided to test the difference between city populations and a pop of 5 (sacing 2 population for University) was giving me 60 hammers and every other pop (including 4) gave me 90 hammers?!?

Qitai
Feb 03, 2006, 12:19 AM
I did some experiments on poprushing and was coming up with some very strange results.

I had results from 30, 45, and even 60! hammers per population killed. In one instance I decided to test the difference between city populations and a pop of 5 (sacing 2 population for University) was giving me 60 hammers and every other pop (including 4) gave me 90 hammers?!?

Read this line I wrote and what others have posted:

"The total hammers generated is always remaining hammer required round up to the nearest 30 hammers. So, it is always more profitable to have the remaining hammers as just a little above a multiple of 30 so you get the extra overflow hammers. So, in the above case, it would be optimal to hurry at say when there is 121-134 hammers remaining in order to get 150 hammers out of one pop."

To elaborate, if one pop is suppose to give you 45 hammers. But you have only 20 hammers left to complete the production, then you will get only 30 hammers. But on the other hand if you have 32 hammers left to complete the production, then you will actually get 60 hammers. The actual hammer gain is always round up to the nearest 30 hammers base on the remaining hammers to complete the production.

KrikkitTwo
Feb 03, 2006, 11:52 AM
The manner in which it is done seems like it should be changed to one of these two methods

Method 1: (most similar to current model)

Remaining cost (in hammers) x Modifiers (Wonders, Just stared, Kremlin, special bonuses, etc.)= Modified Cost

Population units Sacrificed=[Modified Cost/(Population value for speed level*)+1] round down

*20,30,45,90

Overflow=(Population units Sacrificed) x (Population value for speed level*)-Modified Cost

which would preserve the 'bonus effects' and keep it similar to cash rushing. BUT also maintain a constant 'value' for population units.

Method 2:
Would be make Slavery like Chop rushing, hitting the 'Slavery Rush' button would ALWAYS eliminate exactly say 1/10 of the city's population (rounding up), adding about 4, 6, 9 or 18 turns of unhappiness and 20, 30, 45, or 90 to base production for each population eliminated.

The 'just started' and Wonder effects would be eliminated, but if you could only sacrifice one population per turn, they wouldn't be necessary. (because a large project or one that was just started wouldn't be possible to 1 turn rush, and the unhappiness would be higher as well, since it would be per pop sacrificed, not per rush.)

The Kremlin also wouldn't have an effect then, unless it added some additional bonus (perhaps it could give make whipping unhappiness fade faster, or allow more production from each whip).

I personally favor this method since it makes population rushing more like chop rushing, which seems like a more reasonable model.

DaviddesJ
Feb 04, 2006, 03:56 PM
1> The base hurry coefficient is determined by the sum of all "+xx% production" factors

EXCEPT forges, factories, power and ironworks.

Hey, I just noticed that, in 1.52, the Forge does reduce the cost for gold rushing. This seems like a bug....

PieceOfMind
Feb 05, 2006, 12:27 AM
Hey, I just noticed that, in 1.52, the Forge does reduce the cost for gold rushing. This seems like a bug....

Of the production-enhancing buildings is it only the forge that does it? If not, why does it seem like a bug?

DaviddesJ
Feb 05, 2006, 12:30 AM
Of the production-enhancing buildings is it only the forge that does it? If not, why does it seem like a bug?

Just because it seems wrong to let players produce gold with their cottages, get a gold bonus for their financial buildings, then convert the gold into production, and get a second bonus for their production buildings. This makes towns with Universal Suffrage way more powerful for production than doing actual production. Even without the Kremlin.

Maybe it's not a "bug", just a bad design decision.

PieceOfMind
Feb 05, 2006, 01:32 AM
I see your point DaviddesJ. I just always assumed it would be unfair to do the opposite - that is negate all bonsues when pop/gold rushing. If the production bonuses were not used when rushing, esp. pop rushing, I would see little point in ever doing it. I don't know what to think.

I figure you think that for a wealthy nation gold rushing is overpowered when these produciton modifiers are included? I could understand then and would probably agree that gold rushing in particular should not have these produciton modifiers, but the modifiers should be applied for pop rushing. What do you think?

DaviddesJ
Feb 05, 2006, 02:27 AM
If the production bonuses were not used when rushing, esp. pop rushing, I would see little point in ever doing it.

I think most people use Slavery early in the game, when they wouldn't have Forges anyway, much less Factories and Power Plants. It's certainly useful in those early stages, and the question of whether to apply the multipliers is irrelevant, because you don't have any.

I figure you think that for a wealthy nation gold rushing is overpowered when these produciton modifiers are included? I could understand then and would probably agree that gold rushing in particular should not have these produciton modifiers, but the modifiers should be applied for pop rushing. What do you think?

I don't care much either way about pop rushing. But using the multipliers for gold rushing is too strong. A town will produce 7 commerce/turn, and 1 hammer/turn. With Grocer, Market, and Bank, that's 14 gold/turn. Converting 14 gold/turn to hammers at 3:1 gives 4.7 hammers/turn, plus the 1 hammer/turn from the town itself, makes 5.7 hammers/turn. That's way more production output from a town tile than you can normally get from any production improvement.

And, if you have Kremlin, then you get the effect of 10.4 hammers/turn per tile! In the middle to late game, why build anything the normal way, at all?

You also don't need to build Forges, Factories, and Power Plants everywhere. You can just build them in selected cities, pump out gold from all of your cities, and channel it into production in the selected few that have the production bonuses.

PieceOfMind
Feb 05, 2006, 03:03 AM
If the production bonuses were not used when rushing, esp. pop rushing, I would see little point in ever doing it.

I should have been clearer. I use slave rushing a lot in the early game too. But in a city that has significant production multipliers (probably at least 50% eg. forge and Organised Religion) it would seem pointless to pop rush if the production multipliers were not used. Of course in cities without any production modifiers it is still useful to use pop rushing.

And, if you have Kremlin, then you get the effect of 10.4 hammers/turn per tile! In the middle to late game, why build anything the normal way, at all?

I agree. Production multipliers affecting gold rushes seems unbalanced when you put it that way esp. with the Kremlin.
It sounds like a good basis for a strategy in the mid to late game - a way to reward the player who builds up wealth and establishes a high gold income. Especially since factories are so expensive it would be nice to only have to build factories in a few cities. Maybe this is considered exploitive though.

Qitai
Feb 05, 2006, 04:53 AM
I don't care much either way about pop rushing. But using the multipliers for gold rushing is too strong. A town will produce 7 commerce/turn, and 1 hammer/turn. With Grocer, Market, and Bank, that's 14 gold/turn. Converting 14 gold/turn to hammers at 3:1 gives 4.7 hammers/turn, plus the 1 hammer/turn from the town itself, makes 5.7 hammers/turn. That's way more production output from a town tile than you can normally get from any production improvement.

And, if you have Kremlin, then you get the effect of 10.4 hammers/turn per tile! In the middle to late game, why build anything the normal way, at all?


Since you corrected my figure earlier, so I am correcting yours too. The Kremlin does not work on that one production which is not bought. So, the hammers your get should be 4.7*2 + 1 = 9.4 rather than 5.7*2 = 10.4 hammers. :p

DaviddesJ
Feb 05, 2006, 05:02 AM
Since you corrected my figure earlier, so I am correcting yours too. The Kremlin does not work on that one production which is not bought. So, the hammers your get should be 4.7*2 + 1 = 9.4 rather than 5.7*2 = 10.4 hammers. :p

Nope, 4.7*2 + 1 = 10.4.

Qitai
Feb 05, 2006, 06:44 AM
Nope, 4.7*2 + 1 = 10.4.

opps again :blush:

malekithe
Feb 05, 2006, 07:40 AM
I was reading over this thread and thought I’d do some experimenting myself. I wound up deriving the formulas for all of the values involved in rushing production. Most of these have been hinted at in other posts, but I thought I'd post my findings. Feel free to try any of these formulas out in-game and let me know if they produce an incorrect result. I'd like to fix them if that's the case.

First I’ll explain my variable names:

H – Total hammers remaining in production
S – Game speed multipler – 0.66... = quick, 1.0 = normal, 1.5 = epic, 3.0 = marathon

Bonuses:
B – Sum of all production bonuses (eg. 0.5 if you have a forge and Organized Religion is applicable)
K – Kremlin Modifier – 0.5 for Kremlin, 1.0 otherwise

Penalties:
W – The wonder modifier – 2.0 for a world wonder, 1.5 for national wonder, 1.0 for everything else
Z – Zero Hammers modifier – 1.5 if this is the first turn of production

Now, the formula for the modified cost of whatever it is you’re rushing ([…] denotes the “floor” operation)

C = [ H / ( 1+B) * K * W * Z ]

Basically, you just multiply everything together, divide by 1+B, and then take the floor.

Now, if you want to convert that cost into a population or gold quantity you simply use one of the two simple formulas below.

Pop Rush:
P = [ C / ( 30 * S) + 1 ]

Gold Rush:
G = 3 * C

Also, a formula for the number of hammers of overflow you can expect (‘%’ represent the modulo operation)

O = ( 30 – (H % 30) ) % 30

And then, if you really want to know your total output per population point, you need to use one last formula (can’t really reduce it any more because of all the flooring and modulos that took place):

PP = (H + O) / P

The ramifications of all of this have already been hinted at in this thread and others. Namely:

• You don’t want to rush when the number of hammers remaining is a multiple of 30.

• There are additional jump points on other games speeds where your hammers per pop point can change considerably (on epic, no bonuses, 44 hammers remaining requires 1 pop and nets 60 hammers, 45 hammers remaining requires 2 pop and nets the same 60 hammers. That’s a whole second pop point resulting in no additional hammers.)

• You can significantly reduce the rush cost (in population or gold) through city buildings and the Kremlin.

• The Kremlin is the equivalent of a forge, factory, and power in every city (for rushing purposes).

• With the Kremlin and simply another 50% city bonus (or just a total city bonus of 200%), you can buy 1 hammer for 1 gold.

• Others, but it’s late and my mind is cloudy… I want to say something along the lines of “In the late-middle-thru-end game, hammers might be next to useless, or, at best, very inefficient”. But, then again, most of my games are over by the time I get grenadiers and cavalry :)

KrikkitTwo
Feb 05, 2006, 04:44 PM
So basically with US+Free Speech, Towns are better than...anything. (3 commerce for a tile is equal to 1 hammer for a tile even before Banks, etc.)
and a US,FS Town gives 1 hammer+7 commerce=3 1/3 hammers equivalent

I guess the exception would be Projects (of course) Wonders without Kremlin and/or Banks

PieceOfMind
Feb 05, 2006, 06:42 PM
I guess too it's a good reason to never build more than a few production cities and make almost every other city a commerce city.
In the late game, wealth is power.

malekithe
Feb 05, 2006, 11:46 PM
Were it not for gold magnifying structures such as banks, markets, and so forth, food would actually be the most numerically efficient means of production, through pop-rushing (just barely).

For argument's sake, let's look at a size 8 city that happens to have the Kremlin, the Heroic Epic, and the Globe Theater to remove the issue of unhappiness (which is the real stumbling block for pop-rushing).

If we take the absolute best production improvements imaginable, let's say we get 4 hammers from each citizen and they exactly cover their food cost. That's 32 hammers. Multiply that by the Heroic Epic and you're looking at 64 hammers of total production when building military units.

Now, let's say we cottage the place up. We're looking at 1 hammer and somewhere around 8 commerce per tile, best case (averaging out financial bonuses, river bonuses, etc). The hammers get multiplied by the heroic epic, so that's 16. The gold multiplier for this city, with the Kremlin effect and everything is .75 (3 / 2 for kremlin / 2 for heroic epic), so 8 commerce nets (8 / .75 = ) 10.67 hammers. This makes for a grand total of (8 * 10.67 = ) 85.33 hammers from commerce. Add that to the traditional hammers and we get 101.33 total production out of the commerce city.

Now for the food city, we'll assume biology, so you're netting 2 food per tile. We're at 8 population, and we'll assume a granary and epic speed, so we need 27 food to grow a point of population. The population hammer multiplier for this city is 4 (2 for kremlin * 2 for heroic epic) so each citizen is going to be worth around (45 * 4 = ) 180 when sacrificed. The value in hammers of each point of food is (180 / 27 = ) 6.67. We're gathering a total of 16 extra food resulting in a grand total of 106.67 production; slightly more than our commerce city (which also took many a turn to grow its cottages).

This all becomes a fairly moot point, though, when you start factoring in commerce improving buildings. With only a bank, we multiply the commerce we were getting by 1.5. Re-running the numbers, our commerce city now produces the equivalent of (8 * 1.5 / .75 * 8 + 16 = ) 144 production. That's more than twice as much as the "production" city (which had the most optimistic improvements of the three). Plus there's no unhappiness downside that needs to be ameliorated. All it takes is the proper choice of civics and planning well ahead of time.

With every multiplier imaginable (banks, kremlin, factories, power, ironworks, etc...) 1 hammer can be turned into 4 (+300% bonus) hammers toward production. 1 commerce can be turned into a little over 5 hammers (1/3 base GpH * 2 for kremlin * 4 for production bonus * 2 for commerce bonus) toward production. Even if we use a more realistic production bonus of 100%, we're still looking at 2 from hammers and 2.67 from commerce. If we scale the commerce bonus in the city to +50% then both 1 commerce or 1 hammer is roughly equal to 4 production points. But, which do you typically find is easier to generate, 1 commerce or 1 hammer?

Without the Kremlin, the numbers look more reasonable (2 commerce ~= 1 hammer). But that's still a little excessive as mines (or workshops) produce 3 hammers, where towns produce 1 hammer as well as ~8 commerce. As such, I think two things probably should happen. The Kremlin should be modified some (maybe divide total cost by 1.5 instead) and generic production multiplying structures should not apply to rush cost (maybe something like organized religion or access to a special resource still would apply). That should make hammers more valuable in the late-game.

DaviddesJ
Feb 06, 2006, 12:07 AM
Were it not for gold magnifying structures such as banks, markets, and so forth, food would actually be the most numerically efficient means of production, through pop-rushing (just barely).

Not really. Because you're also not taking into account that you can produce gold in many cities, and use it to rush in a few (which have the appropriate production improvements). While you can only use food to pop rush in the same city with the food production.

As such, I think two things probably should happen. The Kremlin should be modified some (maybe divide total cost by 1.5 instead) and generic production multiplying structures should not apply to rush cost (maybe something like organized religion or access to a special resource still would apply). That should make hammers more valuable in the late-game.

I entirely agree on both points. I am not optimistic, though.

Beamup
Feb 06, 2006, 09:50 AM
But using the multipliers for gold rushing is too strong. A town will produce 7 commerce/turn, and 1 hammer/turn. With Grocer, Market, and Bank, that's 14 gold/turn. Converting 14 gold/turn to hammers at 3:1 gives 4.7 hammers/turn, plus the 1 hammer/turn from the town itself, makes 5.7 hammers/turn. That's way more production output from a town tile than you can normally get from any production improvement.
For that matter, a Mine+RR+Forge+Factory+Power (or Workshop w/StProp) only produces 6 hammers/turn (above the tile base production), which is not much more than the Town produces without any hammer multipliers. Add a Forge to the Town city (which you might potentially want for happiness anyway), applying it only to the Town's actual hammer, and the Town produces 5.95 hammers/turn, while the Mine still produces 6.

So applying the multipliers to gold rushing (and, for that matter, the Kremlin) isn't even the problem - it just makes a bad situation even worse. Even without those cash-rushing is almost as efficient as hammer-building. And when you consider the ability of cash-rushing to be converted into research or culture, and moved freely around your empire, it's clearly superior.

Which leads me to the conclusion that even modifying the Kremlin and removing modifiers from cash-rushing won't do the job. Towns+US would still be the most efficient way to build things. Balancing this will require something on the order of removing modifiers from cash-rushing AND doubling the cost to cash-rush. Unless you consider the development time of towns enough to compensate, anyway.

DaveMcW
Feb 06, 2006, 10:16 AM
Democracy cottage spam is a very effective production strategy in real life, so it makes sense that it's the dominant strategy in Civ4.

Beamup
Feb 06, 2006, 10:25 AM
Balancing gameplay should trump realism.

Roland Johansen
Feb 06, 2006, 10:59 AM
I must agree with the last few posters that gold rushing is far overpowered. It should be a less efficient method of building even with the Kremlin wonder because it so much more flexible. You can rush the production in any spot in your empire at will. This allows you to rush the culture production of a city or the crucial military unit that is needed or rush that happiness building that is needed to keep the whole population working in a city. It even allows you to win Great Wonder races. If it is more efficient than the normal way of building stuff by using hammers, then hammers become obsolete and a whole section of the game becomes obsolete.

It can be very easily fixed by making the costs of rushing a lot higher than they are now, but I would like to see it fixed in the original game. Of course, I will mod this in my own game, but I would still like to see it fixed in a patch. It can't be true that the only efficient way to build stuff is by gold rushing. That would obsolete hammer production and all the civics in the government section that don't allow gold rushing in the late game. It also shows that all the civics that improve cottage output are far more interesting than the other ones. That's very bad for a game that tries to have multiple strategies to win the game.

Also, since upgrading units costs 3 times the difference in shield cost + 25, it means that it is often a lot more efficient to rush build a new unit than upgrade an old unit. The production bonuses from buildings don't effect upgrading costs like they effect the costs of rushing. Something that seems unbalanced to me too.

To balance the upgrading costs, each shield would have to cost something like 10 gold and the bonus from the Kremlin should only be 25%.
(Calculation: A town produces 7 gold which is enhanced to 14 gold by the grocer, bank and marketplace buildings. 14 gold is equal to 1.4 shields. Plus the 1 shield from a town equal 2.4 shields. Thats less than the production from a workshop used under State property or a mine or a lumbermill. With the Kremlin improvement the 'production' value of the town becomes 1.4 *1.25 + 1 = 2.75. Still a little less than the production from a mine, lumbermill or workshop under state property.)

The chance that someone from Firaxis will look through this thread and see the unbalance is actually pretty small. It would be a lot better if the lack of balance between hammer production and gold rushing were reported in the bug report forum (sub forum of the general discussion forum). If the problems were completely explained in a clear way then the chances that someone from Firaxis would pick it up would be much better. Note that the guys from Firaxis haven't read this whole thread, so it should be explained in detail in a bug report.


DavidedJ, you were the first to post this imbalance in this thread. Are you willing to post a bug report about this?

KrikkitTwo
Feb 06, 2006, 12:40 PM
Well looking at the details


With proper Civics/Terrain, Hammers are available at ~3 per tile (Workshops+Mines+Farms)
With proper Civics a Town Produces
1 hammer + 7 commerce
so to be properly viable for Rushing, 3 Terrain Commerces should be equivalent to about 1 Terrain hammers

Now the Gold Multipliers necessarily must be included so
3 Terrain Commerce => 6 Gold = 1 Terrain Hammers

The fact that gold can be concentrated from many cities is accounted for in the fact that Wonders+National Wonders cost Extra (perhaps those amounts should be changed to x4 and x2 instead of x2 and x1.5 to reflect that more)

I'd suggest
1. change the basic cost of Rushing to 5
2. make units cost x1.5
3. Make National Wonders Cost x2
4. Make Wonders Cost x4

That way it will be worthwhile to Rush
Buildings without the Kremlin, and
Just Started Buildings, Units, and National Wonders with the Kremlin

Production is still useful for Projects, and Pre-Kremlin Wonders
*Post Kremlin Wonders would basically require US if there is somewhat of a race on, which means that the Space Elevator, 3 GD, the 'Hits' Wonders, and the UN would go to Towned Democracies, and since the other major Government/Terrain types
Workshopped Police State is concentrating on War and so doesn't need those Wonders.
or
Farmed Republic is getting higher Science and so should start on them earlier.

Finally
5. Make Slavery act like Chop Rushing.... you don't Rush something, you just eliminate 1 pop for a Speed based amount of shields and a # of unhappiness-turns..probably still 30+10 on Normal. The Kremlin doubling the shield output, none of the other 'Rushing' effects. [just hit it as many times as you need, which may or may not be enough to finish in one turn]

Roland Johansen
Feb 06, 2006, 12:57 PM
I disagree. I don't think that every building should be built cheaper by rushing it than by building it by normal production. That makes normal production far too unimportant. It is something that you only use for the few cities that build wonders under your rules.

By the way, you rounded 7/2 down to 3 at the start of your post. If rushing has an equal cost to normal production, then it is still more interesting to rush. This is because you can use gold for everything, for research, building stuff anywhere in your empire at any time, upgrading units, spying missions, buying resources, etc. If gold is equal or more efficient at the one thing that hammers can do, namely produce stuff, then what good are hammers in this game?

Beamup
Feb 06, 2006, 12:58 PM
I'd go so far as to say that cash-rushing should never be competitive with, much less better than, building with hammers, except maybe with the Kremlin. It should be something you do when you can't build it with hammers for some reason.

Roland Johansen
Feb 06, 2006, 01:03 PM
I'd go so far as to say that cash-rushing should never be competitive with, much less better than, building with hammers, except maybe with the Kremlin. It should be something you do when you can't build it with hammers for some reason.

Or if you want it quick for some reason (a unit for defending a crucial city, culture production boost in a border city by building a cathedral, etc. ).

Beamup
Feb 06, 2006, 01:04 PM
That would still be "can't build it with hammers for some reason." The "some reason" being, in this case, "don't have (and can't get) enough of them."

DaviddesJ
Feb 06, 2006, 01:49 PM
DaviddJ, you were the first to post this imbalance in this thread. Are you willing to post a bug report about this?

I've know that Soren and other Firaxians have at least heard the complaints about gold rushing being overpowered (as well as the other major imbalance in the game, forest chopping). But I'm afraid the force of my logic has not been sufficiently powerful. My impression is that they are reluctant to make major balance adjustments at this point in time, at least without a strong community consensus (and on any point, including this one, you can always find people who disagree---especially those who become used to using a particular strategy at a particular level and then complain that they are "disadvantaged" if it is tuned down). Most of their efforts are going into patching performance and multiplayer issues, which is understandable. I think we may have to wait for an expansion to see major balance adjustments (as we saw with Civ3 and C3C).

Roland Johansen
Feb 06, 2006, 02:53 PM
That would still be "can't build it with hammers for some reason." The "some reason" being, in this case, "don't have (and can't get) enough of them."

Mwah, technically yes...:)


I've know that Soren and other Firaxians have at least heard the complaints about gold rushing being overpowered (as well as the other major imbalance in the game, forest chopping). But I'm afraid the force of my logic has not been sufficiently powerful. My impression is that they are reluctant to make major balance adjustments at this point in time, at least without a strong community consensus (and on any point, including this one, you can always find people who disagree---especially those who become used to using a particular strategy at a particular level and then complain that they are "disadvantaged" if it is tuned down). Most of their efforts are going into patching performance and multiplayer issues, which is understandable. I think we may have to wait for an expansion to see major balance adjustments (as we saw with Civ3 and C3C).

I didn't know that Firaxis was aware of this imbalance. Do they know about the details of the imbalance? I don't want to see an expansion pack where the imbalance is fixed wrong.
I can see that they're not going to fix major balance issues in a patch. But I'm not sure if they're going to do it in an expansion pack either. If not enough complaints arise about this, then it's not going to be changed. And I think you're right about the players who like it because they now know how to play the game best with the present rules and a rule change would change that.

I have played Civ 3 vanilla, PTW and C3C. Are you talking about the changes to corruption in C3C? I personally think that the changes needed to reduce the effectiveness of forest chopping and gold rushing in Civ4 will effect gameplay a lot more than the changes done to corruption in C3C. I hope that these changes will occur anyway.

KrikkitTwo
Feb 09, 2006, 01:55 PM
I disagree. I don't think that every building should be built cheaper by rushing it than by building it by normal production. That makes normal production far too unimportant. It is something that you only use for the few cities that build wonders under your rules.

By the way, you rounded 7/2 down to 3 at the start of your post. If rushing has an equal cost to normal production, then it is still more interesting to rush. This is because you can use gold for everything, for research, building stuff anywhere in your empire at any time, upgrading units, spying missions, buying resources, etc. If gold is equal or more efficient at the one thing that hammers can do, namely produce stuff, then what good are hammers in this game?

Well that still requires Fully developed Towns and Free Speech, and all the Gold buildings, (which implies a long period of development which means you probably have the buildings already)

and also hammers are more efficient at something that becomes important later on, ie Projects
so for Space Race, Hammers would still be necessary in at least a few cities
and for a Cultural Win, you aren't using Gold anyways


Perhaps the easiest thing might be eliminate the 'production bonus' effect for gold rushing. Powered Factories, Special Wonder resources, Organized Religion, Leader Bonuses, Heroic Epic, Dry Docks, etc. all help you build with Hammers but Don't help you with Gold

which would mean
1 commerce=2 gold=2/X hammers for stuff

1 hammer=2 hammers for stuff (in most cities with Factories)

So X just has to be the Town Commerce / Workshop extra hammers ratio, which is exactly 3.5 (but 3 rounds off nicer)
making them Slightly better (Town would still have an equivalent of 3.3333 hammers, but that would require the full production... perhaps if it was 4 then Towns would have an equivalent of 2.75 hammers, unless you were financial then it would be exactly 3)

So Eliminate the Bonus effect entirely and make the conversion 4

and then put in the increased cost for Wonders, National Wonders, and Units

Since those are the things hammers are focused on... contributions to your empire as a whole as opposed to local improvements, which US allows gold to take care of (essentially it 'brings your cities up to standard' quicker)

So Iron Works, Heroic Epic cities are still best with lots of Hammers of their own rather than relying on neighboring cities with Gold

Wonders would only be efficient to rush because they allow 4/5 gold cities to work on it (then they become just as good as one hammer city... of course ideally the Wonder is in a hammer city and 4/5 Gold cities mean you can rush it half way through)

Slavery would be the exception (I really think the 'pop rushing like chop rushing' would make it better) so it would still get the bonuses just like chop rushing does.

Roland Johansen
Feb 09, 2006, 07:31 PM
Well that still requires Fully developed Towns and Free Speech, and all the Gold buildings, (which implies a long period of development which means you probably have the buildings already)

and also hammers are more efficient at something that becomes important later on, ie Projects
so for Space Race, Hammers would still be necessary in at least a few cities
and for a Cultural Win, you aren't using Gold anyways


Perhaps the easiest thing might be eliminate the 'production bonus' effect for gold rushing. Powered Factories, Special Wonder resources, Organized Religion, Leader Bonuses, Heroic Epic, Dry Docks, etc. all help you build with Hammers but Don't help you with Gold

which would mean
1 commerce=2 gold=2/X hammers for stuff

1 hammer=2 hammers for stuff (in most cities with Factories)

So X just has to be the Town Commerce / Workshop extra hammers ratio, which is exactly 3.5 (but 3 rounds off nicer)
making them Slightly better (Town would still have an equivalent of 3.3333 hammers, but that would require the full production... perhaps if it was 4 then Towns would have an equivalent of 2.75 hammers, unless you were financial then it would be exactly 3)

So Eliminate the Bonus effect entirely and make the conversion 4

and then put in the increased cost for Wonders, National Wonders, and Units

Since those are the things hammers are focused on... contributions to your empire as a whole as opposed to local improvements, which US allows gold to take care of (essentially it 'brings your cities up to standard' quicker)

So Iron Works, Heroic Epic cities are still best with lots of Hammers of their own rather than relying on neighboring cities with Gold

Wonders would only be efficient to rush because they allow 4/5 gold cities to work on it (then they become just as good as one hammer city... of course ideally the Wonder is in a hammer city and 4/5 Gold cities mean you can rush it half way through)

Slavery would be the exception (I really think the 'pop rushing like chop rushing' would make it better) so it would still get the bonuses just like chop rushing does.

Our ideas are actually not that dissimilar. Where you talk about a factor of 4, I would use a factor of 5 and give the Kremlin a 25% bonus (with the Kremlin and the financial trait, towns will be equal in production to mines/workshops/lumbermills, but a lot more flexible in use). These numbers are not that different. I would also use a more crucial technology that makes the Kremlin go obsolete than the present technology.

I personally think that the advantage of gold, its flexibility, is a lot more powerful than the disadvantage of gold, its development time. The reason for this opinion is that the development time is something that has already occurred in the earlier stages of the game. You could argue that it would be a real disadvantage for newly captured cities which miss some gold increasing buildings and might have lost some of their full grown towns. However, in this case, the advantage of flexible use can be used to its full potential. Namely to rush these cities up to speed.

I do think that it should be possible to rush cities up to speed, but it should cost you and not be an effective strategy from an economical point of view.

Our ideas on the exact hurry factors might differ slightly, but they are a lot more different from the values that Firaxis has implemented (we make it about three times as expensive when all bonuses apply). I wonder if they ever used some basic calculations like DavidesJ first did in this thread. It would be one of the first things I did when I would implement a hurry function in a game. When you implement it in the game, then you know all the factors that influence it (production and gold bonuses and Kremlin..) and it should be pretty easy to do such a basic calculation.
I'm not a programmer, so maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe they didn't realize some factor that would influence it like the production bonuses. But that wouldn't be very commendable either.

Ah, mistakes are made. It's good that we can mod these out of the game easily.

Zombie69
Feb 14, 2006, 02:17 PM
I can see that they're not going to fix major balance issues in a patch.

Why not? Blizzard does it all the time, and this is part of why i consider them to be the single best gaming company in the world. Their model works and is highly profitable. Why can't Firaxis do the same?

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 03:00 PM
Why not? Blizzard does it all the time, and this is part of why i consider them to be the single best gaming company in the world. Their model works and is highly profitable. Why can't Firaxis do the same?

Just a bit of negativism from me.

Ok, let's be positive. They will change it in the next patch and that patch will be available within just one hour. It will make the game perfectly balanced and it will have no more bugs for any player out there. Yes, I feel all positive now... wonder how long this lasts... maybe an hour... ;)



Disclaimer: I think that Civ4 is a very good game and this unbalancing part of the cash rushing doesn't bug me much. I can easily mod it. I would just like to see a perfectly balanced vanilla game for every player out there.

KrikkitTwo
Feb 14, 2006, 04:01 PM
Our ideas are actually not that dissimilar. Where you talk about a factor of 4, I would use a factor of 5 and give the Kremlin a 25% bonus (with the Kremlin and the financial trait, towns will be equal in production to mines/workshops/lumbermills, but a lot more flexible in use). These numbers are not that different. I would also use a more crucial technology that makes the Kremlin go obsolete than the present technology.

I personally think that the advantage of gold, its flexibility, is a lot more powerful than the disadvantage of gold, its development time. The reason for this opinion is that the development time is something that has already occurred in the earlier stages of the game. You could argue that it would be a real disadvantage for newly captured cities which miss some gold increasing buildings and might have lost some of their full grown towns. However, in this case, the advantage of flexible use can be used to its full potential. Namely to rush these cities up to speed.

I do think that it should be possible to rush cities up to speed, but it should cost you and not be an effective strategy from an economical point of view.

Our ideas on the exact hurry factors might differ slightly, but they are a lot more different from the values that Firaxis has implemented (we make it about three times as expensive when all bonuses apply). I wonder if they ever used some basic calculations like DavidesJ first did in this thread. It would be one of the first things I did when I would implement a hurry function in a game. When you implement it in the game, then you know all the factors that influence it (production and gold bonuses and Kremlin..) and it should be pretty easy to do such a basic calculation.
I'm not a programmer, so maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe they didn't realize some factor that would influence it like the production bonuses. But that wouldn't be very commendable either.

Ah, mistakes are made. It's good that we can mod these out of the game easily.

Actually I think what they did is figure on a basic conversion from gold to hammers (3:1), and then apply that both to upgrades and rushing [for upgrades it seems fine, for rushing.... not so much

Actually, to make the Kremlin even better balanced and fit with its position, perhaps instead of Reducing Rush costs, it
Allows Cash Rushing under any Government
AND/OR
Remove all or some of the penalties for Cash Rushing Wonders/Just started buildings, etc. (so there is a flat fee)

That Way the Kremlin doesn't become as much of a Factor in the Overall balancing of the Rushing.

I personally think that 4 works well because that means that for a Financial Leader, Towns are output equal to Workshops in all normal rushing cases (which they should be for a Financial Leader). Wheras for a non-Financial Leader it would be slightly in favor of Workshops (if a City has all of its improvements, and isn't going to be pumping military Then you would prefer Towns to help with other cities... but that's the case for any conversion rate).

I have to admit that even though I tend to run US governments I tend not to take full advantage of the Rushing ... I like to keep a high science rate, and play on larger maps, making the micromanagement involved in rushing annoying.

Perhaps if you could set a city on 'auto rush' ie rush as soon as you have one turns production for whatever you are building (if there are sufficient funds available), that flexibility would be grasped much more (and would make rushing much more fun even with the higher prices). So a US conqueror could take a city, load up the 'introductory queue' and put it on 'auto rush'

'auto upgrade' might also be useful, as a standing order to military units that would upgrade as soon as the cash became available (so you don't have to run 0% science for a few turns to make sure you get them all at once, or worry about tracking them down. Issue the Alt-order once, make sure you are running a surplus and it gets done when it gets done)

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 04:31 PM
I like your ideas for the Kremlin. It would indeed make it less of a factor in balancing the gold rushing and the advantages are unique and useful. Good thinking!

About the auto-features. I can see that some people would like them, but I would like to balance rushing in such a way that it would be the exception and not the rule in improving your cities. So that wouldn't work for me. But if you balance it like you're suggesting, then I can see that rushing would be used a lot more and that an auto-feature would be useful on the larger maps.

bradleyfeanor
Feb 20, 2006, 01:37 AM
It looks like there is another bug mixed in with all this as well. If you have a production bonus (org. rel, bureaucracy, forge, etc.), then pop rushing becomes quite "exploitable", even on normal speed.

When a city is running Org. Rel., if you rush a building when you need 1-29 hammers, you get 30 hammers at a cost of 1 pop. But if you rush it when you need 30-37 hammers, you get 60 hammers and still only lose 1 pop.

This bug could be exploited much more often than the previous one we were discussing (the epic speed 60 vs. 30 hammer bug).

Dusty Monkey
Feb 20, 2006, 02:51 AM
It seems to me that this is not 'unbalanced'

Unbalanced would be if only a minority of leaders had the traits necessary to get this advantage. It seems to me that no combination of leader traits makes cash rushing a poor play in the late game.

Clearly cash rushing has its advantages and that to be considered highly productive in the late game you will need to be fluent in cash rushing. This of course leads to the cottage-everything strategy. I see this as no different than the irrigate-everything strategy for Great People Farms. In both cases there is a single play which dominates all the others.

I see cash rushing as a tactic rather than a strategy. Its a specific move you can make that happens to be a strong one. The same can be said for building a worker on Turn 1 (often a VERY strong move), or trading Philosophy for every tech the A.I's have.

Can you elliminate all the strong moves?

Roland Johansen
Feb 20, 2006, 04:13 AM
It has nothing to do with a strong move. It has to do with a strategy that dominates all others in the late game and makes hammer production unimportant in the late game (except in a few cities that produce projects which cannot be rushed). Therefore it removes a lot of strategy from the late game, because one strategy dominates all others.
If you think that the irrigate everything strategy is a strong one for every city, then you're mistaken. It has been mathematically proven that cottages produce more commerce and thus science than scientists + representation bonus. And the few great scientists aren't going to help enough to balance it out. Irrigate everything is useful for one city, your great person factory. Thus it will not eliminate any other strategies from the game.
The same can be said for building a worker on turn 1. It is not always the best thing to do and it will not eliminate any other strategies from the game. Cash rushing is the way to go from the moment that universal suffrage is available as a civic until you win the game.

Roland Johansen
Feb 20, 2006, 04:15 AM
It looks like there is another bug mixed in with all this as well. If you have a production bonus (org. rel, bureaucracy, forge, etc.), then pop rushing becomes quite "exploitable", even on normal speed.

When a city is running Org. Rel., if you rush a building when you need 1-29 hammers, you get 30 hammers at a cost of 1 pop. But if you rush it when you need 30-37 hammers, you get 60 hammers and still only lose 1 pop.

This bug could be exploited much more often than the previous one we were discussing (the epic speed 60 vs. 30 hammer bug).

If you understand the nature of the bug (which I think you do), then it is logical that it works this way, but it is very bad. I agree.

Karnor
Feb 20, 2006, 07:09 AM
There are a number of points being overlooked in the commerce vs hammer arguments

- Universal suffrage is required. This makes it a mid-late game strategy without the pyramids. And only one player can get the pyramids.

- Many other improvements are also needed to make it efficient, particularly free speech, again making it a mid-late game strategy (even with the pyramids).

- Given that it is a mid-late game strategy, normal boring hammers are going to be needed for earlier in the game. Which then creates the question of how to switch between those boring hammers to the exciting towns. Town's aren't quick to build, something around 40 turns to get them up to full capacity, and thats with double growth speed. So ripping out the mines and replacing them with cottages is going to take a long time to pay off. Seems reasonable therefore to have a pay off at the end which actually makes it worthwhile.

- Towns are very vulnerable in war. With a few workers a pillaged mine can be replaced in a single turn. A pillaged town takes a long long time to be replaced.

- Late game a production town with ironworks or heroic epic can produce a tank in about a turn. In order to keep up with that output using gold, the 50% extra cost is unavoidable.

- Kremlin - once again its a wonder, so only 1 person can get it.

So sure, towns are great late game, but you cant ignore the cost of getting from an early game balanced strategy to mass towns late game.

Roland Johansen
Feb 20, 2006, 09:32 AM
It is known that towns take a time to grow (35 turns with emancipation, a civic that is difficult to avoid in the late game) and that universal suffrage (and free speech) is needed. In my last post and in some previous posts, I mentioned that it was a mid to late game tactic. I can't see the relevance of that remark. Of course cash rushing can only be overpowered when it is available and for that you need universal suffrage. The Kremlin is not needed to make cash rushing overpowered, it just aggravates the effect.

The problem is that without a very serious war where war weariness becomes a huge problem (like +10 unhappiness even with the -50% reduction of prisons and Mount Rushmore), it is the one best way to go. It means that the choice between which terrain improvement to use on a tile becomes trivial when the option of a cottage is available. You don't want any hammer improving terrain improvements except in the few production cities that are needed for projects that can't be rushed. It actually removes one of the three resources food, production, commerce as a viable option from the game.

Another problem is that cash rushing a new unit is often cheaper than upgrading an old unit which is rather strange.

Note that with universal suffrage and free speech, you don't need full grown towns before cash rushing is more efficient than mines/lumbermills/workshops. A village (which only takes 15 turns to grow) is already more efficient for production than a mine/lumbermill/workshop. And the commerce can of course be used much more flexible than the production could be used. When the village becomes a town, then it is really overpowered.

By the way, I see that I forgot to welcome two new members to the Civfanatics forum.

Welcome to the Civfanatics forum Dusty Monkey and Karnor.:band:

Dusty Monkey
Feb 20, 2006, 01:37 PM
Roland I believe you are not seeing the forest for the tree's.

For instance you explain the reasons that you still need hammers (projects) and then immediately proceed to say that hammers arent a resource that needs to be developed in the late game. I believe it is an exageration that developing hammers are not necessary in the late game and that you were right the first time, that you still need hammers.

Further, unless you are running a large gold surplus while 100% spending, cash rushing requires a science and/or culture sacrifice. If there is any problem with cash rushing at all, it stems from the fact that it IS possible to produce an abundance of otherwise useless gold while "100% spending." I'm all for a debate on that issue specifically.

Also, my comment about irrigating everything had a GPP context which you didnt acknowledge. Irrigating everything is the best way to set up a GPP city. Its the best move and that, all by itself, doesnt make irrigation or anything else unbalanced.

Wreck
Feb 20, 2006, 02:55 PM
Monkey, you are correct that projects are a reason to keep around hammers. And given that the game tends to end with the space race a lot of the time, I think that's a strong balancing effect that some folks here are downplaying.

But cash rushing in lieu of hammer-production does not require sacrificing science or culture. (It probably means setting the slider levels lower - but that's not significant.) By converting mines and forests to towns, you get more total commerce to spend, and thus, outproduce anyone using mines and forests.

Roland Johansen
Feb 20, 2006, 02:56 PM
Roland I believe you are not seeing the forest for the tree's.

For instance you explain the reasons that you still need hammers (projects) and then immediately proceed to say that hammers arent a resource that needs to be developed in the late game. I believe it is an exageration that developing hammers are not necessary in the late game and that you were right the first time, that you still need hammers.

If you quote me, then quote me completely. I said that hammers were only needed in the few cities that are used to produce projects and that the rest don't need them anymore. That means that in all but say 2 cities, you don't have to develop hammers, but you want to develop commerce (after universal suffrage).

Further, unless you are running a large gold surplus while 100% spending, cash rushing requires a science and/or culture sacrifice. If there is any problem with cash rushing at all, it stems from the fact that it IS possible to produce an abundance of otherwise useless gold while "100% spending." I'm all for a debate on that issue specifically.

Not that debate again. Sorry, but that debate has been going on for a long number of posts in another thread and it took a long while to convince the other side of the argument. I got a little bit tired of the argument and someone else finally explained it clearly enough to convince the other side. I'll present a short version. If that convinces you, then that is fine. If not, then we must just agree to disagree. I apologize for my tone in the above few sentences, it has nothing to do with you.
You're producing extra commerce because you're building cottages instead of workshops, mines and lumbermills. This extra commerce is used completely to finance rush buying. The amount of commerce that you were producing before you started converting all workshops, mines and lumbermills into cottages will still be spend on research. So the research amount stays the same while the research percentage is lowered until a level where the extra commerce from the extra cottages is going towards rush buying.
Example: By replacing workshops, lumbermills and mines by cottages total commerce production increases from 1000 to 2000.
100% of the 1000 commerce was spend on research. Now 50% of 2000 commerce is spend on research and 50% of 2000 commerce is spend on rush buying.

Also, my comment about irrigating everything had a GPP context which you didnt acknowledge. Irrigating everything is the best way to set up a GPP city. Its the best move and that, all by itself, doesnt make irrigation or anything else unbalanced.

I did acknowledge it. I said:

If you think that the irrigate everything strategy is a strong one for every city, then you're mistaken. It has been mathematically proven that cottages produce more commerce and thus science than scientists + representation bonus. And the few great scientists aren't going to help enough to balance it out. Irrigate everything is useful for one city, your great person factory. Thus it will not eliminate any other strategies from the game.

The part about great scientists is clearly about great persons. And I agree that irrigating everything is the best way to set up a great person factory. But that's only 1 city. The rest will be filled with cottages because that's the most efficient thing in the late game. There's an article in this strategy forum that explains that focusing 1 great food city which has the National Epic on Great Person production is almost as good for great person production as focusing an entire civilization on Great Person production. The reason is that all the other cities can't keep up with this 1 Great Person factory and will continuously be too late to produce a great person as the cost for great persons increases. I can point you to the article if you wish, it's very useful information.

But this is all besides the point. My argument was that cash rushing makes hammer production useless. Food production is worth as much before and after the invention of the universal suffrage civic.

Dusty Monkey
Feb 21, 2006, 02:36 AM
Forgive me if I don't quite understand the games mechanics..

I was under the impression that if you peg your sliders at 100% spending, that the ONLY source of cash is actual "gold-based" income (shrines, trading, and so forth) because ALL (100%) commerce-based income is "slidered" towards research/culture.

If thats the case then lowering the sliders (for ANY reason) is sacrificing beakers, culture points, happy faces, or a combination of all 3.

Presumably you think its worth the sacrifice or you would maintain 100% spending. You can assume that in a large multi-player setting that at least some of your opponents ARE going to keep their spending at 100% so it really is a sacrifice. It would be dangerous to presume that you can still out-research the competition while playing the role of advanced cash rusher, however it sounds like this is the assumption?

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2006, 03:28 AM
Forgive me if I don't quite understand the games mechanics..

I was under the impression that if you peg your sliders at 100% spending, that the ONLY source of cash is actual "gold-based" income (shrines, trading, and so forth) because ALL (100%) commerce-based income is "slidered" towards research/culture.

If thats the case then lowering the sliders (for ANY reason) is sacrificing beakers, culture points, happy faces, or a combination of all 3.

Presumably you think its worth the sacrifice or you would maintain 100% spending. You can assume that in a large multi-player setting that at least some of your opponents ARE going to keep their spending at 100% so it really is a sacrifice. It would be dangerous to presume that you can still out-research the competition while playing the role of advanced cash rusher, however it sounds like this is the assumption?

You should stop thinking in terms of research sliders. It makes you think that it determines research speed and it doesn't. What determines research speed is the amount of research not the research percentage. So if I double my commerce output, this allows me to halve my research percentage and still research at the same speed.

I compare two situations to value the effect of building massive cottages and rush buying:
1) A player who balances commerce production and hammer production
2) A player who only builds cottages for commerce production and uses the extra commerce for rush buying.
Both spend an equal amount on research, which means that the research slider is lower in situation 2. The extra money in situation 2 is spend on rush buying. So the money that's produced by a cottage in situation 2 that replaced a workshop in situation 1 can be fully spend on rush buying while maintaining the same research speed as in situation 1.

I want to compare the strength of rush buying for production purposes to the situation where I use hammer improvements for production. Of course, I want to keep all other things (like research) the same for a fair comparison.

PieceOfMind
Feb 21, 2006, 04:40 AM
Dusty Monkey,
Trust me when I say Roland knows his stuff. I've debated (rather embarrassingly) with him myself on the same topic, although under a slightly different context.:mischief:

Having said that, gold rushing to me seems to be the most powerful late-game strategy. I just finished a game where I used this strategy.
As soon as the industrial age (factories, coal plants, U.S. and Emancipation) started, I cottaged as much of my land as possible. From then on, my GNP pretty much increased exponentially along with my power rating.
I quickly used the extra gold to start building more factories and power plants in cities that didn't even have a high hammer rate. It didn't matter because they were only rushing units anyway.
Near the very end, I had the capacity to produce AT LEAST 6 or more tanks or equivalent units each turn. I was able to focus almost entirely on military and win by domination.
I might add, this game gave me the highest score I've ever gotten.:)

It is true that when you have the necessary civics etc., gold rushing is the MOST EFFICIENT way to produce any building/unit (not projects though).

Roland, you definitely convinced me. I can only thank you (and a few others like DaviddesJ) for enlightening me.:goodjob:

EDIT fixed a typo

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2006, 05:43 AM
Ah, yes. That was a lengthy debate. It's often difficult to explain exactly what you mean on a forum so it often leads to a meaningless yes/no type discussion. Mostly this happens because both parties don't see or want to see the arguments of the other party. I'm happy that that debate didn't end that way. Thanks for the support this time.:)

I see that you've played a highly successful game using cash rushing as a late game strategy. Do you think that it is overpowered in the sense that in the late game, it is inefficient to use a different strategy?

DaviddesJ
Feb 21, 2006, 07:10 PM
It seems to me that this is not 'unbalanced'

Unbalanced would be if only a minority of leaders had the traits necessary to get this advantage.

No, that's not the right notion of "balance". There are three relevant aspects of "balance", for this discussion: (1) it's desirable for there to be multiple effective strategies, so that every game doesn't look like every other; (2) it's desirable that the game features that exist are at least occasionally useful, rather than having many features designed into the game that are so poor relative to the alternatives that there's no good reason to ever use them; (3) it's desirable that the methods of playing the game that are the most effective are used well by the AI, so that it can offer a good challenge to a skilled player without requiring massive handicaps.

Cash rushing as presently implemented fails on all of these aspects. It dominates other late-game strategies, it makes those games all look very similar to one another, and it's something that is exploitable by the human player to a much greater extent than the AI uses it.

Roland Johansen
Feb 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
You know how to use strong arguments DaviddesJ. I agree completely (as you probably already know).

PieceOfMind
Feb 21, 2006, 10:12 PM
I see that you've played a highly successful game using cash rushing as a late game strategy. Do you think that it is overpowered in the sense that in the late game, it is inefficient to use a different strategy?

I think it is overpowered and easily the most efficient way to play in the late-game. However I like to think (at the moment) it's a way the gameplay evolves. In the late-game the nations that become most powerful are those that build a large income. After all, modern history would indicate it is generally the wealthiest countries that are superpowers. I only wish there was some other way to use cash to rush improvements without all the MM of going into every city every turn buying something. Of course it would be nice too if the AI could utilise the types of strong strategies that human players tend to discover. Chop rushing and cash rushing both seem to be ineffectively used by the AI

As a late-game conquest/domination strategy it is overpowered. For other victory types I don't see it as being quite as badly overpowered. To say it's inefficient to use any other strategy is an interesting point. I think a game of this type will generally have one dominant strategy rise above all others - Just like how chop-rushing seems (at this stage) to be the most powerful early-game strategy. Even if the game is adjusted to balance both these gameplay issues, I think there will still be some other strategy that will rise above all others as the most effective or efficient.

The thing I find most annoying about the cash-rushing strat though is that it makes upgrading units usually pointless. I think it was going to cost me more than 400 gold to upgrade a cat to an artillery, yet it would have only cost me less than 200 gold to rush one in a city, even on the first turn of production. Although the upgrading doesn't require a city, I don't think that makes up for it, and the upgraded unit can't even move on its turn anyway.

But yeah, cash-rushing is overpowered, no doubt about it.;)

Phyacis
Feb 21, 2006, 10:28 PM
Dont forget slavery as an alternative to sufferage!

Sometimes you can overdo it though... s/shot from a high food city with globe

Beamup
Feb 22, 2006, 06:43 AM
I think a game of this type will generally have one dominant strategy rise above all others - Just like how chop-rushing seems (at this stage) to be the most powerful early-game strategy. Even if the game is adjusted to balance both these gameplay issues, I think there will still be some other strategy that will rise above all others as the most effective or efficient.
While this is certainly true, the hope would be that the new best strategy won't be as much better than the alternatives. So balance would be improved, even if not perfect. And unless some new strategy is created or improved in the balancing process, it's nearly guaranteed that will be the case.

Roland Johansen
Feb 22, 2006, 07:05 AM
I only wish there was some other way to use cash to rush improvements without all the MM of going into every city every turn buying something.

It seems that you don't know that the panel where you can cash rush, pop rush and set the AI settings for a city, already becomes available when you select a city. So you don't have to actually enter a city to rush buy something. You only have to select it.

You can also enter a city from the F1 screen (Domestic advisor) by clicking the square in front of a city in the list. This might be handy for rush buying some stuff in the right cities.
Also when in the F1 list and a city is selected, its rush buying panel becomes available again. Pressing the c-key centers the map on the city, so that you know which city it is.

I hope these management options can help you somewhat.

PieceOfMind
Feb 22, 2006, 07:31 AM
I hope these management options can help you somewhat.

Cheers! :D They certainly will.


Dont forget slavery as an alternative to sufferage!

Good point, but the problem with slavery is you can only use the pop rushing strat in the globe theatre city (effectively anyway). It doesn't match having several cities rushing units under the cash-rush strat, each one probably being even faster than the single globe theatre city depending on how much food it has.

While this is certainly true, the hope would be that the new best strategy won't be as much better than the alternatives. So balance would be improved, even if not perfect. And unless some new strategy is created or improved in the balancing process, it's nearly guaranteed that will be the case.

I agree. Do you ever think though that no matter how much the game is tweaked, it will only ever tend towards being balanced, as if 'balance' is some sort of intangible unreachable goal? Even if the new best strategy isn't as powerful as the old fixed/removed ones, it will still become the best strat and for that reason alone it will be tested/utilised a lot more and so become more refined by the best of the players. It may never reach the power of the old strats but relative to the new play styles it will be perceived as possibly just as powerful. I'm no expert of course and I wouldn't take my opinion as anything other than just an idea.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what has been changed in the patch, as I'm guessing the delays are due to larger-than-previous changes to the game.

Beamup
Feb 22, 2006, 08:20 AM
Even if the new best strategy isn't as powerful as the old fixed/removed ones, it will still become the best strat and for that reason alone it will be tested/utilised a lot more and so become more refined by the best of the players. It may never reach the power of the old strats but relative to the new play styles it will be perceived as possibly just as powerful.
I believe you're right, and this is the point I was trying to make. You said it a lot better than I did, though.

Roland Johansen
Feb 22, 2006, 10:36 AM
Cheers! :D They certainly will.

You're welcome!

I agree. Do you ever think though that no matter how much the game is tweaked, it will only ever tend towards being balanced, as if 'balance' is some sort of intangible unreachable goal? Even if the new best strategy isn't as powerful as the old fixed/removed ones, it will still become the best strat and for that reason alone it will be tested/utilised a lot more and so become more refined by the best of the players. It may never reach the power of the old strats but relative to the new play styles it will be perceived as possibly just as powerful. I'm no expert of course and I wouldn't take my opinion as anything other than just an idea.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what has been changed in the patch, as I'm guessing the delays are due to larger-than-previous changes to the game.

This is exactly why a great developer of games like Blizzard makes dozens of patches with mostly game balance fixes. After each patch another strategy becomes dominant. But the players are mostly happy with this attitude from the developer since the game does tend to get a little better with each iteration. Perfection might be an unattainable goal, but that doesn't stop us from trying to achieve it. :)

DaviddesJ
Feb 22, 2006, 12:44 PM
This is exactly why a great developer of games like Blizzard makes dozens of patches with mostly game balance fixes. After each patch another strategy becomes dominant. But the players are mostly happy with this attitude from the developer since the game does tend to get a little better with each iteration. Perfection might be an unattainable goal, but that doesn't stop us from trying to achieve it. :)

Another possibility is to design the game so that the rules themselves change from game to game, and thus the balance is different in different games. Each game is not "balanced", but always in different ways.

The "trait" system of Civ4 does this, to some extent, but the traits aren't really powerful enough to completely change how you play (e.g., there's no trait that's so strong as to make you want to completely ignore cottages, or chopping, etc.).

Beamup
Feb 22, 2006, 01:00 PM
Another possibility is to design the game so that the rules themselves change from game to game, and thus the balance is different in different games. Each game is not "balanced", but always in different ways.
Now THAT is a very interesting idea! It'd be tough to implement well, but if it was done right, the possibilities would be incredible.

Unfortunately it would probably only appeal to a niche audience.:sad:

Spammurabi
Feb 22, 2006, 01:51 PM
Gold rushing in the late game is indeed a powerful strategy, but it still is not available at it's superior-to-hammers level until ~2/3 of the way through the game. People insisting that cottages -> towns is the only valid strategy because eventually towns are unbeatable are not, as I see it, fully taking into account one thing:

YOU NEED A LOT OF HAMMERS IN THE FIRST 2/3 OF THE GAME

Up until US, Emancipation and Kremlin, cash rushing is either not possible or much less efficient than standard hammer production. So, you're going to have to have a lot of cities focusing on hammer production if you expect to build up your infastructure and have an army able to defend your cottage-ridden cities from foreign invaders.

And, as has been said, it takes a significant amount of time to change from hammer production to towns. With emancipation, it'll cost you 35 turns on a tile to get from a cottage to a town, not counting worker costs. At the same time, you could be producing an extra 2 or 3 production from that tile, or 2 food from a farm post-biology, which you lose as you work your less-than-stellar cottages, hamlets, and villages. Is this loss of production or food worth the long-term gains of a super-efficient town? Maybe.

Gold-rushing is a very powerful strategy, and I like to use it late in the game, especially with the Kremlin. I'll intentionally lower my science rate so I can rush more of my buildings and units, even. The fact that you can get it to a 1-1 gold:hammer ratio does strike me as a bit unbalanced, however. I think that if production bonuses such as Factory, Org. Rel, and Forge were not taken into account that would be a reasonable fix, or perhaps changing the Kremlin to make rushing 75% to rush. I don't think that gold rushing needs a monstrous change, like doubling the costs to rush everything and nerfing the Kremlin and eliminating factory bonuses all at once. I'm not entirely convinced that any fix is necessary.

There are costs of running a cottage-heavy civilization- you have lower population and production than your neighbors. While you might enjoy a tech lead, your opponents will have far more units than you, and a smart (or merely aggressive) opponent will take advantage of your weakness. A balance between hammer and gold production must be maintained throughout the majority of the game, and retooling your entire economy to focus entirely on gold rushing requires a great number or worker turns and sacrificing production or food on your newly cottaged tiles.

Cottages are powerful late, weak early. Kind of like how Pihilosophical or Creative are powerful early, weak late, or how organized is fairly weak early but snowballs to become more and more powerful as the game progresses. It's a trade-off.

Roland Johansen
Feb 22, 2006, 04:36 PM
Welcome to civfanatics :band:

Gold rushing in the late game is indeed a powerful strategy, but it still is not available at it's superior-to-hammers level until ~2/3 of the way through the game. People insisting that cottages -> towns is the only valid strategy because eventually towns are unbeatable are not, as I see it, fully taking into account one thing:

YOU NEED A LOT OF HAMMERS IN THE FIRST 2/3 OF THE GAME

Up until US, Emancipation and Kremlin, cash rushing is either not possible or much less efficient than standard hammer production. So, you're going to have to have a lot of cities focusing on hammer production if you expect to build up your infastructure and have an army able to defend your cottage-ridden cities from foreign invaders.

Of course gold rushing is not overpowered in the first part of the game. You need the civic universal suffrage to be able to gold rush and it just isn't available in the early game. Most of the posters in this thread therefore call it a late game strategy. You should start using it in the late game. You might want to start switching workshops/lumbermills/mines to cottages a little before the invention of the universal suffrage civic, but not too long before.

And, as has been said, it takes a significant amount of time to change from hammer production to towns. With emancipation, it'll cost you 35 turns on a tile to get from a cottage to a town, not counting worker costs. At the same time, you could be producing an extra 2 or 3 production from that tile, or 2 food from a farm post-biology, which you lose as you work your less-than-stellar cottages, hamlets, and villages. Is this loss of production or food worth the long-term gains of a super-efficient town? Maybe.

Villages are already superior to mines/workshops/lumbermills and only cost 15 turns to develop. Villages give 5 commerce which can be converted to 10 gold (banks, markets, groceries) which can be converted in 3 1/3 production which is more than the production from mines/workshops/lumbermills. Towns with the universal suffrage hammer bonus and the free speech commerce bonus and the Kremlin bonus and the financial trait bonus are just really heavily overpowered.

If the calculations for the production power of a town (with the universal suffrage and free speech civic) earlier in this thread don't convince you, then I won't try it any further (see post 27 of DaviddesJ). They're in my opinion the best way of showing the power of gold rushing.

I don't think that gold rushing should be the standard way of construction. It should be the more expensive way of construction that can be used to boost something in a certain city. Under the optimal circumstances it should still be a little more expensive than the standard way of construction. The reason for this is that it is far more flexible. Commerce can be used to research, to buy all sorts of things in diplomacy, to finance spying missions and to rush constructions like buildings, units and wonders in just the area where it is needed. If it is also more efficient to rush constructions then to just build them normally, then it will dominate any other late game strategy.

By the way, you shouldn't replace farms by cottages until your city has reached its optimal size. We're talking of replacing hammer producing terrain improvements by cottages. The cities can better reach their optimal size quickly.

PieceOfMind
Feb 22, 2006, 09:25 PM
There are costs of running a cottage-heavy civilization- you have lower population and production than your neighbors. While you might enjoy a tech lead, your opponents will have far more units than you, and a smart (or merely aggressive) opponent will take advantage of your weakness. A balance between hammer and gold production must be maintained throughout the majority of the game, and retooling your entire economy to focus entirely on gold rushing requires a great number or worker turns and sacrificing production or food on your newly cottaged tiles.


Sorry Spammurabi but I don't agree with you. This is only personal experience but as I said in an earlier post, after "enacting" this strategy, my GNP AND power increased almost exponentially, whereas for the entire game up to that point both had only increased roughly linearly. Remember too that power is primarily dependent on unit number and strength. You have the impression that cash-rushing gives you a tech-lead but not more units. We are arguing that cash-rushing is a powerful strategy for buidling things (as implied by the strategy's name) - not for tech leads. Of course having lots of towns is also good for getting a tech-lead as well. Therein lies the key though. There doesn't appear to be any significant weakness to the strategy. You don't have to sacrifice research to use this strategy effectively.

I don't agree either that the time of enacting the strategy requires a lot of worker turns. Hopefully you would already have many commerce cities that have focused on town growth. You would only have to change a few farms here and there to cottages, and some watermills etc. Leave your 3 or 4 best production cities with hammers obviously as you will need them for building projects or for building those first factories etc. If you have a GP factory it may be best to leave that alone but that's up to you.

As Roland noted, the cottages become better than workshops very quickly (after reaching village), meaning that as the towns grow, the benefit only gets larger. It is assumed you would have a stable enough empire to last 30 or so turns of reduced-production. The pay-off makes it worth it.

And you are correct that this is a late-game strategy, and as Roland noted we have all said that. But as a late-game strategy it is VERY POWERFUL. Note my opinions are for SP games as I have little experience with MP games.

It may be true you will have a lower population than a rival who focuses more on farms, but why does that matter? AFAIK population is only useful for scoring. Having 10 citizens work 10 farms is not more beneficial than having only 4 citizens work 4 towns. As long as you manage your improvements so as to maximise the number of towns you can work (which may mean building a farm or two here and there), population is not important. In other words, population in itself is not something that gives you any benefit, as you know, but population is only useful for what it can DO. Citizens that work only to increase the number of citizens is kind of like a viscious, pointless cycle, unless maybe you like pop-rushing.

If you are dubious about the strategy's effectiveness, at least try using it in one game. I was honestly surprised at how well it worked when I tried it, even having read about it already.

Spammurabi
Feb 23, 2006, 12:41 AM
I was referring to the fact that if you build too many cottage cities early in the game, your production may be low enough to make you vulnerable to attack. I'm very much aware that once the necessary civics are in place, everything, including unit production, skyrockets. I use gold rushing myself once it becomes available. I was attempting to argue that there is a tradeoff for using too many cottages in the form of being weaker in the early game- you have to spend a lot of time building infastructure rather than units to optimize later rushbuying and your military would likely be weak.

Roland does point out that even a villiage with full bonuses is superior to a workshop or lumbermill given a financial civilization, which only takes 15 turns to develop, significantly less than the 35 turn lag changing a workshop to a mine. Lumbermills you might be able to argue for due to the fact that lumbermills on rivers produce gold and provide +.5 health, but would definitely fall behind towns even so. A watermill is probably better overall for a financial civ- a watermilled grassland provides 3/2/4. That's not really an argument against goldrushing being too powerful, just possibly a better way to implement it.

The reason why farms are important is that they can fuel city growth to work non-farm tiles. I suppose after you've reached optimum size they're not that useful, and are probably worth converting to cottages then.

I suppose since even a village provides better production than workshops with full benefits, something probably should be done to alleviate the imbalance. I think negating the benefits of bonuses to hammer production while rush-buying would probably fix it.

Actually, the more I think about it, the Kremlin is probably better off reworked somehow, although just how I'm not sure. It's really by far the most powerful wonder in the modern era- you just rush all your modern armor at ridiculous speeds and basically double your production. Maybe if the Kremlin halved your upgrade costs instead. I kind of like that idea.

Roland Johansen
Feb 23, 2006, 06:41 AM
I agree that you shouldn't over prepare for the late game cash rushing by building only cottages in the beginning of the game. You should play the beginning of the game according to what you think is optimal and then change some terrain improvements to cottages when universal suffrage is about to be invented. If you build only cottages for the entire game, then you will hurt your civilization.

I like that idea for the Kremlin. Krikkitone also posted some ideas a few pages back that were far more balanced than the present Kremlin effects.

Maybe it will be changed in a patch. A lot of people seem to like the power of cash rushing (judging by the number of posters that post arguments that support cash rushing). So maybe, the people from Firaxis don't want to change it to appease these posters. We'll see.

ADHansa
Feb 23, 2006, 07:19 AM
What is the logic about the Kremlin effect?

Why does it decrease rushcost? Is it because it is a big red castle? Or because it is where Sovjet HQ was? Or?

Please explain

Spammurabi
Feb 23, 2006, 04:10 PM
I think it's kind of the whole Soviet "We know what's best for the state. Now, go build X. Immediately. Or we'll shoot you." deal. At least, that's kind of how I interpreted it.

PieceOfMind
Feb 23, 2006, 09:25 PM
I'm very much aware that once the necessary civics are in place, everything, including unit production, skyrockets. I use gold rushing myself once it becomes available.

Sorry I forgot you said that.

I was attempting to argue that there is a tradeoff for using too many cottages in the form of being weaker in the early game- you have to spend a lot of time building infastructure rather than units to optimize later rushbuying and your military would likely be weak.


Of course play a balanced game early on. Too many or too little cottages is a bad thing. I don't think you have to spend a lot of time building infrastructure in the late-game for this strategy to work though. Just change a few things here and there to cottages. Of course the decision whether to change a particular improvement depends on the city and it's current state of growth etc., but it's assumed the player uses his/her judgement in this matter. Sometimes I will change a watermill to a cottage - it depends on the city.


Roland does point out that even a villiage with full bonuses is superior to a workshop or lumbermill given a financial civilization, which only takes 15 turns to develop, significantly less than the 35 turn lag changing a workshop to a mine. Lumbermills you might be able to argue for due to the fact that lumbermills on rivers produce gold and provide +.5 health, but would definitely fall behind towns even so. A watermill is probably better overall for a financial civ- a watermilled grassland provides 3/2/4. That's not really an argument against goldrushing being too powerful, just possibly a better way to implement it.

The reason why farms are important is that they can fuel city growth to work non-farm tiles. I suppose after you've reached optimum size they're not that useful, and are probably worth converting to cottages then.

I haven't done the analysis on the overall yields on each improvement so I can't say whether watermills are better than towns in certain situations, but in general, a town is the most useful improvement for a person using this strategy. I don't intend to debate the relative uses of farms/towns/watermills though. An experienced player will understand how to use them properly. There are many other threads that go into hammer yields of improvements through cash-rushing.

Cookerygod
Mar 21, 2006, 05:54 PM
I might have missed this point in the discussion thread. But it does not hurt to say it once more. When you are pop-rushing with a production bonus in normal game, you may get a higher (or lower) expected number of hammers when there is more than 30 hammers left for the current product. Hopefully Firaxis have fixed this one in the final patch. It is the same bug that haunted the quick, epic and marathon games which are discussed previously in this thread.

Everything may be off-by-1 but the basic idea is there.

The pop cost of whiping in a normal game is
ceiling((h+1)/30/(1+b)) where
h is the number of remaining hammer and
b = production bonus

For example:
If your product has 36 hammers left, and you have a 25% production bonus,
you need to whip only 1 pop to finish the building.

However, the actual production yield for whipping is (c+ceiling(t-c)*30)
where
c is the current production yield and
t = hammers needed to produce the building or unit

To put it simply, you add 30 hammers each time up to the point that the production is complete.

To micro-manage production using this BUG (It's a bug!),
at 25% bonus, try rushing with 31-36 hammers left. You will lose 1 pop and gain 60 hammers, where the expected gain is 37 hammers.
at 50% bonus, try rushing with 31-44 hammers left. You will lose 1 pop and gain 60 hammers. where the expected gain is 45 hammers.

I've not checked the overflow but I believe that it is already discussed to death in other threads. ;)

As slavery and organized religion can be acquired pretty early, (most of us beeline for bronze and some will go for the monotheism route), you can whip and gain quite a bit if you get a religion early. If you have the pyramid and switch to Police State, you can whip out 1.7 axeman with 1 pop provided that you can keep your production overflow to 1-4.

Xylander
May 19, 2006, 11:54 AM
Imagine the following. There is a jungle. A huge jungle. Some hundret men with equipment walking days and month to cross the wilderness. An then - founding a city.

There again, one year later. Nobody knows how but the Empire State building has been built there.

Again one year later - you guess it - there is a large factory. And soon there are tanks all over the place.

Welcome to the world of Civilization 4! Generally I like it :-).
Now what's that all about? In the real world you can't just take a lot of money and make Central Africa a second United States within 10 years. No matter how much money you have. In Civ 4 you can - using the US rush function for building. There is no concern about infrastructure or anything.

At least they could restrict rushing to cities that are connected to one's capital (without enemy territory between). Conquer a city deep within enemy territory. It takes some turns to suppress the rioting citizens but then you can produce tanks every turn (or at half cost every other turn). How that? Where to take the supply from?

Besides that ... there are other computer games that offer production speedup, too. What about Alpha Centauri? I don't know the numbers but there is a non-linear function to determine the cost of production speedup: Say you produce something that costs 1000 hammers. You still need 900. The first 100 hammers (10%) will cost 1 gold each. The second 100 hammers will cost 2 gold each and so on. Rushing at this point (for 4000 gold) is much more expensive per hammer than rushing when there are only 500 hammers left (for 1500 gold).

Rushing a wonder early would be almost impossible and so it should be (my opinion). It's well known that you can't speedup projects beyond some factor without wasting a lot of resources. Take twice the number of workers and you get a speedup of 1.5 - triple the number and it will be 1.8 and with four times the number you may reach 2. Buying parts instead of building them yourself will enable you to get to factor 3 or 4, but that's it. In Civ 4 you can reach factor 10 or 20 easily (at linear cost) - thats so far from reality ...

In contrast to my previous speakers I think that forges and factories should give a bonus on hurrying production. What is easier? Building a tank when there is a factory or when there is nothing, not even a forge?

So maybe you should pay 10 coins per hammer when there is nothing built in the city. -1 for a forge, additional -2 for a factory with power and maybe -2 if the size of the city is more than 8 (and +2 if the size is below 5).
This is easy to implement and the effect should be that rushing is a good option in industrial cities and a very expensive one in the pampas.

Another possibility could be to compare the city's production (hammers) with the hammers needed. The cost may be read from the table below:

city hammers/turn divided by
missing hammers......................gold per missing hammer
1-2%................................................ ....25
3-5%................................................ ....15
6-10%............................................... ....10
11-25%............................................... ....7
26-99%............................................... ....5

Maybe the cost can be cut down by 1/3 when at peace because there is always a region in the world that can produce needed parts cheaper than your nation ...

As I play the game in MP 95% of the time it can be that I launch an attack on some hardly defended cities but the time it needs to move my army there they build about 30 riflemen or so to defend (not in one city - in all cities together, moving is not a problem - for the enemy). You don't need to have a large number of units when you know you can build them this way. All you need is to save a lot of money. Building units is - as stated before - cheaper than upgrading. And with less units one can use pacifism quite easily.

I hope I got it to the point. Rushing production everywhere even in size 1 cities isn't a feature I want to have in the game. There has been a mp game where one destroyed one of my cities (I didn't have the money to rush defence units), built a new city there and after that had a base producing infantry all the time (yes one per turn).

Changing rush cost calculation to a non-linear function would take down this mess a lot. Additionally there should be modifiers depending on the city, whether it has a production capability or not.

PS: Isn't that the wrong place for the discussion anyway?

KrikkitTwo
May 19, 2006, 01:49 PM
well to properly balance it,
1. poprushing should be treated like chop rushing.. say limit it to one pop removed per turn, each 'whip' removes one pop adds ?6? turns of unhappiness and then adds 30 production (modified by game speed+bonuses.. possibly change the base yield if a Wonder/unit is being Worked on.. techs could also change the bonus)

2. Gold rushing could be the same.... it could have a maximum hammers added to the build each time you rushed (50?+10 per population? modified by game speed)... and you could rush once per turn. (Cost modifiers: *1.5 cost for units, *2 for National Wonders, * 4 for Wonders... Cost could either be the current 3 per turn with No benefit from production bonuses OR ~7 modified by bonuses... I'd favor the former, makes US more unique and valuable between Banks and Factories)


Then I'd say make the Kremlin remove the limit on number of times 'rushing' can be done in a city in one turn, and removing the Cost penalties for units and Wonders

as for making central Africa the second United States... in civ 4 terms that requires cottage growth time... There are banks, etc. in Central Africa and Tanks can be assembled there rapidly, but the terrain surrounding it is continually being razed.. and therefore doesn't yield much commerce (there is more to a city than what is in it/ coming out of it)

Roland Johansen
May 19, 2006, 04:41 PM
Although I do think that limiting the amount that can be rushed in a turn balances the power of gold-rushing and pop rushing and makes it more realistic, I don't think it is that good for gameplay. You have to rush each turn in some cities and that makes it tedious and you might forget to do it. It actually adds micromanagement.

It is actually very difficult to make a game resemble real life without adding massive amounts of micromanagement. I have some different ideas though.

Maybe universal suffrage should allow you to change a setting in a city called 'government funding'. The upkeep of the city would go up with an amount dependent on the production level of the city (x times the production level of the city, x being subject to balancing issues) and the city would get double the normal production level. The setting should be available on the main map next to all the preference settings for a city and maybe in the domestic advisor. Maybe another very expensive setting to quadruple the production level.

Slavery could do something similar, transmuting food to production directly with a similar setting on a city. Effects would be similar to when you're building a settler or worker and the setting would cause 1 level of unhappiness until you remove the setting.

What do you think?

KrikkitTwo
May 19, 2006, 09:50 PM
I do like that idea for U.S., show a little Gold Bar instead of a brown one (although I might make the amount of 'Funding' allowed based on Population instead of Production.. )... for Slavery I'm a bit uncertain. [if it was, then slave unhappiness should increase each turn in 'whipping' and only decrease when whipping is off]

There should be some type of Rush ability in the Game. Perhaps the city can rush something (up to X hammers per population) unit in the City... but if it does, the city is shut down [no production of any kind] for some number of turns (where the turns= Hammers rushed / population of City... round Up)

Kremlin could drop That type of rushing's cost.

Roland Johansen
May 20, 2006, 04:19 AM
I do like that idea for U.S., show a little Gold Bar instead of a brown one (although I might make the amount of 'Funding' allowed based on Population instead of Production.. )

Oh, my idea was if you mouse over the production of the city then it shows a + 100% from government funding. And if you mouse over the city upkeep, then it shows that part of the city upkeep is from government funding (not to be reduced by the courthouse effect).

... for Slavery I'm a bit uncertain. [if it was, then slave unhappiness should increase each turn in 'whipping' and only decrease when whipping is off]

The idea was to make the unhappiness be just 1, but the food -> hammer conversion is also a bit less advantageous than in the present version. Especially since the granary doesn't offer any bonus.

There should be some type of Rush ability in the Game. Perhaps the city can rush something (up to X hammers per population) unit in the City... but if it does, the city is shut down [no production of any kind] for some number of turns (where the turns= Hammers rushed / population of City... round Up)

Kremlin could drop That type of rushing's cost.

That could also work. There are many ways to change it. I however don't think that a production rush is needed that much in this game. I would like a production speedup more as it is more natural (realistic) and less powerful.

Are there games out there that have a production speedup but not a production rush? I know that the production rushing in Master of Orion I was limited to doubling the production output of a planet. That's quite similar to what I'm saying. But you still had to enable it every turn.

KrikkitTwo
May 21, 2006, 12:02 AM
Oh, my idea was if you mouse over the production of the city then it shows a + 100% from government funding. And if you mouse over the city upkeep, then it shows that part of the city upkeep is from government funding (not to be reduced by the courthouse effect)

See now that would be the problem it could either be
1. A % bonus to production with a gold penalty added After the courthouse bonus is applied
OR
2. A bonus added to production After the production bonuses are applied

Actually, is the food bonus for settlers added before or after production % bonuses are applied... if it is before, then adding anything after the % bonuses may be complicated.


In any case, Rushing, (as opposed to boosting) has an advantage to it. In the current design that advantage is due to the fact that they require a civic (and 'boosting' can only be done by redesigning a city's terrain.)

I'd say the mechanism for doing Gold rushing should be the same, but Slavery would be best like forest chopping (no limit to number of times per turn... but each time gives you extra unhappiness... so you could whip a city down to 1 pop (or maybe only down to 1/2 its highest population)... but you would acquire massive amounts of unhappiness.

For Gold rushing, First you need to eliminate any production bonuses from the calculation.. then, if fully developed towns are to be marginally better than say a farm/workshop mix (assuming Bio but Not State Property) [which they should be under US]
2 Workshop+1 Farm= 6 Hammers (12 with Factory)
3 Windmills/Watermills=6 Hammers (12 with Factory) +6 Commerce (12 Gold)
2 Mines+1 Farm= 8 Hammers (16 with Factory)
3 SP Workshops/Lumbermills=9 (18 with Factory)
3 Towns=3 Hammers (6 with Factory) +21 commerce (42 Gold with Banks)

42 Gold should buy more than 6 production but less than 12 (so that State Property workshops beat it in production)
so it should cost 6 at most...and 4 at least.

I'd say 5 since then it beats Workshops but not Mines/Lumbermills
[for a Pyramid US it does well too]
1 Mine+1 Farm=3 hammers
2 Towns=2 Hammers +8 Gold (divide by 5... and it beats everything in the early period.. of course Towns are really hard to get early on so its worth it.)

I would eliminate the "Just started" penalty though (keep the World/National Wonder Penalty.. and maybe add a unit one ~50% like the National Wonder)

At that point a Kremlin wouldn't be too overpowered (at least at -33% Gold rush costs.. which could add a -50% whip unhappiness.. because slavery is hard to maintain late game)

That way the Main benefit of US would be
1. a Rush ability (Defense/Wonders)
2. Development of production poor regions (or ones that you want focused on something besides production.. ie, growing more towns or specialists)

Using it for primary production (in a Wonder City/unit pumping city) would be foolish... However, for those production poor regions, eliminating the "just started" penalty would allow you not to worry about micromanaging it... want building X in production poor city.. just add it to the top of the queue and rush it...

Government Funding would probably be nice as a similar thing made available to everyone (with some Renaissance-Industrial tech) that adds the +100% production at the cost of 5 Gold per base Hammer.. not available for Wonders/Units (Give it its own separate line on the budget so it isn't influenced by inflation.)... of course if this was done every time there was Carryover you would have to get a refund (of course if ther next turn was Also Government Funded, then you would be charged a large amount to Government Fund that new level)

Roland Johansen
May 22, 2006, 05:36 AM
See now that would be the problem it could either be
1. A % bonus to production with a gold penalty added After the courthouse bonus is applied
OR
2. A bonus added to production After the production bonuses are applied

Oh, yes. That was a bit vague of me. I wouldn't like to see the production bonus be subject to production bonuses from buildings (and civics, resources) and I wouldn't like to see the gold cost be subject to the courthouse reduction. In this way, you always get the some conversion rate between the gold that you pay and the production that you gain. That would be the easiest thing to balance.

Actually, is the food bonus for settlers added before or after production % bonuses are applied... if it is before, then adding anything after the % bonuses may be complicated.

That is a strange one. The production from food doesn't get a production bonus unlike the production from food through pop-rushing.


In any case, Rushing, (as opposed to boosting) has an advantage to it. In the current design that advantage is due to the fact that they require a civic (and 'boosting' can only be done by redesigning a city's terrain.)

I fully agree that rushing is more powerful than boosting, but that's not a problem to me. I don't see the necessity for a strong rushing ability (from a philosophical game developers point of view). I also think that boosting is more natural in a game like civ. It would resemble real life a bit better, because it is dependent on the amount of production already present in the city. It would eliminate the rushed defender in low production cities, which is a good thing in my opinion. And of course, it only has a low level of micromanagement, something that is important to me.

I'd say the mechanism for doing Gold rushing should be the same, but Slavery would be best like forest chopping (no limit to number of times per turn... but each time gives you extra unhappiness... so you could whip a city down to 1 pop (or maybe only down to 1/2 its highest population)... but you would acquire massive amounts of unhappiness.

For Gold rushing, First you need to eliminate any production bonuses from the calculation.. then, if fully developed towns are to be marginally better than say a farm/workshop mix (assuming Bio but Not State Property) [which they should be under US]
2 Workshop+1 Farm= 6 Hammers (12 with Factory)
3 Windmills/Watermills=6 Hammers (12 with Factory) +6 Commerce (12 Gold)
2 Mines+1 Farm= 8 Hammers (16 with Factory)
3 SP Workshops/Lumbermills=9 (18 with Factory)
3 Towns=3 Hammers (6 with Factory) +21 commerce (42 Gold with Banks)

42 Gold should buy more than 6 production but less than 12 (so that State Property workshops beat it in production)
so it should cost 6 at most...and 4 at least.

I'd say 5 since then it beats Workshops but not Mines/Lumbermills
[for a Pyramid US it does well too]
1 Mine+1 Farm=3 hammers
2 Towns=2 Hammers +8 Gold (divide by 5... and it beats everything in the early period.. of course Towns are really hard to get early on so its worth it.)

I would eliminate the "Just started" penalty though (keep the World/National Wonder Penalty.. and maybe add a unit one ~50% like the National Wonder)

At that point a Kremlin wouldn't be too overpowered (at least at -33% Gold rush costs.. which could add a -50% whip unhappiness.. because slavery is hard to maintain late game)

That way the Main benefit of US would be
1. a Rush ability (Defense/Wonders)
2. Development of production poor regions (or ones that you want focused on something besides production.. ie, growing more towns or specialists)

Using it for primary production (in a Wonder City/unit pumping city) would be foolish... However, for those production poor regions, eliminating the "just started" penalty would allow you not to worry about micromanaging it... want building X in production poor city.. just add it to the top of the queue and rush it...

I do think that you know how to balance the gold rushing ability (which is at present overpowered as we both know). We talked about that before and kind of agreed (if I recall correctly). I also agree that the 'just started' penalty is not really good for anything. It increases the cost of the rushed defending unit, which might be a good thing.

Government Funding would probably be nice as a similar thing made available to everyone (with some Renaissance-Industrial tech) that adds the +100% production at the cost of 5 Gold per base Hammer.. not available for Wonders/Units (Give it its own separate line on the budget so it isn't influenced by inflation.)... of course if this was done every time there was Carryover you would have to get a refund (of course if ther next turn was Also Government Funded, then you would be charged a large amount to Government Fund that new level)

You're correct about inflation as that should not influence it. I don't know about the carryover production though. I see it as buying a turn of extra production, not as buying production for a certain project. And the amount of production that is bought is based on the basic production in a city so it isn't influenced by changes in bonuses that are dependent on the project that is being constructed. So the carryover production from this should be added independently and not be subject to production bonuses. You might see two lines of carryover in a city screen. One of the normal production subject to production bonuses and one government funding overflow not subject to production bonuses.

By the way, adding government funding as an ability might not be the most difficult part, but making the AI use it in a sensible way might be challenging. You might make it pretty basic like:
1) Only in cities with a production level lower than x or who risk being captured and the government funding finishes a unit,
2) Only y% of income is available for it (like with trading, where the AI also only uses a limited amount of gold for it),
3) If more cities can use it and not enough gold is available, then apply it to the city with the least amount of buildings. If still in a tie, apply at random.

Some sort of coding like this is probably already in place for gold rushing. It's probably a weak point of the AI as I can't see an AI use something that needs a 'larger picture of your empire' in a sensible way.

KrikkitTwo
May 22, 2006, 04:04 PM
That is a strange one. The production from food doesn't get a production bonus unlike the production from food through pop-rushing..

Well in that case the easiest might be applying your suggestion to both of them.

1. Slavery allows the "Whip" setting where all a cities food is put into production (ala Settlers) ie brown bar added

2. US allows the "Funding" setting where X amount of Gold is put into production (ie ~10 production=50 Gold cost per population unit per turn) ie Yellow bar added


if it is a +100% bonus to production, it would have to be treated the same as all other +% bonuses to production (ie remove with Carry over, re-add if you continue 'Funding' etc.)... I think the "Yellow Bar" might be simpler.

The problem with the 'Yellow bar' is determining how much cash to put into it, and how it gets cut off if you run out of money, etc [not an issue with Settlers/Workers or a food bar]... This makes the 'Rushing' model much simpler.

For limiting MM, you could have an auto rush, where when you hit end turn, each city with 'Auto-Rush' on takes its turn where it
1. checks to see if there is enough $ in the treasury
2. if there is rushes whatever it is building (if the defense unit rushing was a reason to keep the 'just started' penalty, you could have it Not auto-rush if the build was just started)... of course I'd prefer a general 'Unit penalty'

As for the reason for a Rush... I think it makes the game more interesting to have a Rush than just a Food/$->Production setting.

Roland Johansen
May 23, 2006, 08:13 AM
How the game exactly shows the production addition and the internal calculations should not be big problems I think. And if the government funding goes up, then the gold per turn costs go up and the game will automatically adjust your tax rate to meet the higher costs.

An auto rush command could be useful, but as rushing is far more powerful then the 'funding' option and also more expensive, I don't think you'll use it all that much. If you're talking about the limited form of rushing as in your post 88, then an auto rush option would remove the micromanagement and would be a very good option.
In that case, the differences between 'funding' and 'limited autorushing' are only graphical in nature, buttons are at different points and the mouseover information might be at a different location. All, not very important for me as long as it is clear what is happening.
I'd like to see the autorush costs added to the gold per turn summary so that you can see what will happen with your income when you hit end turn.

KrikkitTwo
May 23, 2006, 10:39 AM
I'd like to see the autorush costs added to the gold per turn summary so that you can see what will happen with your income when you hit end turn.

Yeah that would be necessary
(perhaps in the middle portion and not the 'expenses' portion... Perhaps that could be done with upgrades too, when you alt-upgrade it could put all those units on 'auto upgrade' if you don't have the cash right now.)

So you could have...Income , Expenses, and "Planned Spending" ie auto upgrade/rushing (if planned spending was greater than Current Treasury+Income-Expenses, then you would know your Treasury would drop to near 0, and the Planned Spending would be put off for another turn.)

This would eliminate the necessity of the switch to 0% Science for X turns make sure you had enough cash to get all of 'unit X' upgraded.... Just hit alt-upgrade on one of them, make sure you run a slight surplus and eventually they all get upgraded.)

Roland Johansen
May 23, 2006, 12:52 PM
Yes, that planned spending idea sounds good. I think we've got some nice ideas here in general. They might even be implementable with the SDK, although I don't know the capabilities of the SDK and have not experimented with it yet.

I hope that rush buying of any sort gets some streamlining in the next installment of civ, maybe along the lines we're suggesting right here.

KrikkitTwo
May 23, 2006, 01:54 PM
well with the next installment a number of things will be substantially rejiggered so I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'Government Funding' and 'Rush' setting being seperate.


Reply to below.. just a general guess

Roland Johansen
May 23, 2006, 03:09 PM
Do you know more than I or is this just a general guess that the next installment will probably again be different? Civ 1 and Civ 2 were very much alike, not a lot of change then.

deepblue9000
Jun 13, 2008, 01:21 AM
I was reading over this thread and thought I’d do some experimenting myself. I wound up deriving the formulas for all of the values involved in rushing production. Most of these have been hinted at in other posts, but I thought I'd post my findings. Feel free to try any of these formulas out in-game and let me know if they produce an incorrect result. I'd like to fix them if that's the case.

First I’ll explain my variable names:

H – Total hammers remaining in production
S – Game speed multipler – 0.66... = quick, 1.0 = normal, 1.5 = epic, 3.0 = marathon

Bonuses:
B – Sum of all production bonuses (eg. 0.5 if you have a forge and Organized Religion is applicable)
K – Kremlin Modifier – 0.5 for Kremlin, 1.0 otherwise

Penalties:
W – The wonder modifier – 2.0 for a world wonder, 1.5 for national wonder, 1.0 for everything else
Z – Zero Hammers modifier – 1.5 if this is the first turn of production

Now, the formula for the modified cost of whatever it is you’re rushing ([…] denotes the “floor” operation)

C = [ H / ( 1+B) * K * W * Z ]

Basically, you just multiply everything together, divide by 1+B, and then take the floor.

Now, if you want to convert that cost into a population or gold quantity you simply use one of the two simple formulas below.

Pop Rush:
P = [ C / ( 30 * S) + 1 ]

Gold Rush:
G = 3 * S * C

Also, a formula for the number of hammers of overflow you can expect (‘%’ represent the modulo operation)

O = ( 30 – (H % 30) ) % 30

And then, if you really want to know your total output per population point, you need to use one last formula (can’t really reduce it any more because of all the flooring and modulos that took place):

PP = (H + O) / P

The ramifications of all of this have already been hinted at in this thread and others. Namely:

• You don’t want to rush when the number of hammers remaining is a multiple of 30.

• There are additional jump points on other games speeds where your hammers per pop point can change considerably (on epic, no bonuses, 44 hammers remaining requires 1 pop and nets 60 hammers, 45 hammers remaining requires 2 pop and nets the same 60 hammers. That’s a whole second pop point resulting in no additional hammers.)

• You can significantly reduce the rush cost (in population or gold) through city buildings and the Kremlin.

• The Kremlin is the equivalent of a forge, factory, and power in every city (for rushing purposes).

• With the Kremlin and simply another 50% city bonus (or just a total city bonus of 200%), you can buy 1 hammer for 1 gold.

• Others, but it’s late and my mind is cloudy… I want to say something along the lines of “In the late-middle-thru-end game, hammers might be next to useless, or, at best, very inefficient”. But, then again, most of my games are over by the time I get grenadiers and cavalry :)

I know this thread is really old but I think there's a slight error in malekithe's formula as written, which I corrected in the quote. The gold cost for hurrying should be 3*C*S, not 3*C.

Yxklyx
Jun 13, 2008, 08:24 AM
So the issue with hurrying production has not changed since these original posts? There has been no patch to reduce the effect?

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that it seems that we're talking exclusively about cottages on grassland tiles only (with a few exceptions) including grassland hills. If the world you're playing has few grasslands then this strategy won't work. People who get bored by playing the same type of game should then switch to playing Ice Age or Arid worlds or Tiny Islands, etc...

DaveMcW
Jun 13, 2008, 05:19 PM
So the issue with hurrying production has not changed since these original posts? There has been no patch to reduce the effect?

It has been patched for 2 years now.

This topic should be locked.