View Full Version : Micromanagement is alive and well in Civ 4!


Pages : [1] 2

Zombie69
Feb 13, 2006, 05:31 PM
This is a thread for those who love micromanaging, for those who don't mind spending 5 minutes working something out just to gain one more beaker, for perfectionist and arguably very anal civ players! This is a place to share all the extreme micromanagement that we use in our games.

The spiritual trait in itself makes quite a few more possible, but here are some basic tricks that i use in every game with every civ. Please feel free to add your own to the list.


Binary science rate

I always keep my science rate either at 0% or at maximum to avoid wasting fractions with bonuses. Here's the reasoning.

Imagine you have 10 commerce in your city. The city has 25% bonus on science with a library and also 25% on gold with a market. Let's say you want a 70% research rate. These numbers are just for the sake of the example; you can use any other numbers you wish. The effect of doing this micromanagement is almost always positive and never negative no matter the numbers used.

By setting science at 70%, you're getting 7 beakers and 3 gold. You get 25% more beakers, and 25% of 7 (rounded down) is 1. You get no extra gold, since 25% of 3 (rounded down) is 0. You're getting a total of 8 beakers and 3 gold per turn. After 10 turns, you'll have 80 beakers and 30 gold.

What you should do instead is run at 100% science 70% of the time, and at 0% science 30% of the time. Then when running science (for 7 out of 10 turns), you'll get 10 beakers. You'll also get 2 extra beakers (25% rounded down). This for a total of 12 beakers. On the turns you run 0% research, you'll get 10 + 2 = 12 gold. After 10 turns, you'll have 12 * 7 = 84 beakers, and 12 * 3 = 36 gold. This is 4 more beakers and 6 more gold than by doing the easy but inefficient 70% science rate all the time.

There's another advantage to doing this. By making sure you run at 0% science for enough turns to be able to afford 100% science for the duration of your entire research for a given tech, you won't get the tech later, but you will give the chance to the AI of getting the tech before you really start researching. The more AIs have the tech, the better bonus you get on your research.

Also, doing this on more than one tech, when the intermediate techs aren't immediately needed (and making sure you have enough accumulated gold for researching all the techs in the chain), you can get the intermediate techs later, which means that the AIs will get less research bonus on them since on less player knows those techs. This can be the difference between being the first civ to reach a critical tech at the end of the chain or coming in second and missing the one-time bonus.

Of course, by doing this, you'll often have large sums of money at hand. This comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Mainly the AI is more likely to demand tribute when it sees you have lots of money in treasury (bad) but you have the ability to rush buy units in a pinch when in dire need (good).

Another advantage of this method is the added flexibility in choosing which tech to research. After running on 0% research for a few turns, you can change your mind about what tech to spend the extra gold on, if your priorities have changed in the mean time. Then you won't have lost any time researching the wrong tech.

Notice that specialists hurt this strategy, especially if you get one free specialist per city and he produces science or gold. This is because the specialist can make gold when running at 100% science, or can make science when running at 0% science. This causes potential wasted fractions for both science and gold in that city, instead of just one kind. However, the strategy always remains useful, even though the gain can be smaller.

There is an important note that i need to add after it was mentioned further down on this thread (thanks guys). On the last turn of researching a tech, you can exploit a bug in how carryover is calculated to your next tech. The gain from exploiting this will usually be larger than the losses from wasted fractions by going to a non-binary research rate on this one turn. Information on the bug can be found here : Technology research explained (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163&page=3). Strategy to exploit it can be found here : Tech jumping (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158330). This bug has been corrected in patch 1.61.

Before you get your first building that gives a bonus to science or commerce (usually a library, but could be a monastery, a market or even an academy), binary science is of course useless in terms of fractional losses. It's still useful for having more money in the bank for emergencies, and more bonuses for other civs knowing the tech you research. However, these benefits are of limitted value. Until you meet other civs (which on maps like archipelago could take a while), here's what you should do instead. Play around with the science slider, and for each setting check your financial advisor to see what the total research is. Pick a setting that gives a multiple of five. If you can't get a multiple of five, then 5n+1 is your best shot, followed by 5n+2. This way, you'll maximize the benefit of prerequisite techs, which give 20% bonus each towards research of the current tech. By picking a multiple of 5, you minimize the fractional loss on this bonus. This doesn't apply to the starting techs, which have no prerequisites. This doesn't apply either when you start meeting civs who might have the tech you're researching, because they add their own bonus, so the total bonus you get may not be a multiple of 20% anymore, and therefore aiming for a multiple of 5 becomes useless.


Commerce and production in packs of 4

I keep my commerce and production per city at multiples of 4 whenever possible to get the most out of 25% and 75% bonuses. If i can't have a multiple of 4, at 75% bonus i aim for 4n+3, if not then 4n+2, and i avoid at all cost 4n+1. At 25% bonus 4n (ideal) > 4n+1 > 4n+2 > 4n+3 (avoid at all cost). If the bonus is 50% or 150%, i aim for a multiple of two (i.e. an even number) in basic commerce/production. If, because of monasteries, the bonus is 45% or something else that's weird to calculate, i try different combinations and choose the one that seems to give the best ratio of total commerce/production to basic commerce/production. At 35%, i just try to get a multiple of 3, minus one for every 21 (i.e. i aim for 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 40, 43, etc.), the absolute best being multiples of 20, and the best after that being the numbers right above those, not below.

This implies switching worked tiles whenever there is an overflow that's not a multiple of 4 (for production), or whenever a cottage/etc. upgrades to another level. This can mean switching between cottages and mines, or cottages and forested grasslands, or cottages and hamlets, or river cottages and non-river cottages, etc.

This tile switching can be combined with the binary science rate by using some other tricks to improve results even more. For example, in my science cities i try to use less advanced cottages at 0% science, so that i can grow them without any penalty to my science output. On the other hand, in my cities without as many science bonuses (e.g. no academy), or with more gold bonuses (e.g. market in a holy city), i'll do the opposite and try to use the most advanced cottages while at 0% and grow them while at 100%.

I'll admit to not always doing this perfectly for commerce as it gets a bit tedious and can't always be switched efficiently, but i always check production carefully when i have any kind of bonus.


Keep on working while moving

When needing workers to move their full movement or more, this is what i do to avoid wasting worker turns. I move workers 3 tiles on roads, give them an order and then cancel the order. Next turn, i keep on moving to where i actually need to be. Here's why this is helpful.

Let's say that you need your worker to move 8 tiles through roads for his next task. You can take 2 full turns to move the 8 tiles. Then on his 3rd turn your can make him do his improvement. On the first two turns, he won't have done any improvements at all. A worker turn where all he does is move, if it can be avoided, i consider a waste. Exceptions include moving to forests or hills with no roads, where you can't avoid it.

I would micromanage it this way. On the first turn, i will make him move 3 tiles. He still has 1/2 movement left. Then i ask him to make an improvement there. It could be anything i know i'll need there in the future. Then i cancel the order. Part of the improvement will already be done for later when i come back to it. For example, if i ask for a cottage (4 turns) and cancel, when i come back to it, there will only be 3 turns left to do. Therefore the turn hasn't been wasted.

I'll do the same on turn 2. On turn 3, i'll move the remaining 2 tiles and do the actual improvement that i wanted there. It starts on turn 3 either way, so nothing has been wasted, but improvements on the 2 intermediate tiles have already begun, so i've gained 2 worker turns doing this.

An alternative method is moving to a tile where another worker is making an improvement, then start making the same improvement. Take the worker who was there initially and move him further than the other worker could have reached from his starting position.


Chop, prechop, pre-improve

I don't think i need to explain settler chops anymore, this has been done to death already. This allows for making settlers while still letting your city grow, by producing settlers entirely out of trees. Of course, i use the variant where you switch production in the middle of a turn for maximum efficiency.

Also, whenever you chop (doesn't have to be settlers, this applies to everything), there are some things to keep in mind. First, make sure that your total production for the turn, including chops, doesn't exceed the needs of the current build plus another identical build. For example, when making a swordsman (cost 40 hammers), and he's already at 30/40, you don't want to produce more than 10 (the remaining production needed for the build) + 40 (the production needed for another swordsman). This is because overflow is capped at the current build's cost. For example, when producing something that costs 40 hammers, your total overflow can't exceed 40. To avoid this, you can either switch what the city produces at the start of your turn, or you can stop the chop and finish it later.

In fact, prechopping is a good idea a lot of the time. The best example is when you know you'll get the technology for a critical wonder in a few turns, or a technology that lets you make superior military units that you want to use for an offensive, or any other technology that opens up a new option that requires a lot of production quickly. In such a case, you may want to chop each forest for two turns, then stop and build a road. The forest is still there but almost completely chopped. Whenever the technology arrives, send your workers back to the forests and complete the chops instantly. This trick sometimes allows you to completely build a wonder on the first turn it's available, without using a Great Engineer!

Prechopping is also good if you ever find yourself with workers that have nothing to do anymore. In this case, rather than simply chopping, it's often better to order the building of an improvement over a forest. This gives the idle worker more turns of work to keep himself busy. For example, a forest takes 3 turns to chop, while building a cottage requires 4 turns. Ordering a cottage over a forest thus requires 7 turns, while leaving the forest up even after 6 turns of work. Another alternative is to pre-build a cottage over a farm that you know you'll want tranformed later, or any other improvement switch where you still want the current improvement for now but know that you'll want a different one later. This way, whenever you're ready for the other improvement, you can have it right away. Just remember that on hills and in forests, when prebuilding, you should always put down a road so that it's easier to come back later to finish the job.


Prebuilding units

I prebuild an axeman, then before i finish it, i prebuild a swordsman, then before i finish it, i prebuild a spearman. Then i finish them all in the order i started them. Because i finish the first two units later, i'll save on maintenance during the turns where they sit in the build queue, since units in the queue don't cost maintenance, but finished units do. This of course assumes that i don't need the first two units immediately. It also has the convenience of being able to finish a unit or two in one turn each in times of crisis because they're already almost finished. Just be careful not to leave a unit in the queue for more than 10 turns or you'll start losing production on it.

Alternately, you can prebuild a unit for this city's defense, then make a building that takes 10 or less turns to finish while the unit is in queue. This is just as good as actually having the unit defending the city because you can switch back and have it in one turn at the first sight of trouble, but saves you the maintenance cost while you're making your building.


Whip 'til your hands bleed

Pop rushing is way overpowered in this game, and should be abused to the max if you intend to master this game. Part of the reason why it's so overpowered is because of a bad calculation that they haven't even bothered to fix in patch 1.61.

With pop rushing at normal speed, you're supposed to get 30 hammers for every pop spent. That's already pretty good, considering that with a granary, a city only needs about 11 (at level 1) to 31 (at level 21) food to grow back the pop you've spent. Spending 11 food to get 30 hammers is already mighty good, but because of the exploit, it gets even better.

Assuming the building or unit is already started (so you don't get a penalty), what the game does is it checks to find how many base hammers you need to complete the build, and charges you an amount of pop based on this. Let's say there is a forge in your city, or you're using organized religion. This means you have a 25% bonus on production. With 30 base hammers, you then get 38 total hammers (small rounding error, should have been 37). If what you need to complete the build is 38 hammers, the game will only charge you one pop.

However, the game always gives you an amount of hammers that's the smallest multiple of 30 needed to complete the build. This is total hammers, not base hammers. So in the case above, you'll get 60 hammers because 30 wouldn't be enough to complete it. Congratulations, you've just received 60 hammers by expending only 11 food (assuming a size 2 city going down to size 1). That's a grand total of 5.45 hammers per food spent! Tell me that isn't overpowered. Even taking into account that normal hammers would receive a normal 25% bonus, you still need 4.36 normal hammers to equal every food used. No improvement anywhere in the game can provide 4.36 hammers to compete with the 1 food a farm provides.

Pop rushing is so overpowered in this game that i find slavery to be by far the best civic, all branches included. I abuse it to such an extent that in a typical game, until gold rushing comes along, about 70% to 80% of all my production is obtained through this mean, and only about 20% to 30% from actual hammers obtained from tiles. It's so overpowered that a city full of farms becomes a better producer than one full of mines!

The best ways to abuse the system are using 1 pop for 60 hammers when needing 31 to 38 with a 25% bonus (getting 30 hammers for free because of the bug), or using 5 pop to get 210 hammers when needing 181 to 187 with a 25% bonus (getting 60 hammers for free). However, it's good at all levels, as long as you make sure to be at a point that will provide more hammers than you spend pop for.

Because of the unhappiness penalty involved, you don't want to whip much more than once every 10 turns (so the unhappiness has time to wear off). However, because it's so overpowered, you definitely want to use it as soon as the unhappiness penalty wares off, if not earlier. You don't want to waste a single turn that's not being spent on making unhappiness disappear. Yes, this means that you want to be in a constant state of unhappiness due to whipping!

For cities with low food, it will take them time to grow back the population, but little time to get rid of the unhappiness. For those, you ideally want to whip a single pop every 10 turns, and no more. This increases the bonus obtained from the bug, while minimizing your pop spent. Time your production and use your queue to make sure that you have a building that will have just the right amount of production done by the time unhappiness falls down to zero. With a 25% bonus, this means you should have something that needs 31 to 38 hammers to finish. With a 50% bonus, that's 31 to 45 hammers.

For cities that have high food outputs, growing is not a problem, and unhappiness quickly becomes huge. In this case, you want to whip as many pop points as possible everytime you whip. This means you should have buildings barely started waiting to be whipped. Those buildings should have somewhere between 1 and 30 hammers done on them, depending on the total hammers required, to ensure the biggest gain possible as described above. For example, a bank requires 200 hammers. Therefore with a 25% bonus you want to whip 5 pop to gain 210 hammers. This can be done by having 181 to 187 hammers left to the build. Therefore you should let normal production of the bank reach 13 to 19 hammers, then put it in the queue until you can whip the rest. Actually, due to a rounding error this will work at 12 hammers as well.

Another thing you want to keep in mind is when to rush. The ideal time is usually not on the very turn where unhappiness disappears, but before that. Ideally, you want to be as close to that point as possible, to keep unhappiness at a minimum and be able to use as many productive tiles as possible for as long as possible. However, there is another factor to consider, one that becomes more significant the more pop you whip in one swoop.

You see, the cost of whipping depends on your city size. Assuming a granary, whipping one pop costs 1 more food for every extra pop your city has before the whip, because it will cost one more food, for example, to go from size 4 to size 5 than it would cost to go from size 3 to size 4. As you whip more pop at a time, however, the effect gets bigger. Whipping 2 pop will cost 2 more food per extra initial level, because each of the two levels you need to grow back will cost 1 extra food. Similarly, whipping 5 pop will cost 5 extra food per initial level, i.e. it will cost 5 more food at level 11 than at level 10, and 10 more food at level 12 than at level 10. This really adds up.

So you want to be at high levels as long as possible to use more tiles, but you want to whip at the lowest level possible. Solution : whip at the end of a level. Use you level to the max, wait until you're right about to jump to the next level, and whip right before this happens, rather than right after it does. Ideally, what you want to have is the following. The last turn before whipping, you want to make just enough food to reach the next level, and not one more. Set you governor to "avoid growth". Then the next turn your city will be at 30/30 food or something like that. Set the governor back to normal, whip and witness your city now at 30/26 or something like that (which is nice because now you know the first two increases will come quickly), and let it grow again.

Note that sometimes it may be better to whip right after growth rather than right before. This depends on too many factors for me to provide precise guidelines, but here are a few pointers. By whipping after growth, you get at least one turn (the one where you click on the whip button) at one size higher. If you whipped more than one pop, you may also (but there's no garanty) grow some of the levels back one turn earlier. Therefore, by doing this, you're trading away food in exchange for whatever the tile gives you (don't forget to count -2 food for what the tile gives you, because it needs to feed a citizen). If all you intend to get from the tile is 1 food (a grassland farm), then it's never worth it to whip after growth (you'll save more food by whipping before growth than you could gain by whipping after it). If it's production you want from that tile, again it's not worth it, because the food saved otherwise can be turned into lots of more through whipping later on, than what you'd get from the tile. If what you want is commerce, than it might be worth it, since there's no easy way otherwise to turn food into commerce, especially if you're already working all the cottages you can.

Whipping at the middle of a level is never a good thing. Usually it's better at the end of a level, occasionally it may be better at the beginning of a level if you want commerce, but there's never any point in doing it somewhere in the middle. Note that if whipping just after growth, the use of the city governor is still recommanded if the growth will lead you into unhappiness. What you want to do then is grow your granary to the max with "avoid growth" turned on. Next turn, turn it off and grow as much as you can. This leads into unhappiness but it has no impact since the instant you get there, you'll whip away the malcontents.

When to do this and when to let your city grow instead? Well, the gist of it is that if in the time it takes for your whipping related unhappiness to drop down to zero, you could grow an extra size and fill that granary again (or at least come close to filling it), then you should do that; otherwise you should whip at this level and not wait for unhappiness to subside. By going down in pop, happiness won't be a problem for a while anyway. Another thing to keep in mind is that it's sometimes preferable to wait until you're at max happiness before whipping; this maximizes usage of tiles at the cost of less whipping (i.e. less abuse). There are also other factors to consider, like whether or not you've got extra 3-food or 2-food tiles you could use, but i'll let you find that out through your own experimentation.

One last thing. Whenever you've got a big overflow from whipping (around 30 hammers at normal speed), it's often a good idea to use that overflow on a worker or settler. This way, you're not wasting your time making them the normal way and getting only 1 hammer per food. Also, workers and settlers make good candidates for the whip for the same reason.

Just how efficient is this tactic? Further in this thread, for one particular example, it was calculated that doing this was 16% more efficient in terms of hammer and commerce than simply using hills and cottages without whipping. The particular example included the following :
- city of size 8 (bigger = less efficient whipping, smaller = more efficient)
- 5 excess food (more food = more efficient whipping, less food = less efficient)
- 2 grassland hills and 2 plains hills available (better tiles = less efficient whipping, worse tiles = more efficient)
- whipping 3 pop at a time (more at a time = less efficient whipping, less at a time = more efficient)

For a nice spreadsheet showing the points that provide more hammers than you paid for at each game speed, see this file (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=129595&d=1149972771) graciously provided by Malekithe.


Quick tips

You can finish all worker actions and all other queued actions by pressing Ctrl-A.

If you don't mind re-issuing every worker's task every turn, you may want to use Alt-Escape on one worker at the end of every turn. This will cancel the current task of all workers so that you can re-issue a task next turn. This works well with chopping to ensure that you can switch production to whatever you want to rush before the chop comes in.

When changing from serfdom to something else, make sure to do it after all your workers have done their actions. When switching from organized religion to something else, make sure to wait until after all your chops for the turn have come in, so that they still get the bonus.

If you have units on a tile that need to move, and workers making a road on that tile, make sure to order the completion of the road before you move the units out. Of course, this only matters if they can be moved out to another tile with roads. Obviously, the same thing applies to the tiles they're moving to, not only from.


Basic stuff

I won't even talk about assigning workers manually, assigning citizens manually and switching them around whenever needed, assigning specialists manually and switching them as needed, moving each military unit manually every turn, and so on. I consider these as basic micromanagement that everybody, micromanager or not, should use. These are not, at least in my book, cases of extreme micromanagement!


Anything else that i've forgotten or simply don't know about? Please add any extreme micromanagement trick that you use that's not listed here!

Zombie69
Feb 13, 2006, 05:31 PM
Since it doesn't look like i'll need this space, i'll use it to keep a log of changes made starting today (for older changes, well it's too late, i don't remember everything i've changed, there's been a lot!)

2006-06-18 Added a paragraph depicting the efficiency of whipping versus non-whipping

2006-06-16 Added two paragraphs to the whip section, explaining that sometimes (rarely), it's better to whip right after growth rather than right before growth.

Roland Johansen
Feb 13, 2006, 08:44 PM
Good ideas.;)

I also use the worker stuff (mostly to build a road for one turn when having to move over two flatland tiles) and chopping micromanagement (although not necessarily only for settlers). The rest of this, I might use sometimes but certainly not always. You're a bit extreme for me. :p

There can be one small disadvantage to the binary science rate. You will have a large sum of money at some times. It seems to me that AI demands are higher when your treasury is larger.
I have had a game where Montezuma (and some others) kept asking me for tribute and I didn't dare deny him because his army was far larger and a bit more advanced (high difficulty level game). If I had denied him his tribute, then this would have resulted in negative relation modifiers. Giving into the demands gave me some positive relation modifiers. However, I didn't want to give him huge sums of money since I needed every penny to catch up in the science race.
On the other hand, a large cash reserve can be useful to help you upgrade a large part of your army when you're suddenly attacked or to cash rush some units when in need. It depends on the situation.

The following is not very extreme micromanagement but maybe you think it applies. When chopping a forest, never finish the chopping at the end of the building process of a cheap unit and certainly never finish more than one forest chop during the construction of a cheap unit. The problem is that the production overflow cannot exceed the production cost of the previous build.
Example: In epic mode forest chops give you 45 hammers. A warrior costs 18 hammers. Assume that you finish 2 forest chops while the warrior is at 17/18 hammers. After the forest chops, the warrior will be at 107/18 hammers. Then the production from that turn will be added, lets say 4 hammers and the warrior will be finished at 111/18 hammers. But only 18 out of 93 excess hammers will flow over to the next project, losing 75 hammers! It is of course easy to switch around building projects so that the hammers of the forest chops are applied to a different project (that technique is described in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142345) thread). But probably this micromanagement is not extreme enough for you. ;)

KrikkitTwo
Feb 13, 2006, 11:25 PM
The following is not very extreme micromanagement but maybe you think it applies. When chopping a forest, never finish the chopping at the end of the building process of a cheap unit and certainly never finish more than one forest chop during the construction of a cheap unit. The problem is that the production overflow cannot exceed the production cost of the previous build.
Example: In epic mode forest chops give you 45 hammers. A warrior costs 18 hammers. Assume that you finish 2 forest chops while the warrior is at 17/18 hammers. After the forest chops, the warrior will be at 107/18 hammers. Then the production from that turn will be added, lets say 4 hammers and the warrior will be finished at 111/18 hammers. But only 18 out of 93 excess hammers will flow over to the next project, losing 75 hammers! It is of course easy to switch around building projects so that the hammers of the forest chops are applied to a different project (that technique is described in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142345) thread). But probably this micromanagement is not extreme enough for you. ;)

Actually I saw a case that seems to contradict that, I was building some missionaries late in the game and the overflow (which should have been significant seemed to be at the base production of the city 28 rather than at the cost of the missionary, 40 or 20 depending on whether the cap was applied before or after readjustment for bonuses.)

It could hqave just been a coincidence (both the overflow and the amount at exactly 28) or perhaps there is a 'double cap'?

jams
Feb 14, 2006, 12:37 AM
But only 18 out of 93 excess hammers will flow over to the next project, losing 75 hammers!

afaik there is no cap for the next unit in que. For your example, if you que another warior next you will in fact lose the 75 hammers. But if you que a 120 hammer settler, all 93 excess hammers will overflow.

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 05:20 AM
There has been done some research into the overflow of production. You can find it in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141153&page=2) strategy article. The first part is about a bug that was in the versions 1.00 and 1.09 of civ4 and was fixed in 1.52. In post number 33 of that thread, DavidesJ talks about the production cap present in civ4 version 1.52.

I've set up a scenario in the world builder that is exactly like the one that I described in my previous post no. 3.

Here's the picture from just before I start chopping the forests. You can see that the warrior is at 17/18 production and the city is producing 4 hammers per turn.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=116206&stc=1&d=1139918902

Now I chop both forests for 90 hammers worth of production. you can see that the warrior is at 107/18 production and the city is producing 4 hammers per turn.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=116207&stc=1&d=1139918911

Now I press next turn. The city produces 4 more hammers and completes the warrior at 111/18 production. So there's an overflow of 93 hammers. But only 18 hammers (exactly the construction cost of the warrior) are applied to the next project, a library. Of course, 4 more hammers are added from that turns production.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=116208&stc=1&d=1139918918

I'm losing 75 hammers. I should have switched production to the library just before I chopped the forests. Then the forest chop production would have been applied to the library directly and would not have been lost. I could then switch back to the warrior. All in the same turn with some micromanagement.

Crighton
Feb 14, 2006, 07:00 AM
ah crap.

glad i read this thread.

Thanks guys.

Zombie69
Feb 14, 2006, 07:07 AM
There can be one small disadvantage to the binary science rate. You will have a large sum of money at some times. It seems to me that AI demands are higher when your treasury is larger.

True. Though to be fair, i should add that having a large sum of money may come in handy in some critical situations where you need to rush defensive units fast. I'll add both points in the article.

Reading further down, i see that you also mentioned the second point. All the more reason to add it then!

When chopping a forest, never finish the chopping at the end of the building process of a cheap unit and certainly never finish more than one forest chop during the construction of a cheap unit. The problem is that the production overflow cannot exceed the production cost of the previous build.

[...] It is of course easy to switch around building projects so that the hammers of the forest chops are applied to a different project (that technique is described in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142345) thread). But probably this micromanagement is not extreme enough for you. ;)

Yeah, i knew about this. I'll add this and some more stuff regarding chopping.

Thank you!

jeejeep
Feb 14, 2006, 07:17 AM
What you do seems amazing to me. I play on prince and i would never think of finding out how to do these things.

Qitai
Feb 14, 2006, 08:18 AM
If you are real worker micromanager and do not mind re-issuing the worker task every turn, you may want to use Alt-cancel on one worker at the end of every turn. This will cancel current task of all your workers so that you can re-issue task next turn. This is useful if you are micromanaging tree chopping and want to avoid the trees that are chopped going to the wrong production. This will help with what you have mention about not wasting movement for a worker in transit.

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 08:24 AM
I see that you added a section about prebuilding improvements. I sometimes use that too. I know that there exists a decay time for partially built buildings and units (50 and 10 turns). Do you happen to know if there is a similar decay period for improvements? If you partially chop a forest in the ancient age so that you only need 1 turn to finish the chop, will that still be true a few thousand years later?

Zombie69
Feb 14, 2006, 09:04 AM
In my experience, there is no decay for prebuilt improvements, but i haven't done extensive tests so i may be wrong. If there is a decay, it must be in the order of at least 200 turns or i would have seen it by now.

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 10:16 AM
Thank you!

Wreck
Feb 14, 2006, 01:33 PM
Don't know if want to count it, but I'd call food-management to exactly live within happiness limit while whipping micromanagement.

That is, say you've got a good food surplus in a city and are whipping it. Usually this will be every 10 turns. After each whipping, depending on its size, you then put the city on max food to grow as fast as possible up to the happiness limit. Once you are back up to the limit, you arrange a food surplus just large enough so that on the 11th turn the pop happens.

Also, with a large food surplus I manipulate the build-queue to make sure every whip kills 2+ pop. This makes whipping more efficient since you can only do it so often.

Wreck
Feb 14, 2006, 01:45 PM
Another minor kind of MM: when you are close to finishing a building, temporarily move pop from farms to mines or forests in order to finish it a turn or two earlier. You can usually afford to starve for a turn, even moving pop off food resources, and make up for the lost production via the enhanced production (from the new building) one turn earlier.

A related kind of MM is "tile averaging". Sometimes a city won't have a tile with 1F and (usually) hammers (occasionally, commerce). If you have a 0F tile, you can use it part-time, then shift to a 2F tile part time, for the same effect. For example, say that you've got a city with some grassland forests (2F,1P) and a plains/hills/forest (0F,3P), but no grassland/hill/forest or plains/forest (both would be 1F,2P). If you want the effect of 1F,2P, put a pop on a grassland forest for N turns, building up some food, then onto the plains/hill/forest for the next N turns, starving the city.

Zombie69
Feb 14, 2006, 02:31 PM
I might include all this basic stuff in a follow up if there's demand for it, but i was aiming more for stuff that most peope wouldn't think of doing. I think there are very few people who don't already do the stuff you mentioned.

Still is interesting though, for the sake of completeness. Keep 'em coming!

Jamppa
Feb 14, 2006, 03:50 PM
I really think they should change the workers behaviour a bit. It would make the game alot more fun it they'd all do their work at the beginning of the turn, instantaneously. Of course those in go(to) -command could just move as they have done so far...

This way we would not have this conversation about the chop-trick. ALSO THOSE DAMN ROADS WOULD BE READY AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TURN! Sometimes I find it frustrating to have just moved all my warriors on the map and... pling! Worker finishes road in the middle of the jungle, where my warrior just crowled in. (And that sucks, since not all of us are in for a hc micromanagement, right?)


Another issue is that it would be nice to have some kind of "improvement" in tiles that have these pre-worked improvements. I mean in graphics. How the hell are you supposed to remember whenever a worker has already started to work on a tile if they all look alike?! If a worker has interrupted his work after he spotted an enemy in a adjacent square, for example... There should be SOMETHING in the middle of that jungle he has chopped for decades like there is no tomorrow, right? (Put a blue box in it, I dont care. Just make it look like there is some kind of progress so I'd know about it too. Thank You!)

Aand now that I mentioned it, these PRE-WORKED SQUARES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PILLAGE AS WELL. Except for pre-chops, of course. For pre-chops I'd suggest the following: Forests do grow in the wild, dont they? Make "pre-chops" grow back in 5 turns if they're not used.

Less micro-management, more fun. Thanks.

Stora
Feb 14, 2006, 03:54 PM
Just a thought about the science slider trick. Specialists complicate things a bit since they actually benefit from libraries, forges etc. But I guess you could just add another bit of micromanagement to solve that problem:)

Zombie69
Feb 14, 2006, 04:13 PM
Just a thought about the science slider trick. Specialists complicate things a bit since they actually benefit from libraries, forges etc. But I guess you could just add another bit of micromanagement to solve that problem:)

Good point. However, even in the worst case scenario where you have 1 free scientist in every city, this still only diminishes the strategy, it doesn't negate it. It means that at 0% science you lose both science and gold fractions, but at least at 100% science you don't lose anymore gold fractions, so it's still partially useful. Of course if you had at least one scientist and at least one merchant in every city, this would render the strategy completely useless, but who has that? Even if you do, then making it instead 2 scientists when you run 100% science and 2 merchants when you run 0% science will solve this problem completely.

Worth noting also is the fact that two scientists with representation make 12 base beakers, which is a nice multiple of 4 and so stands well enough on its own without wasting fractions even at 0% science. And even with a library and a monastery (total 35% bonus, so not a multiple of 25%), the 12 beakers divide well into 3, so that's all good as well. Indeed, with a library and a monastery, even a single scientist is nice because 3 is of course a multiple of 3!

Still, i'll add a comment to the original post regarding this.

Edit : couldn't let this typo stand, because "worth noting" is very different from "worth nothing"! :lol:

Roland Johansen
Feb 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
I really think they should change the workers behaviour a bit. It would make the game alot more fun it they'd all do their work at the beginning of the turn, instantaneously. Of course those in go(to) -command could just move as they have done so far...

This way we would not have this conversation about the chop-trick. ALSO THOSE DAMN ROADS WOULD BE READY AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TURN! Sometimes I find it frustrating to have just moved all my warriors on the map and... pling! Worker finishes road in the middle of the jungle, where my warrior just crowled in. (And that sucks, since not all of us are in for a hc micromanagement, right?)

You can finish all worker actions and all other queued actions by pressing CTRL-A.


Another issue is that it would be nice to have some kind of "improvement" in tiles that have these pre-worked improvements. I mean in graphics. How the hell are you supposed to remember whenever a worker has already started to work on a tile if they all look alike?! If a worker has interrupted his work after he spotted an enemy in a adjacent square, for example... There should be SOMETHING in the middle of that jungle he has chopped for decades like there is no tomorrow, right? (Put a blue box in it, I dont care. Just make it look like there is some kind of progress so I'd know about it too. Thank You!)

Aand now that I mentioned it, these PRE-WORKED SQUARES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PILLAGE AS WELL. Except for pre-chops, of course. For pre-chops I'd suggest the following: Forests do grow in the wild, dont they? Make "pre-chops" grow back in 5 turns if they're not used.


It would be useful to see a visible sign that some kind of work has been done in a tile.
There is a 'trick' to see how far work in a tile has progressed (while your workers aren't even near the tile):
Select your worker. Click and hold SHIFT. Right-click on the tile that you want information about. A path from the worker towards the tile will appear. Now you can see which improvements can be build in this tile and the amount of turns it will take. (Note: there is a bug in the game where it sometimes gives you the improvement information about the starting tile where your worker is now. Just right-click the distant tile again to update the information.) If the tile has been pre-improved, then you can see the adjusted number of turns of the various worker actions. Now deselect all actions on your worker and then you can release SHIFT.
What you've been doing here is giving the worker a linked list of subsequent actions to get some information about these actions. Afterwards, you delete these actions again.

Less micro-management, more fun. Thanks.

I agree that micro-management is not a lot of fun. I was very happy with the overflow of production and research and food in this game. This simple change removed a lot of micro-management. The programmers have tried to remove as much micro-management as possible. But it almost unavoidable that smart players will find some micro management tricks that allow them to gain a little advantage. Some of these micro-management tricks can be removed simply by making the game rules a bit better. But some micro-management tricks are almost impossible to remove without removing whole concepts from the game. So removing micro-management is a good thing in my opinion, but it's not a holy crusade that is more important then any other attempt to make a game great.

mnf
Feb 14, 2006, 04:51 PM
Jamppa, perhaps putting down signs would help? Sometimes I have so many signs all over the place I can't see what's on the land. :D

But I agree with you on more fun. Actually I do so little micro-management I don't think I know what it means. The most I'd do is to switch working tiles in the city screen to shave off turns from production if I really want that unit or building badly. Maybe that's why I'm stuck on Noble. Hm...

Willburn
Feb 15, 2006, 12:13 AM
Im having fun micromanaging. Is that a crime? :)

I would add to micro the tech jumping or attleast maximizing techs the turn you go from a tech with bonuses to research and to a tech with no bonus.

-( i )- Mayhem
Feb 15, 2006, 02:40 AM
I'd say forget micromanaging your cities and go get your gold from your enemies! Don't just stick all your troops together though and stick them on stack attack, you can be much more efficient with your forces if you go check the odds of the fights before starting them

Jamppa
Feb 15, 2006, 04:34 AM
Thanks for the tips, Roland. :)

Zombie69
Feb 15, 2006, 06:51 AM
Im having fun micromanaging. Is that a crime? :)

I would add to micro the tech jumping or attleast maximizing techs the turn you go from a tech with bonuses to research and to a tech with no bonus.

I thought that was fixed in version 1.52? As far as i know, there's no more gain to be made this way. I may be wrong of course.

Zombie69
Feb 15, 2006, 06:53 AM
I'd say forget micromanaging your cities and go get your gold from your enemies! Don't just stick all your troops together though and stick them on stack attack, you can be much more efficient with your forces if you go check the odds of the fights before starting them

One doesn't exclude the other. I do both of course! This is mentioned briefly at the end of my article as being "basic micromanagement"!

Roland Johansen
Feb 15, 2006, 07:32 AM
I thought that was fixed in version 1.52? As far as i know, there's no more gain to be made this way. I may be wrong of course.

According to Requies in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163&page=3) strategy article about research (post 51-52) this isn't fixed.

Willburn wrote a strategy article called 'Tech jumping' based on this research anomaly which can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158330).

Zombie69
Feb 15, 2006, 09:38 AM
Thanks for the heads up, i'll add this information to the first post.

Willburn
Feb 16, 2006, 07:23 AM
When changing from serfdom to something else make sure to do it after your workers has done theyre actions.

Brazenheart
Mar 10, 2006, 08:50 AM
I'm reposting a response of mine in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158330, explaining an example where the binary research tactic does not work. Keep in mind that this will probably never happen in one of your games.

The following quote refers to binary science micromanagement:

. . . if you crunch the numbers for any example you will find it is true. You may break even in the worst case, but you will never lose beakers.

I believe it is possible to lose beakers this way if you have nothing but libraries in your cities and all of your cities produce 10 commerce (or some other number that makes the following calculation work):

Method 1: Run your sciences at 80% for 5 turns:

Turn 1: (10 * .8 * 1.25) = 10 science, (10 * .2) = 2 gold.
Turn 2: 10 science, 2 gold
Turn 3: 10 science, 2 gold
Turn 4: 10 science, 2 gold
Turn 5: 10 science, 2 gold
Total: 50 science, 10 gold

Method 2: Run your sciences at 100% for 4 turns, 0% for 1 turn:

Turn 1: (10 * 1 * 1.25) = 12 science, (10 * 0) = 0 gold
Turn 2: 12 science, 0 gold
Turn 3: 12 science, 0 gold
Turn 4: 12 science, 0 gold
Turn 5: (10 * 0 * 1.25) = 0 science, (10 * 1) = 10 gold
Total 48 science, 10 gold

Because in fact running at 100% is what did you in, in this limited scenario. On the average, any science level except 0% will cause 3/4 of your cities with libraries in them to run inefficiently, but in the worst case it is possible to lose beakers.

junior7
Mar 10, 2006, 02:12 PM
Thanks for all the MM ideas, Zombie69.
I was interested in the binary science rate and had started to analyse the repercussions in my own game when I saw Brazenheart's update. He is right that 0%/100% is not always optimum but I believe you only claimed 'avoiding wasting fractions' not guaranteed benefit - I believe his quote is from the other thread. Requies technology formula shows your generated beakers receive bonus from knowing civs with tech and having tech prereqs. Of course the formula involves fractions rounded down so can be MM'd. You don't need libraries etc. to MM your science, how about turn 1!

Example - start game researching Bronze Working
You will know no civ with tech (for duration probably) and you have the one prereq giving 20% bonus.
Research formula for this is add 1 to your generated beakers then add 20% so sweet spots are 4,9,14 etc. generated beakers since no fractions lost.
You will probably want to research at 100% but if on Emperor+, not Organized, no Gold you will need to pay 2g maintenance
Define BB as Bonus Beakers (after adding prereq bonus) and aBBpT(#g) as average Bonus Beakers per turn while generating # gold per turn for maintenance
1) 9 commerce
80% tech rate gives 9 BB and 2 gold so aBBpT(2g) = 9
0% tech gives 1 BB + 9g, 100% tech gives 12 BB + 0g - combined gives aBBpT(2g) = 9.555…
But 50% tech is sweet spot giving 6 BB + 5g - combined with 100% gives aBBpT(2g) = 9.6
2) 10 commerce
80% tech rate gives 10 BB and 2 gold so aBBpT(2g) = 10
0% tech gives 1 BB + 10g, 100% tech gives 13 BB + 0g - combined gives aBBpT(2g) = 10.6
But 40% & 90% tech are sweet spots giving 6 BB + 6g & 12 BB +1g - combined together gives aBBpT(2g) = 10.8
So the optimum research start for an Emperor+ game (not Organized) with 10 commerce researching Bronze Working (or other tech you have 1 prereq for) is using a combination of 40% and 90% tech rate - what a design!
3) Similarly 11 & 12 commerce are optimum at flat 90% research

Of course as game progresses everything changes - 'knowing civs', new tech prereqs, base commerce, bonus science/gold, strategy (not always science focused) - making this MM interesting/challenging/insane (delete as appropriate!).
My thoughts are that 0%/100% science rate will always give a good return (minimal losses and usually better than flat rate) but it is not always optimum, especially at start.

Roland Johansen
Mar 10, 2006, 03:38 PM
I must say that micromanagement can go a lot farther than I would have imagined in this game. This is going a bit far for my taste, but I must applaud for your ingenuity.:clap:

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 07:14 AM
explaining an example where the binary research tactic does not work. Keep in mind that this will probably never happen in one of your games.

Indeed this would never happen, because like i said in my post, i try to keep commerce in all cities as a multiple of 4. Having exactly 10 science in all cities would be extremely bad micromanagement.

Roland Johansen
Mar 14, 2006, 07:39 AM
Indeed this would never happen, because like i said in my post, i try to keep commerce in all cities as a multiple of 4. Having exactly 10 science in all cities would be extremely bad micromanagement.

How can you achieve that? I mean, cottages grow and get a higher income. Cities grow and start to use more tiles, some of which produce commerce. New civics and technologies change the commerce production of your cities. How can you continuously keep commerce in all cities as a multiple of 4? :crazyeye:

cabert
Mar 14, 2006, 07:52 AM
I'm no mm fan. This being said, when you're in a close game, every bonus is welcome!
As for the binary science rate, i just want to add my own wisdom.
No calculations, no rounding down explanations.
But game playing!

Every calculation given here, misses one fact : you don't know for sure what you've got in your hands in the next few rounds!

One example:
let's say you would need to run 80% or lower science to get even with gold.
If you use the binary rate thing, you will make it 0% for one turn and 100% for the next 4 turns. Giving yourself some money, and no science after one turn.
Let's say, you make a deal in the next turn, that can make you up to 90% science?
You now should go 1 turn/ money 9 turns science, ok. But in fact you probably delayed research 1 turn (against the 80% then 90% option) if you have less than 10 turns research to the next tech.
Worse : you find a goodie hut in the mean time, giving you money!
****, you could have gone 80% then 100% for the rest...
Sure, the money isn't lost, but science is what you need, not money!

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 07:54 AM
Junior7, your point is great. I'll add it to the article, and will certainly apply it to my early games from now on.

A further point to consider is that when you've met a few civs and the formula becomes too complex to handle, it's still easy to maximize your bonus. All you need to do is increase your science rate by 10% a few times, checking the financial advisor between each. As soon as you notice your total science increase by more than your gold per turn has decreased, you know you're at a sweet spot. I'm talking early game here, before your first library.

cabert
Mar 14, 2006, 07:58 AM
How can you achieve that? I mean, cottages grow and get a higher income. Cities grow and start to use more tiles, some of which produce commerce. New civics and technologies change the commerce production of your cities. How can you continuously keep commerce in all cities as a multiple of 4? :crazyeye:

that's what he calls micromanaging!
every turn/every city:crazyeye:

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 07:58 AM
How can you achieve that? I mean, cottages grow and get a higher income. Cities grow and start to use more tiles, some of which produce commerce. New civics and technologies change the commerce production of your cities. How can you continuously keep commerce in all cities as a multiple of 4? :crazyeye:

I switch from a hamlet to a cottage and vice versa. I switch from a cottage to a mine or a forested grassland to get both commerce and production at multiples of 4. I swtich from a river hamlet to a non-river hamlet. Seriously, i do this all the time and it's really not hard at all. I'm checking every city every turn anyway (like any good micromanager should), so doing this is not that much more trouble.

Roland Johansen
Mar 14, 2006, 09:02 AM
I switch from a hamlet to a cottage and vice versa. I switch from a cottage to a mine or a forested grassland to get both commerce and production at multiples of 4. I swtich from a river hamlet to a non-river hamlet. Seriously, i do this all the time and it's really not hard at all. I'm checking every city every turn anyway (like any good micromanager should), so doing this is not that much more trouble.

No, I understand that it is just changing tiles, but more often then not I wouldn't have the right combination of tiles to get to a multiple of 4 on both production and commerce (without using inferior tiles just to get a multiple of 4).

By the way, maybe I shouldn't ask this as I'm not going to do it anyhow. I tend to play at large or huge maps and have something like 30+ cities and then this is a little bit too much work for me. No disrespect, to each his own. :thumbsup:

By the way. I did some practical calculations in another thread on the effect of the binary science rate (not that much micromanagement in that). The effects were somewhat smaller then what I would have expected. The effect is of course 0 before any libraries have been build. Then the effect increases to just under 1% and later in the game it decreased to something like 0.35%. Still, every bonus is useful, but if there are other disadvantages (like the one I mentioned at the start of this thread), then you shouldn't use it mindlessly all the time.

Qitai
Mar 14, 2006, 09:04 AM
Junior7, your point is great. I'll add it to the article, and will certainly apply it to my early games from now on.

A further point to consider is that when you've met a few civs and the formula becomes too complex to handle, it's still easy to maximize your bonus. All you need to do is increase your science rate by 10% a few times, checking the financial advisor between each. As soon as you notice your total science increase by more than your gold per turn has decreased, you know you're at a sweet spot. I'm talking early game here, before your first library.

Don't think this will work. If I remember correctly the contact bonus is part of the "invisible bonus" just like the pre-requisite bonus. In that case, the only way to track it is to note the difference every turn and adjust accordingly. Now, that is something I will not go into.

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 09:06 AM
Cabert, that's not really a problem. For one thing, you don't have to run at 0% science for more than 1 turn at a time. You don't have to do 2 turns at 0 and then 8 turns at 100, instead you can do 1 at 0, 4 at 100, 1 at 0, 4 at 100, etc. No matter what your average science rate is, you always have to do turns at 0 to maximize, so if the rate changes, that doesn't affect you at all. You've done your turn at 0 and you simply have more or fewer turns at 100 depending on what you can afford. The rule of thumb for beginners (of course once you get the feeling for it you can do more advanced stunts) is that if you can't afford 100% science for this turn, do 0%, then go back up to 100% for as long as you can afford, rinse and repeat.

Another point is that most lump sums of money can be forseen some time in advance. You know there's a good chance of hitting hut money when you go scouting. When you send a Great Merchant on a mission the travel time is long enough to give you advanced warning. When you want to trade a monopoly tech for tech and money to all the AIs, you know you'll do so before you even finish researching the tech.

Finally, it's often a good thing to have too much money and too little science done. It means you will be able to run at 100% science for some time. It also means that the AIs may have gotten to certain techs before you did. That's perfect, because it means you'll be getting a bonus on your research for those techs, effectively getting them cheaper. Then you can keep on going at 100% thanks to your reserves to jump right past the AIs. It's usually better to be behind, then ahead, then behind again, rather than to always be even.

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 09:11 AM
Don't think this will work. If I remember correctly the contact bonus is part of the "invisible bonus" just like the pre-requisite bonus. In that case, the only way to track it is to note the difference every turn and adjust accordingly. Now, that is something I will not go into.

You're right.

I guess it becomes pretty much unworkable then as soon as contacts are made. Since i usually play in packed maps when my first contact happens around turn 2 or 3, there isn't much gain to be made here for me.

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 09:26 AM
No, I understand that it is just changing tiles, but more often then not I wouldn't have the right combination of tiles to get to a multiple of 4 on both production and commerce (without using inferior tiles just to get a multiple of 4).

Like i said, i try to keep them at multiples of 4. It's not always possible, but it often is. You'd be surprised how often it can work perfectly if you look carefully enough. By the way, i don't consider a non-river cottage to be an inferior tile to use compared to a river cottage, since you want to grow both cottages eventually anyway, so you might as well start on both right away.

Another thing i like to do in my science cities is to use less advanced cottages at 0% science, so that i can grow them without much penalty. On the other hand, in my cities without as many science bonuses (e.g. no academy), or with more gold bonuses (e.g. market in a holy city), i'll do the opposite and try to use the most advanced cottages while at 0% and grow them while at 100%. There are lots of other tweaks like that which you can use when using the binary science rate to make the strategy even more useful. In fact, i think i'll add this trick to the original article because it may not be obvious to everyone.

When multiples of 4 just aren't possible, like i said in the original post :
- with 25% bonus, 4 > 1 > 2 > 3 (i.e. try 4, otherwise 1, and avoid 3 like the pest)
- with 75% bonus, 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 (i.e. try 4, otherwise 3, and avoid 1 like the pest)
- with 50% bonus obviously, any even number is good and any odd number is bad

Roland Johansen
Mar 14, 2006, 09:53 AM
Like i said, i try to keep them at multiples of 4. It's not always possible, but it often is. You'd be surprised how often it can work perfectly if you look carefully enough. By the way, i don't consider using a non-river cottage rather than a non-river cottage to be an inferior tile, since you want to grow both cottages eventually anyway, so you might as well start on both right away.

I agree partially. Of course all of your cottages must grow, but then again gold/science now is better than gold/science later.

Another thing i like to do in my science cities is to use less advanced cottages at 0% science, so that i can grow them without much penalty. On the other hand, in my cities without as many science bonuses (e.g. no academy), or with more gold bonuses (e.g. market in a holy city), i'll do the opposite and try to use the most advanced cottages while at 0% and grow them while at 100%. There are lots of other tweaks like that which you can use when using the binary science rate to make the strategy even more useful. In fact, i think i'll add this trick to the original article because it may not be obvious to everyone.

When multiples of 4 just aren't possible, like i said in the original post :
- with 25% bonus, 4 > 1 > 2 > 3 (i.e. try 4, otherwise 1, and avoid 3 like the pest)
- with 75% bonus, 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 (i.e. try 4, otherwise 3, and avoid 1 like the pest)
- with 50% bonus obviously, any even number is good and any odd number is bad

Okay, I think that I understand your playing style now. A bit different than mine, but as I said, to each his own.

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 10:34 AM
I agree partially. Of course all of your cottages must grow, but then again gold/science now is better than gold/science later.

However, Universal Suffrage adds +1 hammer to all towns (but only towns). Because you need to leave Representation (which also has its share of interesting bonuses) in order to get there, you want to make the switch at the best possible time. With just a few towns and the rest still villages, hamlets and cottages, you're better off sticking with Representation until you get more towns. Also in the meantime, your towns are probably still being worked, which isn't making anything grow.

Ideally, you'd want every single cottage to turn into a town on the same turn, and to switch to Universal Suffrage on that turn. This accomplishes the following :
- No turns working towns without hammers, which would waste turns that could be used to grow other cottages.
- You get your last town as early as possible, by focusing on the development of your least advanced ones at all times.
- You get to switch civics at the ideal time, letting you use Representation longer than you normally would without wasting Universal Suffrage's bonus since 5 turns of 20 towns is just as good a bonus as 20 turns of 5 towns.

In order to get this ideal switch, you want to prioritize working the least developped cottages in your city rather than the most developped ones. Because of this, you want to switch between them often. For example, if you have 1 advanced one, 2 medium ones, and 1 underdevelopped one, and you can work two tiles, then you want to work the underdevelopped one all the time and switch the other citizen between the 2 medium ones, so that all 4 mature into towns at the same time.

Since you're switching anyway to accomplish this, then it makes sense to attempt to make those switches in a way that insures you always have commerce as a multiple of 4, and also (when using binary science rate) to ensure that you use advanced ones when you get the bonus (science or gold, depending on the city specialization) and the least advanced ones when you don't get the bonus.

Roland Johansen
Mar 14, 2006, 11:22 AM
However, Universal Suffrage adds +1 hammer to all towns (but only towns). Because you need to leave Representation (which also has its share of interesting bonuses) in order to get there, you want to make the switch at the best possible time. With just a few towns and the rest still villages, hamlets and cottages, you're better off sticking with Representation until you get more towns. Also in the meantime, your towns are probably still being worked, which isn't making anything grow.

Ideally, you'd want every single cottage to turn into a town on the same turn, and to switch to Universal Suffrage on that turn. This accomplishes the following :
- No turns working towns without hammers, which would waste turns that could be used to grow other cottages.
- You get your last town as early as possible, by focusing on the development of your least advanced ones at all times.
- You get to switch civics at the ideal time, letting you use Representation longer than you normally would without wasting Universal Suffrage's bonus since 5 turns of 20 towns is just as good a bonus as 20 turns of 5 towns.

In order to get this ideal switch, you want to prioritize working the least developed cottages in your city rather than the most developed ones. Because of this, you want to switch between them often. For example, if you have 1 advanced one, 2 medium ones, and 1 underdeveloped one, and you can work two tiles, then you want to work the underdeveloped one all the time and switch the other citizen between the 2 medium ones, so that all 4 mature into towns at the same time.

Since you're switching anyway to accomplish this, then it makes sense to attempt to make those switches in a way that insures you always have commerce as a multiple of 4, and also (when using binary science rate) to ensure that you use advanced ones when you get the bonus (science or gold, depending on the city specialization) and the least advanced ones when you don't get the bonus.

Hmm, strange. Normally when I read something of you on this forum, I tend to agree. But this time I must disagree. I think that we both play at the higher difficulty levels (good guess?), so we must have the same game experience (The game plays rather different at the lower difficulty levels, don't you agree?).

In my opinion, it is far more important to get some gold now, then to have my towns developed at the same time. In the beginning of the game, I tend to have a rather low research percentage because of all the high upkeep costs. Every coin of gold that I can spend to help my research along to the next building (courthouse, marketplace, etc.) that will help my empire is very valuable. So I tend to use the most valuable tiles first.

I never have a problem with maturing my cottages to towns. They tend to be towns long before I have the technology to use either representation or universal suffrage. The Pyramids have not been a viable option in my last few games (I reduced the effect of chopping forests and then it is very difficult to build it yourself. It was built by AI's that I didn't even know at that moment.) I therefore don't see representation as an alternative to universal suffrage. You need farms to use the specialists from representation and you need cottages to get the most out or universal suffrage. I never switch to representation because universal suffrage is invented shortly after it and it is not worth the turn of anarchy.

We seem to have rather different general strategies. Still, we both win our games, so that's not a real problem I think.

Zombie69
Mar 14, 2006, 12:00 PM
I think the main differences in games settings explaining these facts are :

1. Your mod minimizing chops, just like you said. However, i don't always get pyramids either. For example, in my current game i'm playing an industrial civ at immortal and managed to get almost all the wonders, but didn't get the pyramids (got beat to Stonehenge as well). Having no stone didn't help, and having relatively few forest tiles didn't help either. I'm still doing well in that game though.

2. I always play financial leaders. Second trait could be anything really, and i try a little bit of everything, but there's always financial in the mix. This means money is not as much of a problem as it would be otherwise.

3. I like to dominate through warfare and don't put too much emphasis on being ahead in tech. I can always catch up later. I'd rather have 3 gold later than to have 2 gold now. Hammers are generally a more pressing need for me, to fuel my war machine.

Roland Johansen
Mar 14, 2006, 02:45 PM
I'm also playing an immortal game, also doing good. However, I didn't build a lot of wonders (the chopping bonus is normally very useful for building wonders). But I don't care a lot as there are more important things than wonders in this game. Still, some wonders are very nice. Very good for you that you were able to grab them.

I typically play random leaders. Presently playing Bismark, he's expansive and industrious. A pity that I couldn't use the industrious bonus better in this game. I think it doesn't really suit my play style.

I play on huge (mostly continent or archipellago) worlds and without the large chopping bonus, early warfare is rather difficult. So I just expand as fast as possible and then try to build up my land while grabbing some land from the other nations when I think I can do so. I get fairly large in these games, but not all of them are decided by a conquest victory. It also depends a lot on the starting position. A conquest victory from a small isolated island on a huge world is rather difficult.

Different games can lead to different tactics. Good to read about yours.

cabert
Mar 15, 2006, 04:10 AM
Finally, it's often a good thing to have too much money and too little science done. It means you will be able to run at 100% science for some time. It also means that the AIs may have gotten to certain techs before you did. That's perfect, because it means you'll be getting a bonus on your research for those techs, effectively getting them cheaper. Then you can keep on going at 100% thanks to your reserves to jump right past the AIs. It's usually better to be behind, then ahead, then behind again, rather than to always be even.

good point, indeed, unless you need that tech (even more unless you need to be first one to get it)

Stora
Mar 15, 2006, 04:54 AM
Are you sure that you actually benefit from that cottage mm? Not developing towns just to make sure you don't lose shields for not beeing in US-civic seems a bit absurd to me. Not because it would be a lot of work, but because it could do more harm now than it would do good later. When I build a cottage it's usually to work that tile non-stop, and when it's developed to a town it's one of the best tiles you can get in this game, shield bonus from US or not. That bonus is not the reason I switch to US anyway, it's all about the ability to cash rush. I find the science bonus from representation to be clearly superior to this shield bonus from towns, representation is cheaper and has happiness bonus to boot.

I'm playing my second game of civ4 now, emperor with Elisabeth. I am thinking about playing Saladin when I move up to immortal. Is there anything that would prevent me from using representation 9 turns out of 10 and cash rush with US in the 10th turn? Does the "can't have a revolution because of resent anarchy" apply to spiritual civs without anarchy?

friskymike
Mar 15, 2006, 12:09 PM
I'm 99% sure theres a 5 turn limit between switching civics with a spiritual civ, so you'd need to do 5 turns in US to cash rush with. Good idea though!

Zombie69
Mar 15, 2006, 12:29 PM
good point, indeed, unless you need that tech (even more unless you need to be first one to get it)

Of course, when it comes to military techs and techs that give bonuses to the first civ that gets them, you want to time your research perfectly so that you get them at the end of a long 100% science run. In that case, binary science is particularly useful, because to get tech C, you need to get this :

-> A -> B -> C

It takes you just as many turns total (in fact fewer turns, because by waiting a bit longer for techs A and B, you can get a bigger bonus because more civs will have them by then). However, other civs will get C later, because by being last to A and B, you're not giving anyone research bonus for having those before them.

This was already explained earlier.

maltz
Mar 15, 2006, 02:50 PM
Sorry if this have been mentioend elsewhere before...

I didn't know about Ctrl-A to cancel worker's action. So I would select the worker(s), and click the GO-TO bottom, to ask him to to the SAME square he is on. This will cancel his current action as well.

***

I really learned something from the post. However, I have some doubts regarding Tech Trading. It might not be good to "let the AI get the techs first, then you follow the food steps to enjoy the bonus" sometimes.

Usually I research something the AIs havn't, so I can trade. I may need to offer a 500 beaker tech, but I get 300 beaker back (free). If there are more than one AI players, then I can probably get more than one 300 beaker tech back from them. I think it is more beneficial, unless you really want to follow AIs footstep for some reasons. For example, the next-level military tech, the AIs all have it but you don't. And you fall behind in tech a lot. Or, the AIs don't really like you.

But that 0% -> 100% switch strategy is still useful in researching novel techs.

Zombie69
Mar 15, 2006, 05:00 PM
Sorry if this have been mentioend elsewhere before...

I didn't know about Ctrl-A to cancel worker's action. So I would select the worker(s), and click the GO-TO bottom, to ask him to to the SAME square he is on. This will cancel his current action as well.

Why don't you just click on the stop button instead? That's what i always do since i prefer to micromanage each worker individually rather than ordering all workers to stop at once.

I have some doubts regarding Tech Trading. It might not be good to "let the AI get the techs first, then you follow the food steps to enjoy the bonus" sometimes.

Usually I research something the AIs havn't, so I can trade. I may need to offer a 500 beaker tech, but I get 300 beaker back (free). If there are more than one AI players, then I can probably get more than one 300 beaker tech back from them. I think it is more beneficial, unless you really want to follow AIs footstep for some reasons. For example, the next-level military tech, the AIs all have it but you don't. And you fall behind in tech a lot. Or, the AIs don't really like you.

Tech trading, and the need to research techs that the AIs don't have, is another reason why, like i said, it's better to be sometimes behind and sometimes ahead, rather than always even. And this is exactly what binary research will give you.

I don't think i ever said that you should research the same techs as the AI. If i did, please show me where so that i can correct it.

As for military techs and techs that provide a bonus to the first who discovers them, you obviously want to plan ahead so that those techs fall at the end of a 100% research run. This way, you're even more garantied to get them first than if you had aimed for them with a constant research rate, for reasons that have already been explained.

Griswold101
Mar 15, 2006, 10:27 PM
That's a hefty sum of good advice. I usually used clearling forests to finish building buildings, people and so on instead of to start. Never thought about the overflow cap. Thanks.

cabert
Mar 16, 2006, 01:56 AM
I don't think i ever said that you should research the same techs as the AI. If i did, please show me where so that i can correct it.


You did not, but saying you get a bonus because you research a tech AIs already know implies you research it, isn't it so?
If you don't, you get no bonus at all!

Qitai
Mar 16, 2006, 02:51 AM
Just thought you might want to add this although it is already covered in the hurrying thread.

[Although, this should never work this way in the first place. But until this is fixed, this can be exploited through the below type of micromanagement]

For whipping fans, since the whipped production is always in multiplies of 30. Always time your whipping such that the production left is just slightly above multiplies of 30 and less than the requirement for the next population. The most powerful of this application is when either you are playing on epic where each pop gives 45 production right from the beginning OR when you have build the forge or had organized religion under normal speed. In case one, always whip between 31-45 production left and you will get 60 production for one pop. .In case two and three, always whip between 31-37 production left to get 60 production. This micromanagement is very powerful for early games.

P.S. Don't get addicted to this. I got addicted to it on GOTM 2 and did not realize that I was getting a lot of less useful buildings just because it was so easy to get them. Nearly had every possible building in all my cities which really isn't necessary.

Campaco
Mar 16, 2006, 05:22 AM
For example, in my current game i'm playing an industrial civ at immortal and managed to get almost all the wonders

Reading your CIV IV micromanagment tips is sure interesting, but THIS quote made my eyebrows rise. How on earth are you able to play on immortal level AND get to any world wonder at all (and probably win the game too)??? I'm trying to master the monarch level for weeks now, and have NEVER :mad: been able to win. What is your secret?

BTW: you also mention the possibility of prebuilding improvements on top of improvements. I intend to find out what happens in the following situation: when it's time to change improvements, send a military unit with the worker to that tile. First, the unit pillages the existing improvement, then the worker finishes the next in the same turn...
But maybe some member of this forum already can tell us if this indeed has the desired effect!

Keep up the good work!

Roland Johansen
Mar 16, 2006, 06:39 AM
Reading your CIV IV micromanagment tips is sure interesting, but THIS quote made my eyebrows rise. How on earth are you able to play on immortal level AND get to any world wonder at all (and probably win the game too)??? I'm trying to master the monarch level for weeks now, and have NEVER :mad: been able to win. What is your secret?

My guess: He times his forest chops precisely for the early wonders (something like 6+ forest chops in one turn by using pre-chopping). He has one or a few great production cities for the middle game wonders and is not far behind in technology (the AI typically doesn't have a city focussed totally on production). He has the right bonus resources useful for wonder building in his territory, possibly by conquest, maybe by trade. He cash-rushes some late wonders. Last but not least, he captured a few wonders that he did not build. When you master this game, then it can be done. There's not one single trick that will help you do it though. The fact that he came up with all these micromanagement tricks means that he understand the game mechanics quite well and thus his strategic (non-micromanagement) game is probably very good as well.

BTW: you also mention the possibility of prebuilding improvements on top of improvements. I intend to find out what happens in the following situation: when it's time to change improvements, send a military unit with the worker to that tile. First, the unit pillages the existing improvement, then the worker finishes the next in the same turn...
But maybe some member of this forum already can tell us if this indeed has the desired effect!

Keep up the good work!

What's the desired effect? You do get the new improvement that turn, yes. But why are you pillaging? Maybe you think that you get money for pillaging your own improvements which is not true.

Qitai
Mar 16, 2006, 06:49 AM
The new improvement will automatically destroy the old improvement. There is no need to pillage at all.

Zombie69
Mar 16, 2006, 12:42 PM
You did not, but saying you get a bonus because you research a tech AIs already know implies you research it, isn't it so?
If you don't, you get no bonus at all!

Let me clarify then. To get to an interesting tech that no AI will have, you usually need some prerequisite techs first. Until you do get the interesting tech, you may have nothing to trade with the AIs, which means that you'll have to research the prerequisites yourself.

Assume that you're going after tech C with prerequisites A and B. Assume that A and B are not interesting except for getting to C, therefore you don't care when you get A and B, as long as you get C as soon as possible.

Using the binary science rate, you can run at 0% science until you have enough money in bank to run at 100% science all the way to C. During the time you're at 0% science, some AIs may reach A and maybe even B before you do. All the better, as this means getting a bonus on them and getting them for cheaper when you start researching them yourself!

North2
Mar 17, 2006, 03:01 PM
I like to do this during peacetime when there's access to stone/marble. Just build useless wonders like the Hagia Sophia to near-completion, cancel and forget about it. Once the AI completes it, you get the gold return for the incomplete Hagia Sophia. Since you're building at double production due to stone/marble, you'll get a lot more gold return than by producing wealth.

ruff_hi
Mar 18, 2006, 09:41 AM
Interesting article and humerous discussion (well, almost). My basic thought when I started to read this was that the rounding down really hurts when it splits your commerce into beakers and gold. However, after looking at the game and reading further, am I right in that this is NOT the case. It only hurts if you consider science / gold multipliers (libraries, banks, etc)?

See below for an example where I have 19 commerce that is split into 9 beakers and 10 gold. So, with no multipliers, I get full value for my 19 commerce. Running 5 turns of 100% science and 5 turns of 100% gold will give me exactly 95 beakers and 95 gold. Running 10 turns of 50%/50% will give me 90 beakers and 100 gold. I don't lose anything, it is just the distribution isn't exactly 50/50.

Is this correct or am I missing something else?

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7316/binary8ar.jpg

Obviously, throwing in a library (+25% beakers) will mean that I should try to set my base beaker output to a multiple of 4 for maximum benefit. If that is so, then the strength of this approach is not 100% / 0% (ie binary) but making sure that your base is a multiple of 4. Again - have I got this right?

That is, apart from this item ... Using the binary science rate, you can run at 0% science until you have enough money in bank to run at 100% science all the way to C. During the time you're at 0% science, some AIs may reach A and maybe even B before you do. All the better, as this means getting a bonus on them and getting them for cheaper when you start researching them yourself!

junior7
Mar 18, 2006, 11:01 AM
You are right that the tech rate percent does not lose commerce, any fractions will be recovered in gold - this was not the point being made in this thread. As you realized bonus buildings such as libraries cause fractions which do result in loss and this is the subject at hand. One way to limit this loss is to keep commerce to certain multiples but this is not always achievable or desirable. The binary science rate will limit losses to these fractions without having to achieve precise multiples.
Your example has no bonus buildings so will not on its own benefit from binary rates. (Note there are certain hidden bonuses in the game even in these simple situations depending on the tech and contacts). Also your example appears to have no maintenance cost in which case the most efficient research is 100% always.
The binary rate is for situations when you cannot run continuously at 100% - then running 0% then 100% is better than a flat percentage because of saved fractions from libraries etc.

ruff_hi
Mar 18, 2006, 11:22 AM
The binary science rate will limit losses to these fractions without having to achieve precise multiples.I don't think that this is correct. Consider the following where I am only looking at beakers, ignoring maintance and tech bonuses.


0% beaker multiple - no loss of commerce as any fraction goes to gold
25% beaker multiple - it is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science rates except 0% and 80%. You lose beakers if you have 25 commerce @100% science - this gives 31.25 beakers which gets rounded down to 31. If you run at 80% science, then the formula is beakers = commerce * 0.8 * (1.25) = commerce.
50% beaker multiple - it is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science rates except 0%
75% beaker multiple - it is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science rates except 0%
100% beaker multiple - it is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science rates except 0%, 50% and 100%
150% beaker multiple - it is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science rates except 0%, 40% and 80%

It is possible to lose fractional beakers at all science with other science multipler percentages. It seems there are some special cases (25% multipliers, 100% multipliers, 150% multipliers, etc).

If you have a nation that is full of libraries and no other multipliers, then the optimal science setting would seem to be 0% and 80%. Still binary but flipping between these two. This will give no loss of fractional beakers. If you are still in a positive cash flow at 80%, then stuff the fractional beaker loss and run at 90% or 100% - faster research times.

junior7
Mar 18, 2006, 01:42 PM
You are misinterpreting, again. I did not say binary science rate removes losses from fractions, I said it limited losses to fractions ie. reduces it. You cannot ignore maintenance since this determines the maximum tech rate you can afford to run.
The beakers formula with a library is actually - floor(floor(commerce*rate)*125%). So any tech rate may lose or not fractional beakers from library eg. 23 commerce -
floor(23 * 90%) = 20 loses no fractions when library bonus applied
floor(23 * 80%) = 18 does lose fractions when library bonus applied
You cannot avoid fractions from the tech rate but, as was said, that is converted to gold. The binary rate is to limit the loss from science bonus (library etc.) fractions which also cannot be avoided and are real losses (not converted to anything else).

ruff_hi
Mar 18, 2006, 05:43 PM
The beakers formula with a library is actually - floor(floor(commerce*rate)*125%).Ahh - that changes it. I didn't have the internal floor in my calculations. Running through the usual beaker bonus, 100% does, generally, limit the fractional losses. There are some rare situations where it doesn't ...

25 commerce with 75% beaker bonus, running 100% loses 0.74 beakers while running 60% losses 0.25 beakers

Yes, I did say it was rare.

Now, accepting this binary science proposition - is it *worth* running this the whole game to minimize these lost fractions? I can see that it is in the early game (tech costs are low, commerce generation is low). Later in the game, both of these don't really count but you have lots of cities and these lost fractions are at a city level (is that right?). So, if you have 20 cities, you might get an extra 5-30 beakers per turn. I guess that will add up. I'll give it a try and see if I can MM my way through.

junior7
Mar 18, 2006, 06:09 PM
Glad to have you onboard!
Certainly, if you wish to run binary science rate, you should run it the entire game for maximum benefit. The lost fractions are at a city level so the maximum gain is 1 per city per turn which does add up. Happy MM'ing!

jar2574
Mar 19, 2006, 09:29 PM
In my opinion, it is far more important to get some gold now, then to have my towns developed at the same time. In the beginning of the game, I tend to have a rather low research percentage because of all the high upkeep costs. Every coin of gold that I can spend to help my research along to the next building (courthouse, marketplace, etc.) that will help my empire is very valuable. So I tend to use the most valuable tiles first.

I totally agree with you. The early game is more important than a perfectly timed simultaneous conversion to towns. Cottages should be developed into towns as quickly as possible. Waiting to turn them all into towns at the same time wastes a lot of potential beakers and commerce because towns are much more productive than hamlets and villages.

Re: the 100% - 0% strategy, I totally ignore gold reserves until I get universal suffrage. By that time the game is basically over anyway. I don't really want gold sitting around, because it means I could have had another tech more quickly.

Gold can always be picked up via pillaging and tech trading & giving away techs for cash, I don't run commerce at 100% unless I am saving up to buy something ASAP.

Zombie69
Mar 20, 2006, 09:54 AM
Re: the 100% - 0% strategy, I totally ignore gold reserves until I get universal suffrage. By that time the game is basically over anyway. I don't really want gold sitting around, because it means I could have had another tech more quickly.

Actually, the whole point of binary science is to get techs quicker. By not using it, you're getting them later than you could!

Having gold in reserve is just a nice side effect.

jar2574
Mar 20, 2006, 11:22 AM
Actually, the whole point of binary science is to get techs quicker. By not using it, you're getting them later than you could!

As others have pointed out, once you have libraries and other improvements, the binary method is not always optimal. The appropriate rate will vary depending on the improvements you've built in various cities, and the relative output of those cities.

Requiring each city to maintain multiplies of 4 in order to make the binary method work at all times is counterproductive, because the benefits of developing towns ASAP outweigh the marginal benefits of the binary method. For example, requiring any city with the potential of creating 15 to create only 12 per turn would be counterproductive. Better to have 15 with some waste than 12 without.

junior7
Mar 20, 2006, 03:16 PM
The binary science is actually designed to limit the loss to fractions from libraries etc. (although it can benefit before also) so you do not need to run commerce in multiples of 4 to benefit. Binary is not optimum in every single position but it nearly always is, whatever the bonuses from buildings etc. An example I tried for another thread -

Example - 6 cities with 22,18,14,9,6,4 commerce, largest 3 with libraries, largest 1 with market also, with 39 maintenance per turn, researching 1 prereq unknown tech:
flat 50% gives (with 39g per turn) 100 BB in 2 turns, binary gives 104 BB in 2 turns (binary wins)
(Note BB is bonus beakers taking into account hidden bonuses from prereqs and meeting civs with tech you are researching).
I tried changing tech prereqs, knowing civs, maintenance cost, commerce in 6 cities and binary always won with the numbers I tried.

Zombie69
Mar 20, 2006, 08:54 PM
As others have pointed out, once you have libraries and other improvements, the binary method is not always optimal. The appropriate rate will vary depending on the improvements you've built in various cities, and the relative output of those cities.

Requiring each city to maintain multiplies of 4 in order to make the binary method work at all times is counterproductive, because the benefits of developing towns ASAP outweigh the marginal benefits of the binary method. For example, requiring any city with the potential of creating 15 to create only 12 per turn would be counterproductive. Better to have 15 with some waste than 12 without.

You don't have to use multiples of 4. Of course it helps, but it's not necessary. Also, with a 25% bonus, 4n+1 is still pretty good for limitting losses, and isn't hard to get even when trying to get your towns asap.

Even when not even trying at all to get multiples of 4, cases where binary science isn't optimal are extremely rare, especially once you get a few cities.

ruff_hi
Mar 20, 2006, 09:23 PM
You don't have to use multiples of 4. Of course it helps, but it's not necessary. Also, with a 25% bonus, 4n+1 is still pretty good for limitting losses, and isn't hard to get even when trying to get your towns asap.What is the definition of 'limiting losses'. My understanding is ...

base beakers = floor(commerce * science rate)
base culture = floor(commerce * culture rate)
base gold = commerce - base beakers - base culture

So any loss of beakers here just goes to gold and isn't really lost. I don't know the formula for how the pre-req tech bonus gets added so I will ignore this for the present (can someone supply the formula?).

beakers to research = floor(base beakers * city science multipliers)

The way I would define lost beakers is base beakers * city science multipliers less floor(base beakers * city science multipliers). This is the fraction of beakers to research that gets rounded away. Is that your definition too?

DaviddesJ
Mar 21, 2006, 02:07 AM
The way I would define lost beakers is base beakers * city science multipliers less floor(base beakers * city science multipliers). This is the fraction of beakers to research that gets rounded away. Is that your definition too?

Yes, that's it.

junior7
Mar 21, 2006, 02:56 PM
ruff_hi - See 'Technology Research Explained...' by Requies for the full research formula. Basically the prereq bonus, other than the 6 starting techs, gets 20% bonus for all the required techs (if any) plus 20% for each optional tech. You also get a bonus for knowing other civs who have tech you are researching (30% * known_civs / total_civs). These bonuses also produce fractions which are lost and binary science limits this.

ruff_hi
Mar 21, 2006, 03:18 PM
Ok, looked at that post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163) and found this formula ...

Beakers applied to Technology = FLOOR (FLOOR ((Total Base Beakers + 1) * KCwT modifer) * Prerequisites modifier)

The Total Base Beakers (TBB) is the number of beakers generated by your cities. The two modifiers are 'known civs with tech' and the pre-requisite modifier. I can understand how binary science affects the TBB but I fail completely to see how binary science has any impact on the two modifiers and fractional beaker losses.

Thinking further :hmm: ... if you run at 0% for a few rounds and then 100% for the balance (binary science proposition 101), then you give the other civs a few more rounds to discover the tech and you get a bigger benefit from that modifier - ok, I can accept that. However, I don't see how it has any impact on the pre-requisite modifier.

Elhoim
Mar 21, 2006, 04:20 PM
WOW!

You are nuts! (In a good way) :goodjob:

junior7
Mar 21, 2006, 04:32 PM
You are right - Binary science does not gain from prereq bonus fractions. It can gain but so can flat rate, it depends on the numbers. I was thinking binary gains on the 0% turns but this generates prereq fractions due to the bonus beaker you always get.
As you say, binary mainly gains for Total Base Beakers plus other civs discovering tech while you are researching it.

DaviddesJ
Mar 21, 2006, 06:57 PM
As you say, binary mainly gains for Total Base Beakers plus other civs discovering tech while you are researching it.

Plus the opportunity value of deciding, during the 0% turns, that you changed your mind about what you want to research next. Plus the fact that you have more cash on hand, on average (because you spend some turns at 0% piling up cash, and then some turns at 100% spending it down), and sometimes this "temporary" excess cash is useful in making trades that you otherwise couldn't afford (since you aren't allowed to trade your way into debt).

cabert
Mar 22, 2006, 03:32 AM
sometimes this "temporary" excess cash is useful in making trades that you otherwise couldn't afford (since you aren't allowed to trade your way into debt).

true enough
I'll try this!

Zombie69
Mar 22, 2006, 08:25 AM
Plus the opportunity value of deciding, during the 0% turns, that you changed your mind about what you want to research next.

Good point. Added to the original post.

ruff_hi
Mar 22, 2006, 10:04 AM
The way I would define lost beakers is base beakers * city science multipliers less floor(base beakers * city science multipliers). This is the fraction of beakers to research that gets rounded away.I've been slowly working through the beaker to tech calculations and also getting feedback on my thoughts. To summaries:


base commerce gets converted to base beakers based on the science slider percentage - done at a city level (rounded down)
base beakers are adjusted for science multipliers (library, etc) - done at a city level (rounded down)
total base beakers (all cities) are adjusted by other civs knowing tech and you knowing pre-requisites (rounded down)
adjusted total base beakers are applied to research tech

Binary science has mathematical impacts on 2) and an opportunity benefit (more time for other civs to learn the tech) on 3). The rounding down on 1) goes to gold so is not lost to the system.

As I understand it, binary science only works if you are running in the red @ 100%. If you aren't, then hang the lost beakers and keep reseaching. If you are running in the black @ 90%, but in the red @ 100%, then the binary science proposition is to run 1 turn @0% and 9 turns @ 100%. Thus you hit the 90% overall and you minimize beaker loss.

The balance of this post is going to look at this beaker loss.

Here is an example using various base commerce of the beakers that are lost via 2) assuming the city has a 75% science multiplier.

Detailed Calculations
Science Slider @ 90%
Base Commerce 11
Science Multipler 75%
Base Beakers = 11 * 90% rounded down = 9.90 rounded down = 9
Adj Base Beakers = 9 * (1.75) = 15.75
Lost Beakers = 15.75 - 15.00 = 0.75

Summarized Results
Base ............. Slider Percentage
Commerce ..... 70% ..... 80% ... 90% .... 100%
... 05 ......... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.00 .... 0.75
... 06 ......... 0.00 .... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.50
... 07 ......... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.50 .... 0.25
... 08 ......... 0.75 .... 0.50 .... 0.25 .... 0.00
... 09 ......... 0.50 .... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.75
... 10 ......... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.50
... 11 ......... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.25
... 12 ......... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.50 .... 0.00
... 13 ......... 0.75 .... 0.50 .... 0.25 .... 0.75
... 14 ......... 0.75 .... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.50
... 15 ......... 0.50 .... 0.00 .... 0.75 .... 0.25
... 16 ......... 0.25 .... 0.00 .... 0.50 .... 0.00
... 17 ......... 0.25 .... 0.75 .... 0.25 .... 0.75
... 18 ......... 0.00 .... 0.50 .... 0.00 .... 0.50
... 19 ......... 0.75 .... 0.25 .... 0.75 .... 0.25
... 20 ......... 0.50 .... 0.00 .... 0.50 .... 0.00

So, you can see from the above table that running at 100% has no wasted beakers when your city level commerce is a multiple of 4. Any other city level commerce wastes either 0.25, 0.50 or 0.75 beakers per city. However, if you look at running at 80% - it wastes 0.00 beakers when your city level commerce is a multiple of 4 AND when it is 1 less. Edit:Oops, should be multiple of 5 and multiple of 5 + 1

To me, this means that running binary science @0% and @80% is better than running it at 0% and @100% because there are additional city level base commerce amounts were you lose no (partial) beakers (again - assumes that you are losing money @ 80%). So, if you are breaking even @70%, then instead of running at 0% for 3 turns and 100% for 7 turns, run at 0% for 1 turn and 80% for 9 turns (equivalent to running at 72%).

I think an additional benefit is that you don't have to adjust your science rate as often and you have more extra gold longer.

Zombie69
Mar 22, 2006, 03:47 PM
To me, this means that running binary science @0% and @80% is better than running it at 0% and @100% because there are additional city level base commerce amounts were you lose no (partial) beakers (again - assumes that you are losing money @ 80%).

This is only true when you have a single city, and no gold bonuses (market, bank, grocer, wall street). As soon as you have a few cities, binary science at 0% and 100% becomes optimal because different cities will have different base commerce and different commerce multipliers. The only way then to minimize lost fractions is to always run at 0% (thus losing no fractions on science bonuses since you make no science) or 100% (thus losing no fractions on gold since you make no gold). At any other percentage, you open yourself up to losing fractions both on beakers and on gold in each of your cities, instead of losing fractions on only one of those.

Also, note that by running science at 80%, you're running gold at 20%, which you've already proven is a bad proposition with a 75% bonus on gold, and i can already tell you is also a bad proposition at 25% or 50% bonus.

Remember, the point is not only to avoid wasting fractional beakers, but also to avoid wasting fractional gold. After all, 1 gold is just as important as 1 beaker (in fact it's even more important if your average science rate is above 50% for reasons which i won't get into).

Zombie69
Mar 22, 2006, 03:53 PM
However, if you look at running at 80% - it wastes 0.00 beakers when your city level commerce is a multiple of 4 AND when it is 1 less.

Wrong. From your table, it's clear that no fractional beakers are wasted at 5n and 5n+1, not at 4n and 4n-1. This makes a difference because it means no lost beakers 40% of the time (i.e. in 2 out of 5 cases), not 50% of the time (i.e. in 2 out of 4 cases).

Regardless, 80% science is no good because of the two aspects mentioned in my post above, namely :
1. Multiple cities with different % bonus and different base science.
2. Bonuses to gold being applied to 20%, a bad percentage.

jar2574
Mar 22, 2006, 04:03 PM
This is only true when you have a single city, and no gold bonuses (market, bank, grocer, wall street).

It is quite common for me to have a few specialized cities, where +90% of my research is done. When I get writing I build libraries in them ASAP. So if I have 5-6 cities with libraries (accompanied by 2-3 cities that only produce units and have negligable gold,) it may make sense to maintain 80% - 0%, correct?

When I get universities I build universities in them ASAP. I really stress building 6 universities ASAP, because I love Oxford university. Since I beeline for liberalism after writing, I often get universities prior to marketplaces. If I have 6 cities with universities, prior to Oxford I wonder if 100% - 50% might work just as well as 100% - 0%?

Anyway, this thread has definately intrigued me and I will use binary science next GOTM, at least until I get libraries.

Zombie69
Mar 22, 2006, 04:22 PM
When i get writing, i bring my science rate down to 0%. I keep it there until most or all of my commerce cities have built their libraries. Then i can switch back to 100% for a very long time. I do the same thing with education and universities, usually waiting until i get not only the universities but also Oxford.

This allows you to make full use of your new buildings, for more turns than you would otherwise.

ruff_hi
Mar 22, 2006, 05:11 PM
Wrong. From your table, it's clear that no fractional beakers are wasted at 5n and 5n+1, not at 4n and 4n-1. This makes a difference because it means no lost beakers 40% of the time (i.e. in 2 out of 5 cases), not 50% of the time (i.e. in 2 out of 4 cases).
Yes, well spotted. I looked at 16 commerce and 15 commerce and thought 16/4 and (16-1)/4. I should have looked at the other combinations.

One tiny point - I know that you have put up with a lot of angst with this discussion and people getting their maths wrong - but I have been posting and slowly discussion this for a while, accepting corrections when they are pointed out. You must know that the written word comes out differently than the spoken work - much harsher. Thus your "Wrong." really does grate. Sure if you have pointed out things multiple times, but with me - that is not the case. It would have come across much better as "Your comment about 4n and 4n-1 is incorrect.".

I'll start thinking about the other side of the coin (so to speak) - gold. I read another post that floated the idea of science sliders, not at the civ level, but at the city level. The initial reaction was YES PLS. But on reflection the group decided that it would unbalance the game too much.

DaviddesJ
Mar 22, 2006, 07:58 PM
I'll start thinking about the other side of the coin (so to speak) - gold. I read another post that floated the idea of science sliders, not at the civ level, but at the city level. The initial reaction was YES PLS. But on reflection the group decided that it would unbalance the game too much.

If you're talking about how to fix the micromanagement, it's easy---just allow the +25% bonus from the library to create fractional beakers that get credited to research. Individual city sliders would go in the wrong direction---even more micromanagement.

Zombie69
Mar 22, 2006, 08:43 PM
If you're talking about how to fix the micromanagement, it's easy---just allow the +25% bonus from the library to create fractional beakers that get credited to research. Individual city sliders would go in the wrong direction---even more micromanagement.

True. Adding fractions over all cities would drop the max amount of beakers saved by binary science to 1/turn as opposed to 1/city. And if you keep any fraction still left and add it to next turn's total, then you reduce the effectiveness even more, droping it to a maximum of 1 beaker over the entire game.

Of course, binary research would still be useful for the extra bonuses obtained from civs knowing the tech, the options provided by having extra money in the bank most of the time, and the extra flexibility afforded by being able to choose the tech researched a few turns later.

atreas
Mar 22, 2006, 08:51 PM
True. Adding fractions over all cities would drop the max amount of beakers saved by binary science to 1/turn as opposed to 1/city. And if you keep any fraction still left and add it to next turn's total, then you reduce the effectiveness even more, droping it to a maximum of 1 beaker over the entire game.

Of course, binary research would still be useful for the extra bonuses obtained from civs knowing the tech, the options provided by having extra money in the bank most of the time, and the extra flexibility afforded by being able to choose the tech researched a few turns later.
In the case of a lost fraction, could it be the optimum solution to use a specialist instead of a worker on a tile, in a "per city" micromanagement? Of course it depends on the food, but still the number 3 looks like it's made for "adjusting" the lost fractions due to the division by 4.

jar2574
Mar 23, 2006, 06:00 AM
Like I said, I'm intrigued by binary science and I'm going to give it a try. Everyone plays differently, (I play for fastest finishes), but I can't see a couple of these binary science bonuses helping me.

Of course, binary research would still be useful for the extra bonuses obtained from civs knowing the tech.

This won't help me because I disagree with this kind of strategy. I never research a tech if another civ knows it. I typically start BW + pottery + writing + ABC. I beeline for alphabet and then trade like crazy. It is MUCH more efficient to never research a tech at all and to trade for it than to research it at a discount.

the extra flexibility afforded by being able to choose the tech researched a few turns later.

This is an interesting notion, and it may have its value, but I have never switched research in the middle of researching a tech in a serious (i.e. GOTM) game.

Zombie69
Mar 23, 2006, 10:27 AM
In the case of a lost fraction, could it be the optimum solution to use a specialist instead of a worker on a tile, in a "per city" micromanagement? Of course it depends on the food, but still the number 3 looks like it's made for "adjusting" the lost fractions due to the division by 4.

Doubtful, since in terms of production (i.e. ignoring GPP), specialists are rather pathetic. Still, sometimes i will do this. More often however, i will adjust the number of specialists to avoid lost fractions of GPP. For example, with a 50% bonus in GPP production, you want your base number of GPP per city to be an even number. Another thing i'll do in a science city is drop specialists and put them on small cottages to let them grow when at 0% science, or when at 100% science in the case of gold specialized cities.

Zombie69
Mar 23, 2006, 10:32 AM
This won't help me because I disagree with this kind of strategy. I never research a tech if another civ knows it. I typically start BW + pottery + writing + ABC. I beeline for alphabet and then trade like crazy. It is MUCH more efficient to never research a tech at all and to trade for it than to research it at a discount.

Even better then. It lets you wait for someone to discover the tech and trade for it instead. This is certainly better since you said it was more efficient. Then research the next tech at blazing speed since you can run 100% science for quite some turns by then.

This is an interesting notion, and it may have its value, but I have never switched research in the middle of researching a tech in a serious (i.e. GOTM) game.

The point is that you're not in the middle of researching a tech now. Since you were running 0% science, you're maybe at 5/2000 researched. There's really no penalty to switching!

Say that someone else has discovered the tech. By your own admission, it would now be more efficient to trade for it and research something else instead.

atreas
Mar 23, 2006, 10:56 AM
Doubtful, since in terms of production (i.e. ignoring GPP), specialists are rather pathetic. Still, sometimes i will do this. More often however, i will adjust the number of specialists to avoid lost fractions of GPP. For example, with a 50% bonus in GPP production, you want your base number of GPP per city to be an even number. Another thing i'll do in a science city is drop specialists and put them on small cottages to let them grow when at 0% science, or when at 100% science in the case of gold specialized cities.
Can we explore it a bit further? (Of course, I agree with you that specialists are pathetic generally without Representation, so I should add that I mean to have representation as well.) My idea is something like the following:

let's suppose you have a city with a library that currently (at the stage of 100% science) is producing 4n + 3 beakers (just loses the fraction for the library effect), so gets n more beakers from the library. If we remove a worker from a "1 commerce tile" and make him a scientist (under Representation) it will produce 4n+8 beakers, so will also get n+2 beakers from Library. In other words, in this case the benefit of a scientist isn't the usual 6 beakers but 7 (and this is quite big number, for all standards). When the circumstances will change (for example, a hamlet has grown) then you reassign workers as fit.

Something similar can happen when in 0% science in a city with a market and 4n + 2 commerce (plus n gold from Market): again removing a worker from a 1 commerce tile and making him a Merchant results in a city with 4n+4 (plus n+1) gold, where with Representation the "net gain" is 7 "gold+beakers".

I believe that the two things to consider are food and cottage growth - but it definitely doesn't look to me very easy to say that this doesn't seem profitable.

EDIT: I just noticed that the Merchant effect is 6 (my visual math seem very bad), so it doesn't work (of course, because it creates a "lost fraction" 3 on beakers). Only the scientist gets 7.

Zombie69
Mar 23, 2006, 11:24 AM
Like i said, "still, sometimes i will do this". Most of the time it's not profitable (because specialists don't produce much), but in rare circumstances it is.

Note that i would still prefer working a new cottage at 2 food + 1 commerce than a scientist, even if he gives 7 beakers. Assuming of course, that the GPP are useless in this city. For one thing, i usually value a growing cottage/hamlet/village as +2 commerce over what it currently produces, to represent the fact that assigning a working to it lets it grow. For example, a 2 food 3 commerce cottage (river and financial) to me is equivalent to a 2 food 5 commerce tile that won't grow. Also, don't underestimate the power of the 2 food, which is huge.

Zombie69
Mar 23, 2006, 11:28 AM
EDIT: I just noticed that the Merchant effect is 6 (my visual math seem very bad), so it doesn't work (of course, because it creates a "lost fraction" 3 on beakers). Only the scientist gets 7.

Note that with a library and a monastery, you get 35% bonus, which is very close to 33.3%. This means that you normally want multiples of 3. This makes representation more interesting.

The actual rule of thumb for a 35% bonus is that you want 3n, and -1 for every 21 (i.e. -1 at 21 making it 20, -2 at 42 making it 40, etc.) So the numbers to aim for become 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 40, 43, etc. The only numbers without any fractional loss at all are multiples of 20, but the other numbers given above provide little fractional loss.

jar2574
Mar 23, 2006, 01:09 PM
Even better then. It lets you wait for someone to discover the tech and trade for it instead. This is certainly better since you said it was more efficient.

No, binary science does not "let me wait for someone to discover the tech and trade for it instead." I already do that.

You claimed that "binary research would still be useful for the extra bonuses obtained from civs knowing the tech." Those bonuses won't come into play if I don't research the techs that civs already know.

People who use binary could choose to research techs that the AI is researching. Or they could do as I do and let the AI research the techs and then trade for them. People who do not use binary can do the same thing. Non-binary researcher may research techs more slowly, but if a binary researcher is wasting time researching techs that the AI has instead of trading for them then the binary researcher could still fall behind in the long run.

Then research the next tech at blazing speed since you can run 100% science for quite some turns by then.

Yes. I will try binary because it sounds like it may be faster than my old way of research. If it is faster then I will be able to trade a tech with the AI earlier than I would have without binary. But it will not speed up AI research. And it has nothing to do with whether or not I research techs that the AI is researching.



The point is that you're not in the middle of researching a tech now. Since you were running 0% science, you're maybe at 5/2000 researched. There's really no penalty to switching!

Obviously there is no penalty to switching if you haven't started researching something, regardless of whether you use binary or non-binary research. My point is that the opportunity to switch tech research while having commerce at 100% is irrelevant and is not an advantage to using binary if you never switched tech research when you are not using binary.

So that 'advantage' seems to be overrated, unless the player is someone who changes their research goals.

Say that someone else has discovered the tech. By your own admission, it would now be more efficient to trade for it and research something else instead.

My point is that this is also an overrated 'advantage' of binary, because except for meditation and priesthood, it is extremely rare for anyone to have discovered a tech that I am in the midst of researching. I typically research BW and then beeline to ABC. At that point I go for code of laws and civil service. If I can trade for meditation and priesthood then I do, and if no one will trade them then I must research them.

After that, I research "advanced" techs and let my trades with the AI back fill the techs I've missed. You can see why it would be rare for anyone to be research the tech I'm currently researching.


My point is not to say that binary sucks, it's to say that some of these 'advantages' are really overrated.

jar2574
Mar 23, 2006, 01:26 PM
Like i said, i try to keep them at multiples of 4. It's not always possible, but it often is. You'd be surprised how often it can work perfectly if you look carefully enough. By the way, i don't consider a non-river cottage to be an inferior tile to use compared to a river cottage, since you want to grow both cottages eventually anyway, so you might as well start on both right away.

For one thing, i usually value a growing cottage/hamlet/village as +2 commerce over what it currently produces, to represent the fact that assigning a working to it lets it grow. For example, a 2 food 3 commerce cottage (river and financial) to me is equivalent to a 2 food 5 commerce tile that won't grow.

So in a city with cottages, you look for multiples of 4, but in your head you are also considering the value of growing the cottages? This would be difficult and time consuming. I'm not saying that this couldn't be done, but I think it's putting too much emphasis on the multiple of 4 part and not enough emphasis on the potential value of the cottages.

Instead of worrying about the multiples I'll just keep developing each tile in order of its value. (i.e. floodplains first, river grassland second, other grassland third.)

In non-cottage cities I think you raise a valid point.

Zombie69
Mar 23, 2006, 02:19 PM
Obviously there is no penalty to switching if you haven't started researching something, regardless of whether you use binary or non-binary research. My point is that the opportunity to switch tech research while having commerce at 100% is irrelevant and is not an advantage to using binary if you never switched tech research when you are not using binary.

So that 'advantage' seems to be overrated, unless the player is someone who changes their research goals.

You don't seem to understand. Let's say that you'd like to research a tech at 80% and it would take you 10 turns. By instead doing 0% for 2 turns, then 100% for 8 turns, you gain the extra flexibility of changing your tech to research after 2 turns. If you had gone for 80% all the way, you'd already have 20% of the tech researched after 2 turns so switching would not be as feasible. I'm not saying you'll use this flexibility everytime, but having it is nice. After all, there's no downside.

My point is that this is also an overrated 'advantage' of binary, because except for meditation and priesthood, it is extremely rare for anyone to have discovered a tech that I am in the midst of researching. I typically research BW and then beeline to ABC. At that point I go for code of laws and civil service. If I can trade for meditation and priesthood then I do, and if no one will trade them then I must research them.

After that, I research "advanced" techs and let my trades with the AI back fill the techs I've missed. You can see why it would be rare for anyone to be research the tech I'm currently researching.

You can't do this all game, that's for sure. There's an undocumented limit coded into the game of how many techs you can obtain through trade. Once you reach that limit, the AIs won't trade with you anymore because "we feel that you are becoming too advanced", even if they're 10 times as advanced as you are (so the text doesn't reflect the actual reason, but i guess the developpers wanted to hide the actual reason and that's what they came up with to hide it).

Therefore you can't rely on trade alone, and at some point you'll have to research techs competitively with the AI.

jar2574
Mar 23, 2006, 03:35 PM
You don't seem to understand. Let's say that you'd like to research a tech at 80% and it would take you 10 turns. By instead doing 0% for 2 turns, then 100% for 8 turns, you gain the extra flexibility of changing your tech to research after 2 turns. If you had gone for 80% all the way, you'd already have 20% of the tech researched after 2 turns so switching would not be as feasible. I'm not saying you'll use this flexibility everytime, but having it is nice. After all, there's no downside.

No. I understood. I am saying that the 'extra flexibilitiy' of two turns is not an advantage, because I never switched techs mid-research in a serious game. But you are correct, that there is no downside. So it's an advantage that can be listed, it just seems overrated to a player who never switched mid-research.

You can't do this all game, that's for sure . . . you can't rely on trade alone, and at some point you'll have to research techs competitively with the AI.

Actually, I wouldn't have recommended the strategy if it did not work throughout my entire game. May I ask what you think the trade limit is, and how soon you'd run into that limit if you are actively trading with 4 or 5 civs?

Here is a method for trading that maximizes the techs you receive: Each game there will be civs that are slower than others. Get the low techs from them, and get the more advanced techs from others. Spread out your tech trading so that you run into the limit later.

Here is an example: During the last GOTM I forced the Greeks to give me some low techs at the end of an early war. I like doing that, and then declaring 10 turns later. I got other low techs from France and Arabia after ABC. I chose to get their low techs because they were developing slowly, and I didn't think I'd get high techs from them later. Later our relations soured over my trades with the more advanced countries who happened to be their enemies. I traded throughout the game with Spain, England and Eygpt. England was the only civ who eventually hit the limit.

Admittedly, my research ends after a beeline to mass media coupled with a brief diversion towards military tradition. If I had to go longer in the game I suppose that Spain and Eygpt would have hit their limits. But my point is that a victory is possible without researching techs that the AI is already resarching, or that the AI will research shortly. Conquest, domination, and cultural victories could have been achieved with even less tech trading.

Zombie69
Mar 24, 2006, 02:06 PM
No. I understood. I am saying that the 'extra flexibilitiy' of two turns is not an advantage, because I never switched techs mid-research in a serious game. But you are correct, that there is no downside. So it's an advantage that can be listed, it just seems overrated to a player who never switched mid-research.

And what i'm saying is that the reason you don't switch in serious games is because of the penalty involved. But once that penalty is removed, you'll start doing it. This is the part that it seems you didn't understand.

Actually, I wouldn't have recommended the strategy if it did not work throughout my entire game. May I ask what you think the trade limit is, and how soon you'd run into that limit if you are actively trading with 4 or 5 civs?

http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=596&highlight=WFYABTA
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=692&highlight=WFYABTA

Or just do a google search, typing WFYABTA as the only key word.

Here is a method for trading that maximizes the techs you receive: Each game there will be civs that are slower than others. Get the low techs from them, and get the more advanced techs from others. Spread out your tech trading so that you run into the limit later.

This is actually a very bad method to deal with WFYABTA. You'll get the same total amounts of techs overall, but the techs you'll get will be worth fewer beakers. The limit isn't on how many techs you've traded from a given civ, but on the total amount of techs you've traded from all the civs (although this limit also depends on a variable which is different for all civs, just like some civs are more likely to go to war and some less so).

Please read the threads i linked to before you say this isn't true.

atreas
Mar 24, 2006, 02:15 PM
You don't seem to understand. Let's say that you'd like to research a tech at 80% and it would take you 10 turns. By instead doing 0% for 2 turns, then 100% for 8 turns, you gain the extra flexibility of changing your tech to research after 2 turns. If you had gone for 80% all the way, you'd already have 20% of the tech researched after 2 turns so switching would not be as feasible. I'm not saying you'll use this flexibility everytime, but having it is nice. After all, there's no downside.
To be more exact, you hope there isn't A BIG downside - because in 99% of the cases there will be somewhere in your civ some scientist (perhaps in your GP farm) who produces directly beakers. And the case is not at all rare - except from GP farm we have Great Library, perhaps Mercantillism for some turns, Statue of Liberty, etc.

Zombie69
Mar 24, 2006, 02:34 PM
Except for the Great Library, you can trade those scientists for merchants on the turns where science is at 0%. Without representation, those won't add to your beakers.

Of course there's always a downside to switching. After all, 5/2000 researched, even though small, is still something. But it's a very small downside. Before switching, you should always consider the lost beakers and weigh those against the advantages of switching tech.

However, this isn't even what i was talking about. I wasn't saying there's no downside to switching. I was saying there's no downside to having the option to switch. As in, binary science provides this flexibility as a bonus, at no extra cost. Admittedly it may have been poorly worded and the meaning may not have been as clear as it should have been.

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 02:55 PM
And what i'm saying is that the reason you don't switch in serious games is because of the penalty involved. But once that penalty is removed, you'll start doing it. This is the part that it seems you didn't understand.

Oh good grief. You claim to know why I don't switch techs in the midst of researching them. And you claim that once this 'penalty' is removed I'll start switching. Absurd.

I don't switch techs because I have a plan mapped out before I start researching, and because I don't research techs that the AI is researching.



This is actually a very bad method to deal with WFYABTA. You'll get the same total amounts of techs overall, but the techs you'll get will be worth fewer beakers. The limit isn't on how many techs you've traded from a given civ, but on the total amount of techs you've traded from all the civs (although this limit also depends on a variable which is different for all civs, just like some civs are more likely to go to war and some less so).

These threads are interesting. I guess I'll ask basically same question again, (it's the same one that fluffyflyingpig asks at the end of the 2nd thread) "What exactly are the WFYaBtA limits, or where can I find them in the .xml? I understand that they vary based on score, but I'd really like having specifics."

There doesn't seem to be a concrete answer to the WFYABTA limit in those threads. I am genuinely interested, so if you know where it is, then please direct me to the post number.

In my experience, some civs are more likely to trade with me than others. I guess I've never hit the overall limit, because I've always had at least one civ willing to trade with me. Maintaining pleased/friendly relations with several civs has its perks I guess, because at least one of them will be late to hit the limit. So I don't think the method is all that bad.

Please read the threads i linked to before you say this isn't true.

I read them. They didn't provide the numbers I was looking for, but they were interesting. And thanks for pointing out that total trades is what matters, not trades with individual countries.

However, it seems you don't believe my claim that you can go an entire game without researching techs that the AI is busy researching. Please go to this site, and look at my last GOTM (#28) if you still have doubts. I'll condense the conclusions you'd reach though:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/results/index.php?month=40003&submit=Go

I had 2 techs to begin with, I researched 33 techs, and I traded for 22 others. That left me with the 57 techs I needed to win the game.

My research order was 1. mining 2. hunting 3. BW 4. pottery 5. writing 6. mysticism 7. ABC 8. Polytheism 9. Code of Laws 10. Literature 11. Civil Service 12. Metal Casting 13. Calendar 14. Machinery 15. Currency 16. Paper 17. Education 18. Philosophy 19. Liberalism 20. Nationalism 21. Drama 22. Printing Press 23. Constitution 24. Democracy 25. Optics 26. Astronomy 27. Sci Method 28. Communism 29. Physics 30. Electricity 31. Radio 32. Mass media 33. Military tradition.

Please note that all other techs I have at endgame were traded (besides the two I began with). This includes trading for gunpowder at the end of the game, prior to military tradition. I had not hit the limit. I have had other games where I beelined directly to education after civil service and did not go for currency, chosing to trade for it later. Those involve trading even more techs. I have not hit the limit with all civs in those games either.

I give away techs at the end game to increase diplo relations and to let other civs research advanced techs for me. I don't know what effect this has on WFYABTA.

To summarize: Do not discount the strategy of letting the AI do low research while you concentrate on advanced techs. Please do not tell me it can't be done throughout the game. Please don't make me go through my other GOTMs just to show you that this method works. It does.

DaviddesJ
Mar 24, 2006, 03:16 PM
These threads are interesting. I guess I'll ask basically same question again, (it's the same one that fluffyflyingpig asks at the end of the 2nd thread) "What exactly are the WFYaBtA limits, or where can I find them in the .xml? I understand that they vary based on score, but I'd really like having specifics."

There doesn't seem to be a concrete answer to the WFYABTA limit in those threads. I am genuinely interested, so if you know where it is, then please direct me to the post number.

I don't think the information is in the XML. You'll be able to get this information out of the SDK, when it's released (since that contains all of the code for AI behavior).

DaviddesJ
Mar 24, 2006, 03:17 PM
However, it seems you don't believe my claim that you can go an entire game without researching techs that the AI is busy researching. Please go to this site, and look at my last GOTM (#28) if you still have doubts.

But that is at Monarch. Maybe you can do the same thing at Immortal, but it's sure not obvious to me.

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 03:32 PM
But that is at Monarch. Maybe you can do the same thing at Immortal, but it's sure not obvious to me.

Did the same thing on emperor this month, but that save wasn't up yet. I did run into a limit with England, but was still trading at the end with others.

I haven't tried the strategy on Immortal. But I will when the GOTM moves to that level.

Zombie69
Mar 24, 2006, 03:32 PM
Good point about Monarch level.

Also, the longer the game lasts, the more likely you'll reach the WFYABTA limit. The last tech you researched, military tradition, is not by any stretch of imagination an advanced tech. This explains why you didn't reach the limit. Had the game gone further, you probably would have regretted having traded so much so early because you would not be able to trade at all anymore and would fall behind.

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 03:33 PM
I don't think the information is in the XML. You'll be able to get this information out of the SDK, when it's released (since that contains all of the code for AI behavior).

Stupid question. What is the SDK? Obviously, with this beeline strategy I'll be very curious to find out the WFYABTA limit on each difficulty level.

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 03:35 PM
Good point about Monarch level.

Also, the longer the game lasts, the more likely you'll reach the WFYABTA limit. The last tech you researched, military tradition, is not by any stretch of imagination an advanced tech. This explains why you didn't reach the limit. Had the game gone further, you probably would have regretted having traded so much so early because you would not be able to trade at all anymore and would fall behind.

As I mentioned, this strategy may only work for Conquest, Domination, Diplomatic, and Cultural victories. I also mentioned that my goal is fastest finish. I never claimed that it would work for Spaceship, nor for milking scores.

Zombie69
Mar 24, 2006, 03:47 PM
Stupid question. What is the SDK? Obviously, with this beeline strategy I'll be very curious to find out the WFYABTA limit on each difficulty level.

Read your manual : SDK = software developper's kit, to be released shortly. It will allow us to modify the code on a much more basic level than we can now. Things that are currently unavailable to modders will become open to all.

As for difficulty level. I don't think that the limit changes with the difficulty level (though maybe it does). The point is that on higher levels, AIs get more bonus towards research, and so it becomes increasingly difficult to always reach any tech you research before any AI does. It also makes it more difficult to reach tradable techs in a timely matter so that they still have a decent value compared to what the AIs have, since the AIs will have more at any given time.

Zombie69
Mar 24, 2006, 03:49 PM
I also mentioned that my goal is fastest finish.

I didn't understand what you meant back then. I thought you meant "i want to finish the game as quickly as possible (in real time), therefore i don't feel like wasting time micromanaging for small gains".

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 03:55 PM
Read your manual : SDK = software developper's kit, to be released shortly. It will allow us to modify the code on a much more basic level than we can now. Things that are currently unavailable to modders will become open to all.

Thank you.

As for difficulty level. I don't think that the limit changes with the difficulty level (though maybe it does). The point is that on higher levels, AIs get more bonus towards research, and so it becomes increasingly difficult to always reach any tech you research before any AI does. It also makes it more difficult to reach tradable techs in a timely matter so that they still have a decent value compared to what the AIs have, since the AIs will have more at any given time.

Interesting. I adopted the strategy partly so that I could outpace the AI after alphabet, on monarch and emperor. On levels like noble and prince it really isn't as effective, because you research things so much more quickly than the AI. But as I said, I haven't tried it on immortal or diety.

jar2574
Mar 24, 2006, 04:00 PM
I didn't understand what you meant back then. I thought you meant "i want to finish the game as quickly as possible (in real time), therefore i don't feel like wasting time micromanaging for small gains".

Ahh. Understood. That interpretation probably made sense considering the title of the thread.

Beelining is key to fastest finish in game terms because you don't want to waste any time on unnecessary research. So I will always be pressing up against the WFYABTA.

Zombie69
Mar 25, 2006, 05:43 PM
I've just thought of something else. In the first few turns of the game, at Emperor and above without the organized trait (i.e. in cases where you can't start at 100% science due to civic upkeep), if the first tech you research is one of the basic techs without prerequisites, you should always start at 0%science.

This is because in the first few turns, you can expect to meet civilizations that already know the tech, and as soon as you meet them, you'll get the extra bonus. You want to spend as many turns as possible at 100% when getting the bonus, and as many turns as possible at 0% when not getting the bonus.

Of course, if you start with mining, in most cases the first tech you'll want to research is bronze working. In this case, ignore this tip. You'd only get the bonus if someone learns bronze working before you do, and will only have the bonus for a few turns anyway (i.e. until you finish researching it yourself). It's better in this case to research as early as possible, since gold from a hut could then help you keep your research high for a longer time. Doing all the 0% turns at the beginning wouldn't let you profit from the hut towards your first, most crucial tech.

Edit : this is no longer the case under version 1.61, because there's no civic upkeep at game start even on emperor and above.

ruff_hi
Apr 02, 2006, 10:27 PM
I've been looking at binary science. Previously, I have been concentrating on the beaker side of things. In this post, I will be looking at the lost commerce thru the application of beaker and gold multiples.

To recap ... binary science only works if you are running in the red @ 100%. If you aren't, then hang the lost beakers and keep reseaching. If you are running in the black @ 90%, but in the red @ 100%, then the binary science proposition is to run 1 turn @0% and 9 turns @ 100%. Thus you hit the 90% overall and you minimize beaker loss.

The following numbers assumes that the city under study generates 15 base commerce and has a library and a bank (ie +25% beakers and +50% gold) with the target science percentage of 70% (ie just breaking even at 70%).

Under this setup, 15 commerce gets split into 10 base beakers (70% of 15 rounded down) and 5 base gold (15 less what goes to beakers). The 10 base beakers are converted into 12.5 beakers after the library. This means that we lose 0.5 beakers. Converting that back to commerce means that we have effectively lost 10 * (12.5 - 12.0)/12.5 or 0.4 commerce per turn. Now, looking at gold, the 5 base gold gets converted to 7.5 gold. This means we lose 0.5 gold or that we have effectivel lost 5 * (7.5 - 7.0)/7.5 or 0.33 commerce per turn. Combining the lost fractions from beakers and gold gives a total effective loss of 0.73 commerce per turn. Over 10 turns, this is a loss of 7.33 commerce.

Now, lets do the numbers if we run at 0% science for 3 turns and then 100% science for 7 turns - for 70% science over the 10 turns. While running at 0% science, we lose nothing to science rounding but we lose 15 * (22.5 - 22.0) / 22.5 or 0.33 commerce per turn to the gold rounding. While running at 100% science, we lose nothing to the gold rounding but we lose 15 * (18.75 - 18.00) / 18.75 or 0.60 commerce per turn to the science rounding. Over 10 turns, we lose 0.33 * 3 + 0.60 * 7 or 5.2 commerce. Obviously 5.2 lost commerce is better than 7.33 lost commerce and so binary science 100% / 0% is better than a straight 70% science slider in this situation.

However, there are other ways of getting to (or close to) 70% science. You could run at 0% science for 1 turns and then 80% science for 9 turns - 72% science in total. Or you could run at 0% science for 2 turn and then 90% science for 8 turns - 72% science in total.

Running at 0% / 80% binary science in this cities set up means a loss of 2.27 commerce per 10 rounds. Running at 0% / 90% binary science in this cities set up means a loss of 3.33 commerce. Both of these beat the 0% / 100% binary science!

Obviously, I have only looked at one particular city's set up. I'm planning on putting together a spreadsheet so that you can enter each cities commerce and science / gold multipliers and then look at the lost commerce from each science slider setting. However, prior to doing that, I wanted to post the above so that I could get some feedback on this approach and validation of my maths.

Mutineer
Apr 02, 2006, 10:59 PM
First Riff, no matter what % are sliders one never loose commerce.
Commerce going by priority
Gold>Beakers>culture

So, if for example city producing 3 commerce and civ running 10%gold 10% culture and 80% science city will
give 1 commerce to gold, 2 commerce to sci and 0 commerce fo culture.

So, when lost actially happened? There 2 points, first when raw beaker multiplied by city improvemetns.

Lets look on city with library which running 2 sci specialists(very common early set up) and have 2 commerce.

On 100% sci it will produce Roundown((6+2)*1.25)= 10 commerce + 0 gc
On 90% sci it will produce 8 commerce and 1 gold
As you see, in this case running binary science does improve our situation.

Now, lets look on other more early case of rounding looses.
in case if you researching tech with multiply prerequisites or your tech is known by more then one AI your beakers multiply by sertan number.

So, rounding error will be there, we only do not know where, but in most cases beakers would be m,ultiply on something like 1.08~1.12 max and useally civ early on produce 8-10 commerce max.

So, it become evident that we will loose about 1 beaker/turn if our total beakers fall below that this coefficient cause it increase by one.
So, I do believe that in average running binarry sci is a good idea early on, when you have 1-2 cities and only 8-12 comemrce max. In addition You are getting one free beaker when you run 100% tax.

ruff_hi
Apr 02, 2006, 11:19 PM
First Riff, no matter what % are sliders one never loose commerce.
Commerce going by priority
Gold>Beakers>culture

So, if for example city producing 3 commerce and civ running 10%gold 10% culture and 80% science city will
give 1 commerce to gold, 2 commerce to sci and 0 commerce fo culture.
I know that no base commerce is lost in the system. I had only tested science and gold but I will test culture next time I play the game. My basic thought was that commerce was converted to science (rounded down), culture (rounded down) and anything left over went to gold.

The lost fractions occur from libraries, banks, etc. Some of these lost fractions are gold, some science but I wanted to convert everything back to commerce so that I could equate lost science and lost gold. I was trying to get this across by saying 'effectively lost commerce' instead of 'lost commerce'. I suppose what I mean is that you have converted some commerce to science based on the slider, then the science multipliers result in lost beakers. Thus you have 'wasted' some commerce.

Maybe a better term would be to say I wasted commerce, not lost it.

With regards to specialists and pre-req bonuses - binary science (any flavour) has no impact on this. You can set your slider to anything at it doesn't change the beakers from specialists or the bonuses from pre-req. Thus I feel happy, ignoring this aspect totally with regards to binary science.

Mutineer
Apr 03, 2006, 01:38 AM
Sorry Ruff I just checked my previous post and found it is contain a gross Erro, I corrected it.

But no, breakers from commerce do not treated independently from specialists.

(Beaker due % + beakers from specialists) * (all other effects) *(burocracy effect)

They were independed in previous civ, but no any longer.

ruff_hi
Apr 03, 2006, 08:48 AM
Mutineer, granted, in CIV, beakers from specialists are used in the research process BUT my point is that binary science has no (or minimal) impact on their usage. Thus, the beakers from specialists can be ignored if you are comparing difference research sliders and / or different binary science options.

KrikkitTwo
Apr 03, 2006, 11:10 AM
Sorry Ruff I just checked my previous post and found it is contain a gross Erro, I corrected it.

But no, breakers from commerce do not treated independently from specialists.

(Beaker due % + beakers from specialists) * (all other effects) *(burocracy effect)

They were independed in previous civ, but no any longer.

Actually, Bureaucracy does NOT affect beakers, Gold, culture from specialists (or buildings like Shrines) it ONLY affects commerce (and so it affects how many Beakers , Gold, etc. you get from the %. (all other effects DO apply to Specialists, Buildings, and Commerce)

The Fact is that for any One city, there are 'ideal levels' of Research, to alternate between. (not necessarily 0, 100, but wherever gives minimal rounding error from bonuses)

However when dealing with one city, there are also roundings from empirewide bonuses (prerequisites+others knowing the tech) So it becomes yet more complicated, and depends on the tech you are researching.

When dealing with multiple cities, the idea is that 0% is always 'ideal' for the research and 100% is always 'ideal' for the gold because there are no rounding errors. That way the rounding errors Only take place when You have that at 100%.

Note: this is ONLY true if you have NO specialists, if you have a city with 1 Scientist and a Library, at 0% science you will be losing ~0.75 research per turn from that city.... so actually it does matter, the more of a specialist economy you are running, the less 0/100% is a safe bet, and its back to calculating each individual city.

So it is Not better in All circumstances, but it is statistically better unless you want to count the commerce in each individual city and figue out the losses at each individual level. (which is the true way MM is alive and well in Civ 4).

Which is why the rounding system causes innumerable problems, that could be solved if they stored even 1 more decimal place... but that's programming efficiency v. game design.

Zombie69
Apr 03, 2006, 03:23 PM
The Fact is that for any One city, there are 'ideal levels' of Research, to alternate between. (not necessarily 0, 100, but wherever gives minimal rounding error from bonuses)

So it is Not better in All circumstances, but it is statistically better unless you want to count the commerce in each individual city and figue out the losses at each individual level. (which is the true way MM is alive and well in Civ 4).

Exactly what i was about to say.

Of course at 15 base commerce (any integer that is 4n + 3 is the worst case scenario both for 25% bonus and for 75% bonus), you've got yourself the best example of binary science not working all that well. Add one more commerce to that city by switching just one tile for another (or drop it by 3), and you go from the worst to the best example.

The fact is that over your entire empire, and not just one city, binary science at 0% and 100% is what will work best because this is what will generate the fewest losses at all bonus % and all base commerce, on average.

ruff_hi
Apr 03, 2006, 04:08 PM
Of course at 15 base commerce (any integer that is 4n + 3 is the worst case scenario both for 25% bonus and for 75% bonus), you've got yourself the best example of binary science not working all that well. Add one more commerce to that city by switching just one tile for another (or drop it by 3), and you go from the worst to the best example.As I stated, this is only one city and only 1 example. I take it from your comments that you accept the above approach of calculating the commerce wasted via science / gold multipliers. As such, I will move onto putting together this spreadsheet so that people can enter the cities that make up their empire and have it calculate for them the best science slider combination.

DaviddesJ
Apr 03, 2006, 04:12 PM
As I stated, this is only one city and only 1 example. I take it from your comments that you accept the above approach of calculating the commerce wasted via science / gold multipliers. As such, I will move onto putting together this spreadsheet so that people can enter the cities that make up their empire and have it calculate for them the best science slider combination.

It's hard for me to see how such a spreadsheet will be useful. The numbers will change from turn to turn. And, if you want to know the current science and gold output of your civilization at different slider levels, it would be easier to just move the slider and look at your advisor screen to see the result, than to enter the numbers from every city into a spreadsheet.

Mutineer
Apr 03, 2006, 06:29 PM
Actually, Bureaucracy does NOT affect beakers, Gold, culture from specialists (or buildings like Shrines) it ONLY affects commerce (and so it affects how many Beakers , Gold, etc. you get from the %. (all other effects DO apply to Specialists, Buildings, and Commerce)



You ofcouse correct.
Formular is
Final breakers =(commerce*Burocracy effect*%sci + Beakers from specialists)*Sum(Building%effect)

I need to stop posting when I am deadly tied.

Zombie69
Apr 18, 2006, 09:10 AM
Does anyone know if they fixed the binary science exploit in 1.61? I haven't tried the patch yet (need to finish my current game first).

DaviddesJ
Apr 18, 2006, 09:28 AM
I'm pretty sure there's no change to the rounding of gold and beakers in 1.61.

AngelLeliel
Apr 20, 2006, 01:55 PM
binary science is useless,
you gain nothing from it.

however, micromanagment of every city's income is more useful.

DaviddesJ
Apr 20, 2006, 09:07 PM
binary science is useless,
you gain nothing from it.

Did you bother to read the thread before posting your uninformed opinion?

AngelLeliel
Apr 21, 2006, 12:29 AM
I examed the research formula in SDK,
there is no rounding error from research percent setting.
the rounding error comes from building modifer and other thing like other civ knowing this tech or not, BUT NOT the percent.

Yes, I read the thread, and lots of people dont agree the binary science is usful,
and so do I.

DaviddesJ
Apr 21, 2006, 12:34 AM
there is no rounding error from research percent setting.

True but irrelevant. The benefit has nothing to do with "rounding error from research percent setting".

Yes, I read the thread.

OK, that's all we can ask. You can lead a horse to information, but you can't make him understand it.

AngelLeliel
Apr 21, 2006, 01:19 AM
True but irrelevant. The benefit has nothing to do with "rounding error from research percent setting".

Please tell me if the binary research is not about the rounding error,
what is the actual benefit?

I can understand trying to preserve gold for future research benefit,
but it doesn't mean binary research is the only way to do it.

n0xie
Apr 21, 2006, 01:31 AM
They never advocated that it's the only way. But it is a way nonetheless. Anyone claiming it's not, obviously didn't understand the thread.

DaviddesJ
Apr 21, 2006, 02:29 AM
Please tell me if the binary research is not about the rounding error, what is the actual benefit?

It's about truncation of fractions when you have library, market, etc. (e.g., city with 10 commerce at 70% research, with library, would generate 1.25*7 = 8.75 beakers, but that's truncated to 8 because fractional beakers are lost). On average, when you're at 0% research or 100% research, you lose less gold+beakers to truncation than if you run at intermediate rates.

This has been explained several times previously in this thread.

socralynnek
Apr 21, 2006, 03:06 AM
I wouldn't go that far, to call binary research an exploit.
It is a nice startegy for advanced players, but it is not that uberpowerful to call it an exploit.
It is more about knowing the game mechanics and use them.

AngelLeliel
Apr 21, 2006, 06:00 AM
This has been explained several times previously in this thread.

but binary research is not the optimized option.
I would rather trying to micromanage city tile for better reslut,
not just stick at binary research.

Nials
Apr 21, 2006, 08:22 AM
but binary research is not the optimized option.
I would rather trying to micromanage city tile for better reslut,
not just stick at binary research.

Micromanaging the resource yield of your cities does not mean you cannot run binary science.

One option does not exclude the other one. Do both! That is, if it has not been adjusted with the recent patch.

DaviddesJ
Apr 21, 2006, 10:02 AM
but binary research is not the optimized option.

That is a totally separate question. Before, you claimed there was no benefit from it, which is false. (You used the word "useless".) Now you say that there are other ways to optimize your output, which is true. But your previous statements are still wrong.

Zombie69
May 19, 2006, 11:32 PM
I've just added a large section on whipping to the original article. A must read if you don't already abuse pop rushing (and the associated exploit) to the max.

DaviddesJ
May 20, 2006, 12:33 AM
Pop rushing is way overpowered in this game, and should be abused to the max if you intend to master this game. Part of the reason why it's so overpowered is because of a bad calculation that they haven't even bothered to fix in patch 1.61.

Some aspects of the problem were fixed, but, you're right that it still doesn't seem to be working right. :blush:

Zombie69
May 20, 2006, 01:13 AM
To their own admission, they only fixed a part of the problem that occured at speeds other than normal. At normal speed, it's just as buggy as it's ever been, because the part that they fixed didn't apply. And the part that they didn't fix also happens to matter at other speeds as well, it just wasn't as obvious as the part that they did fix. I hope i'm not being too obscure here!

DaviddesJ
May 20, 2006, 02:13 PM
"Failed to fix" is not the same as "didn't bother to fix". That's all I'm saying.

I will try to make sure this gets fixed in the expansion.

Zombie69
May 20, 2006, 03:08 PM
Which is useless as far as i'm concerned since i have no intention of buying the expansion. But thanks anyway.

I say failed to fix and didn't bother to fix are the same. Both problems were known and they only fixed one. That to me says didn't bother.

DaviddesJ
May 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
I say failed to fix and didn't bother to fix are the same. Both problems were known and they only fixed one. That to me says didn't bother.

If a person tries to hit the ball, but strikes out, would one say he "didn't bother" to get on base?

Zombie69
May 21, 2006, 02:13 AM
If i throw two balls at you, one after the other, and you don't even try hitting the second, then i can say you didn't bother with the second ball. We all knew there were two balls, yet they only bothered with the first one.

DaviddesJ
May 21, 2006, 02:17 AM
If i throw two balls at you, one after the other, and you don't even try hitting the second, then i can say you didn't bother with the second ball. We all knew there were two balls, yet they only bothered with the first one.

You're wrong. I guess there's nothing more to be said.

Zombie69
May 21, 2006, 02:36 AM
I was gonna say let's agree to disagree, but i guess you're not that civil.

I only play normal speed. The problem that they fixed never applied to me. It only applied to other speeds. The problem that did apply to me (which was obviously a different problem altogether) was never fixed.

Either they didn't know it existed (even though they could have found out just by reading the other thread properly, so this amounts to not bothering getting the information needed), or they knew it existed and didn't bother fixing it (and we've seen many times in the past how lazy their programming is, so this is also quite likely).

Beamup
May 21, 2006, 09:15 AM
Or they knew about it, attempted to fix it, and were unable to.

Codeman
May 21, 2006, 01:28 PM
perhaps the fix was not complete by the deadline to release the patch, or the fix was completed but caused other bigger problems. those working the different 'fixes' were probably given a deadlind, and did as much as could be done in the amount of time available. i think "didn't bother" is kind of a harsh judgement to make without having the insight of the other side of the story. i hope others give you little more credit. in your original post you missed several points others brought up in the thread. you yourself said you would need to include. i don't think you "didn't bother". we would never be so harsh...

ruff_hi
May 21, 2006, 03:03 PM
I would micromanage it this way. On the first turn, i will make him move 3 tiles. He still has 1/2 movement left. Then i ask him to make an improvement there. It could be anything i know i'll need there in the future. Then i cancel the order. Part of the improvement will already be done for later when i come back to it. For example, if i ask for a cottage (4 turns) and cancel, when i come back to it, there will only be 3 turns left to do. Therefore the turn hasn't been wasted.Zombie - when you come back to the tile that has had 1/4 cottage build on it - how do you know that it has 1/4 cottage and not 1/4 farm (or similar)?

Zombie69
May 21, 2006, 03:09 PM
Ruff_hi, read the first post of the second page. Roland explains it perfectly.

Codeman, please point me to those points that i need to include and i'll see what i can do.

ruff_hi
May 21, 2006, 03:18 PM
Ruff_hi, read the first post of the second page. Roland explains it perfectly.Thx Z - it doesn't fully answer the question. It only tells you how many turns to completion. I play different games at different speeds and haven't committed all of that information to memory (ie turns to chop @ normal, turns to cottage @ epic, etc). When I mouse over, it just says '3 turns to cottage' while I would have liked it to say '3 turns to cottage - 25% complete' or something similar.

Zombie69
May 21, 2006, 03:33 PM
If you don't know how many turns it normally takes, then just do the same with a tile you know hasn't been improved yet to compare the results.

Roland Johansen
May 22, 2006, 05:04 AM
Good addition on the whipping, Zombie. Whipping is really powerful, I agree. And the bug makes it even more powerful. I personally don't like the micromanagement that is needed to get the optimum power from it.

I would like to add one thing. Each farm that you use to facillitate the whipping could have been a developed cottage (or other good tile improvement). If you whip your city to be on average 2-3 sizes below it's maximum happiness/health level, then the cost of that is also 2-3 developed cottages not being used. I haven't done any calculations on this, but the costs could be quite high. Especially at the start of the game, when you need every penny to maintain your empire, these costs could maybe not be worth it in some cases.

Could you comment?

Zombie69
May 22, 2006, 03:44 PM
In most cases, i still use cottages rather than farm, and whip with whatever amount of food i have left, which is usually quite enough.

As for not using some tiles while growing back up, usually that's not so bad, but in tough to call cases i'll calculate the Food/Production/Commerce lost and compare that to the Production gained before deciding whether to whip. In general, this becomes less of a factor the more food surplus the city has because you regain your pop faster.

In addition, i try to whip in a way that only costs me marginal tiles. I try to keep all the really good tiles still in use after whipping, and decide how many pop points to whip accordingly.

Roland Johansen
May 22, 2006, 05:31 PM
Ok, thank you. Then I think that we roughly play the same (on this point at least) only you probably play a bit more precise with more calculation. I can't bring myself to do that kind of micromanagement as I generally play on huge maps.

I'm also still looking for ways to balance the game, haven't been playing a lot lately. But it's good to hear how a player like you looks at these things because I know that you really think about it and don't just do something because it sounds good.

Zombie69
May 22, 2006, 10:06 PM
I forgot to add something to the article. I'll add it right now.

Whenever you've got a big overflow from whipping, it's often a good idea to use that overflow on a worker or settler. This way, you're not wasting your time making them the normal way and getting only 1 hammer per food. Also, workers and settlers make good candidates to whip themselves for the same reason.

jar2574
May 23, 2006, 06:36 AM
I am not as much of a fan of whipping in my science centers. Here's my reasoning: In those places all I'm building is a granery, a library, maybe a market, and a university, Oxford University, etc...

I whip the granery if it's going to be finished shortly after a pop increase. But I don't usually whip the others, because my goal is to completely maximize the number of citizens working in cottages. That maximizes my science centers' output in later turns.

So if I have extra food available I'd love to use it by working more cottages rather than building more buildings (in science centers). The exception is where the city already has hit its happiness peak, and then whipping makes a little more sense (although I don't mind having one or two unhappy citizens waiting for me to connect another resources and start working a cottage.) Another exception is where I want to quickly finish my last couple universities, so that my capital can build Oxford.

But this discussion only applies to my science centers. Other places, where I'm focusing on production or GP farming are more likely to get the whip.

Codeman
May 23, 2006, 06:49 AM
Codeman, please point me to those points that i need to include and i'll see what i can do.

i thinik you've pretty well added most of your additional thoughts as well as the insight of some others. and thank you. i was only saying we all know the little things not in the original post weren't left out because you didn't bother. some of them you just needed to complete before including. but very informative and helpful article. thank you.

KrikkitTwo
May 23, 2006, 09:51 AM
I whip the granery if it's going to be finished shortly after a pop increase. But I don't usually whip the others, because my goal is to completely maximize the number of citizens working in cottages. That maximizes my science centers' output in later turns.
.

Note: the granary has been redesigned from previous civs so Slightly Before a pop increase is not much better than Slightly After a population increase.

If the Food box is filling for a pop increase, the earlier in that filling process the Granary is built, the better it is. (the more food will carry over)

Zombie69
May 23, 2006, 10:38 AM
But as you mentioned, and contrary to what jar2574 said, it's better before and not after. This is because to get back up two levels after whipping, you'll need 4 less food if doing it one level lower. But as you said, the sooner the better.

Zombie69
May 23, 2006, 10:41 AM
Codeman, i see your point now. But when they release what they're calling "the final patch", and glaring loopholes and bugs that were known a long time ago haven't been corrected in it, we're left with little hope and a lot of frustration.

DaviddesJ
May 23, 2006, 10:51 AM
Codeman, i see your point now. But when they release what they're calling "the final patch", and glaring loopholes and bugs that were known a long time ago haven't been corrected in it, we're left with little hope and a lot of frustration.

Most people will just buy the expansion if they care about the improvements, much as people bought PTW and C3C for the improvements in those expansions. You certainly don't have to pay them any more money if you don't want to, but you've spent more than $30 of your time already just in whining about it.

Zombie69
May 23, 2006, 11:15 AM
I didn't buy the expansions to Civ 3 and i enjoyed that game up until Civ 4 came out. If you release a product and it's flawed, it's your duty to correct it and having another product coming out soon is no excuse. Look at Blizzard, Starcraft came out in 1998 and i wouldn't be surprised to hear that they just released a new patch for it this month. Lots of companies could learn from Blizzard as far as support goes. And since i bought this game, i also bought the right to complain about it as much as i see fit.

Edit : Just for fun, i went out and checked. Patch 1.13f for Starcraft came out April 21 of this year. The changes in version 1.13f? "Fixed several bugs that contributed to game exploits." Remember we're talking about 8 years after the game came out. Last year alone, 7 patches were released for the game! All the patches are provided in two versions : one for the original game and one for the expansion (you only need one of them). Now that's support. Compare that to Civ 4, where only about 6 months after release and with a product still full of giant holes, they've deemed it wasn't worth supporting anymore. This is the last time i buy something from them, you can be sure of that.

jar2574
May 23, 2006, 04:06 PM
But as you mentioned, and contrary to what jar2574 said, it's better before and not after. This is because to get back up two levels after whipping, you'll need 4 less food if doing it one level lower. But as you said, the sooner the better.

Does this apply if I'm only whipping one citizen to finish the granery? I could have sworn that whipping shortly prior to a population increase allows you to regrow one pop much more quickly than whipping shortly after a population increase.

As I pointed out ealier, in my science center I hate to sacrifice any population. So when I do whip graneries in those cities it's only for one citizen, and I whip in cases where the granery would be finished after a population increase.

But from now on if I am sacrificing more than one citizen to build a granery, I will take the advice that you and Krikkitone offered, and whip earlier rather than later.

DaviddesJ
May 23, 2006, 05:03 PM
And since i bought this game, i also bought the right to complain about it as much as i see fit.

This is the last time i buy something from them, you can be sure of that.

Thank goodness you won't be whining about Civ 5.

DaviddesJ
May 23, 2006, 05:06 PM
Does this apply if I'm only whipping one citizen to finish the granery? I could have sworn that whipping shortly prior to a population increase allows you to regrow one pop much more quickly than whipping shortly after a population increase.

Suppose you're at size 4, and you whip one citizen, so you shrink to 3, and regrow to 4 next turn. Then you lost one tile of production (the difference between 3 and 4). Now suppose you grow to size 5 first, and you whip one citizen, so you shrink to 4. Then you're still giving up one tile of production. It's the same in both cases.

And, in the former case, you get a "benefit" of +2 food (because it costs 2 food less to grow from 3->4 than 4->5), which offsets the lost tile of production.

Zombie69
May 23, 2006, 11:53 PM
Does this apply if I'm only whipping one citizen to finish the granery? I could have sworn that whipping shortly prior to a population increase allows you to regrow one pop much more quickly than whipping shortly after a population increase.

As I pointed out ealier, in my science center I hate to sacrifice any population. So when I do whip graneries in those cities it's only for one citizen, and I whip in cases where the granery would be finished after a population increase.

But from now on if I am sacrificing more than one citizen to build a granery, I will take the advice that you and Krikkitone offered, and whip earlier rather than later.

If you only sacrifice one pop, then you'll only gain 2 food by doing it before the increase, rather than 4 food. However, in any case, every extra turn you wait also costs you half of the food you're currently making. In the case of the granary, you should always whip the second the option becomes open to do it with 2 pop points. This way, you'll actually operate more tiles, not less.

Zombie69
May 27, 2006, 07:13 PM
Update :

- Added a tip in the last paragraph of the prechop and pre-improve section regarding prebuilding improvements over forests.

- Added a bit about organized religion in the quick tips section.

- Added a paragraph at the end of the binary science section regarding science percentages at the beginning of the game which minimize lost fractions from the prerequisite tech bonus.

- Moved the sections around to put the most popular ones first and for more consistency between sections (for instance, chopping naturally follows worker movement, and prebuilding units naturally follows prebuilding improvements).

VirusMonster
May 31, 2006, 12:11 PM
However, the game always gives you an amount of hammers that's the smallest multiple of 30 needed to complete the build. This is total hammers, not base hammers. So in the case above, you'll get 60 hammers because 30 wouldn't be enough to complete it.



What about marathon speed where 1 pop hurry results in 90 hammers? Let's say I whip when 1+((90/5)*4)=73 hammers are needed. I have organized religion thus (73*5)/4=91,25 hammers are added from the whip. Now, how many hammers do I receive in total? 90, 120(90+30), or 180(90+90)?

Zombie69
Jun 01, 2006, 08:08 AM
I always play on normal speed, so you'll have to test it out yourself at other speeds. Sorry but i can't help you there!

As for your specific question, since the hammers needed are less than what you get from one pop increase, you won't get anymore than that (so you should get 90). Next time, try to whip when more than 90 hammers are needed, and look at how many pop points it says it will cost before you click.

malekithe
Jun 03, 2006, 02:56 AM
There aren't many sweet spots for whipping on Marathon. Your immediate target should be 91-113 hammers remaining for a building with a 25% production bonus. This will get you 120 hammers for the cost of 1 population. A similar sweet spot doesn't happen again until 211-226, when you get 240 hammers for 2 population.

I set up a spreadsheet to calculate optimal times to whip. You can adjust the base hammer output to the speed you normally play. Basically, it's a simple look-up table where you find the hammers left in the project and the production bonus in the city. There's a sample below, and the full spreadsheet is attached. If you need to add more rows, just copy the last row and paste it as many times as needed.

Left Receive 0 25 50 75 100 125
26 30 100% 80% 67% 57% 50% 44%
27 30 100% 80% 67% 57% 50% 44%
28 30 100% 80% 67% 57% 50% 44%
29 30 100% 80% 67% 57% 50% 44%
30 30 100% 80% 67% 57% 50% 44%
31 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
32 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
33 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
34 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
35 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
36 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
37 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
38 60 100% 160% 133% 114% 100% 89%
39 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
40 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
41 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
42 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
43 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
44 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
45 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
46 60 100% 80% 133% 114% 100% 89%
47 60 100% 80% 67% 114% 100% 89%


EDIT: I make no guarantees regarding the accuracy of the spreadsheet. I've tested it some, but by no means thoroughly.

EDIT2: Updated the spreadsheet to include hammers granted from the reapplication of the production bonus to the overflow hammers.

EDIT3: Undid most of EDIT2 (it was incorrect), fixed some problems with non-normal speeds.

Zombie69
Jun 03, 2006, 06:53 AM
Sounds like there are relatively exactly as many sweet spots as in normal speed (just multiplying by 3). However, they may span over relatively more numbers in normal speed.

In normal speed, the first sweet spot is between 31 and 37. In marathon, between 91 and 113. It spans over 7 hammers in normal speed and over 23 hammers in marathon. So far they're equivalent.

The second sweet spot in normal is between 72 and 89. In marathon, according to you it's between 211 and 226. It spans over 18 hammers in normal and 16 hammers in marathon. Here normal speed has a huge advantage.

The 3rd sweet spot in normal is theoretically between 96 and 119. It spans over 24 hammers, still a good one.

You may be right that it's easier to do in normal speed. However, whatever the speed, sweet spots do exist and can be aimed for. After a while, you learn to build all your projects to one of the sweet spots, then put them in queue waiting for your next pop rush. It's extremely effective.

Zombie69
Jun 03, 2006, 06:56 AM
I also want to point out that the percentages presented in your table seem to assume that you get no bonus after the immediate one during pop rushing. This is false, as any amount that overflows then gets the normal bonus applied to it as well as whatever it has already received. Call it another bug or another exploit.

malekithe
Jun 03, 2006, 03:11 PM
I also want to point out that the percentages presented in your table seem to assume that you get no bonus after the immediate one during pop rushing. This is false, as any amount that overflows then gets the normal bonus applied to it as well as whatever it has already received. Call it another bug or another exploit.

Thanks. I had forgotten about that. I updated the spreadsheet and the sample table to include that bonus.

KrikkitTwo
Jun 04, 2006, 11:56 AM
I also want to point out that the percentages presented in your table seem to assume that you get no bonus after the immediate one during pop rushing. This is false, as any amount that overflows then gets the normal bonus applied to it as well as whatever it has already received. Call it another bug or another exploit.


Actually any amount that overflows First has the Bonuses from the last build removed and Then is added in to get the Bonuses form the next build.

So assuming you are building the same type of thing, it has no effective 'extra bonus'

Zombie69
Jun 05, 2006, 06:24 AM
I was about to post the same thing, after finding out about it when looking carefully in my current game. Thanks for beating me to it and sorry for misleading!

malekithe
Jun 06, 2006, 02:43 AM
I just did a little more experimenting, verifying the numbers I had for non-normal speeds. Turns out, for the most part, I was way off. Apparently, in 1.61, they fixed the problem where non-normal speeds would still always give hammers from pop-rushing in multiples of 30. Now, they give hammers in the correct multiples for the speed you're playing (20, 30, 44, 90). Well, somewhat correct, the 44 on epic is a little unusual.

Other speeds do still have the production bonus bug that allows you to get more hammers than you're supposed to out of a pop-rush. The main thing that changed is: pop-rushing on epic will always give at least 44 hammers, whereas before, if you pop-rushed something that needed < 30, you'd only get 30. Also, you no longer get a free bonus for pop-rushing something that has 31-44 left. Before, you'd get 60 hammers for your one pop on epic. Now, you get the "expected" 44. So, they fixed some of the bugs, but still left the production bonus one for us to exploit.

I updated my spreadsheet (again...) to reflect this. I also removed the calculation I had recently added that incorrectly applied the production bonus again to the overflow hammers.

Shigga
Jun 06, 2006, 07:45 AM
This thread is a huge piece of nerdism if I've ever seen one- but I like it. :D I little too much emphasis on pop rushing imho but that's just b/c I never use slavery, but I love the part about workers. :)

Brancaleone
Jun 07, 2006, 12:45 PM
I dowloaded the spreadsheet, and it looks very useful, but unfortunatelly my english is very weak, since i learnd it by myself. Im here wrestling my enligh dictionary and i cant understand how the spreadsheet "works". I changed the number in the yellow cell to 90 since i always play in marathon, but i cant understand how a city with 250% production bonus can have a efficiency of 29% by rushing something when 1 hammer is left. Dosent the hammers from the sacrifice get multiplied as well? So thats 90h x 250% = 315 hammers out of 1 pop lost, thats alot! Rushing 1 pop when finishing something in order to speed the construction of a wonder or something seems a good idea, since so many hammers will overflow; but not according to this spreadsheet. Can someone give me 'pratical examples'?

Those words in the spreadsheet have each 4 or so different meanings in my dictionary, i tried writing them with a different combinations of those meanings and that didnt helped! damn language barriers..

malekithe
Jun 07, 2006, 01:12 PM
I'm at work now, but this evening I'll check up on the output from the scenario you describe. I haven't done much testing on Marathon, so there's a decent chance I'm wrong.

It sounds like you're reading the spreadsheet accurately for the most part, though. I'm not sure which words with 4 meanings you're talking about... let me know and I'll try to clarify.

That 29% efficiency is based upon getting only 90 hammers when you expected 315. That part I'm sure of. What I'm not sure about, is how the overflow hammers would actually be calculated. My current understanding is that, if you had 89 overflow with a 250% bonus, the 89 would have the bonus un-applied and be reduced to 25. Then, they'd re-apply the bonus for the next item in the queue (still 250% in this case) and get back up to ~89.

EDIT: Confirmed that my understanding was reflected in-game. On Marathon with a 250% bonus, rushing something with 1 hammer remaining only gets you 90 total hammers for your 1 population spent.

Jayhawk_Colin
Jun 08, 2006, 04:24 AM
Wow, you got way to much time on your hands. And I thought I was a civ junkie.

Zombie69
Jun 09, 2006, 10:47 AM
but i cant understand how a city with 250% production bonus can have a efficiency of 29% by rushing something when 1 hammer is left. Dosent the hammers from the sacrifice get multiplied as well?

Short answer : no.

In plain (to you) French :

L'ordinateur calcule combien do population ça te prend pour terminer la production. Pour ce calcul, il tient en compte ton bonus. Ensuite, il te donne une quantité de marteaux qui est le multiple de 30 (90 à la vitesse marathon) le plus bas nécessaire pour terminer ta production. Ce montant n'est pas multiplié par ton bonus. Donc, s'il reste 90 marteaux ou moins à faire à la production, ça te coûtera 1 point de population et ça te donnera exactement 90 marteaux, peu importe le bonus que tu as normalement. Dans le cas d'un bonus de 250%, tu obtiens donc 90 marteaux au lieu de 90 fois 350% (250% plus le 100% de base). 90 marteaux au lieu de 315, ça donne 28.6% de ce que tu devrais avoir si le jeu était programmé comme il faut.

Zombie69
Jun 09, 2006, 10:57 AM
Malekithe, you might want to make tests at different speeds and refine your table accordingly. Because of the way the game multiplies (i.e. without keeping fractions between operations), the numbers are sometimes slightly off. In most cases (e.g. case A below), it doesn't make a big difference. In some cases however (e.g. case B below), it makes a pretty big difference.

Here are some examples at normal speed.

A. 25% bonus, get 60 hammers from 1 pop (i.e. 2 for the price of 1)
You can do this with anywhere between 31 and 38 hammers left to production. Normally, it should have been between 31 and 37.

B. 50% bonus, get 120 hammers from 2 pop (i.e. 4 for the price of 2)
Normally, you shouldn't be able to do this at all. With 2 pop, you should always get exactly 90 hammers, getting no bonus and no malus. However, due to rounding errors, with 91 hammers left (possibly also with 92, i haven't checked), you can get 120 hammers while only paying for 60 base hammers. Precisely 91 hammers is a new sweet spot i'll now be looking for at 50% bonus, since i discovered it yesterday.

malekithe
Jun 09, 2006, 01:04 PM
Actually, (to my surprise) both of those cases are covered in the spreadsheet, at least on normal speed. I try to truncate the numbers as appropriately as possible. The main thing I'm unsure of is the order of opperations. The formula I've settled on gives correct results for every scenario I've tested on normal. I'm positive there are some issues at other speeds, though. The code in the SDK that relates to pop-rushing has been a pain to crawl through (probably why the bugs are there to begin with). I've given up at it twice so far, but each time I've come away having learned something new. I'll give the code another look this weekend and see if I can't glean anything new.

The spreadsheet may be especially inaccurate for Epic, as the 44 hammers per pop is a bit misleading. In reality, it's (30 / 0.67) hammers per pop which gets rounded down to 44. I imagine, though, if you sacrifice enough population, you can get around the rounding "error" and get back a few hammers here and there. There are strange inaccuracies on Quick as well, leading me to believe that I'm applying the game speed modifier at the wrong time. Marathon seems to be fairly accurate, though, at least as far as I've tested.

Also of note, in addition to your scenario B, there's another very efficient spot at 61 hammers left with a 100% production bonus. You get 90 hammers, having only sacrificed one point of population. Probably not as useful, as few cities, if any, in my games ever get much above a 50% bonus.

EDIT: The formula I was using was surprisingly close. After figuring out what the code was doing, though, I've put in the correct formula. Any errors in the spreadsheet now would be very surprising.

Zombie69
Jun 09, 2006, 01:15 PM
Nice catch. Actually, i find it much more useful than the one i pointed out, because any city with 50% bonus can already get 2 for 1 by whipping 1 pop instead of 2, while a city with 100% bonus can't get any extra at any point normally.

In my current game (where i found out about the 91 spot), almost all my cities have 50% bonus (organized religion + forge), but my capital is at 100% (because of bureaucracy). Now i've already made all the buildings that can be made in my capital, and it's at about +5 unhappiness from pop rushing alone; but if i had known about this 61 spot earlier, it would have come really handy.

I should really install winzip on my computer and take a look at your file!

RemoWilliams
Jun 09, 2006, 05:38 PM
Hmm... I've always thought slavery was overpowered, but I never really understood how much.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can bring myself to use this strat on marathon game speed, with 30 turn unhappiness penalties. I know the game speeds are theoretically balanced, but 30 turns is a really long time.

However, it may give me an excuse to switch back to normal speed. The main reason I play marathon is that it makes early war so much easier, because your units only take 100 years to march to their destination, instead of 1000. But this might be offset somewhat if I pop rush units, something I really never do.

What do you think?

DaviddesJ
Jun 09, 2006, 05:51 PM
However, it may give me an excuse to switch back to normal speed. The main reason I play marathon is that it makes early war so much easier, because your units only take 100 years to march to their destination, instead of 1000. But this might be offset somewhat if I pop rush units, something I really never do.

What do you think?

I think it's really better to try to ignore these glitches, until (hopefully) they get fixed. You're not going to enjoy the game more if you turn it into an artificial exercise in exploiting bugs. At least, I doubt it.

Zombie69
Jun 09, 2006, 06:16 PM
I think if you want the easiest game (you said you play marathon because it's easier to wage war), then you should remain on marathon AND whip. 30 turns on marathon is no worse than 10 turns on normal speed. Like it says in the article, whip 'til your hands bleed!

The Tyrant
Jun 10, 2006, 01:46 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think I can bring myself to use this strat on marathon game speed, with 30 turn unhappiness penalties. I know the game speeds are theoretically balanced, but 30 turns is a really long time.
I always play marathon speed because otherwise the eras just fly by and units become obsolete too quickly for my taste. Even on marathon speed, though, I'll whip like crazy. Thirty turns sounds like a lot of time, but things in general are slowed down. The way I look at it, instead of asking "How long will whipping cause unhappiness?" I ask "What are my options?" Invariably, whipping turns out to be one of the best options. If so, then it doesn't matter that the unhappiness lasts 30 turns. The best option is the best option.

DeafDolphin
Jun 12, 2006, 12:53 PM
"For a nice spreadsheet showing the points that provide more hammers than you paid for at each game speed, see this file graciously provided by Malekithe."

I tried to get the file.. and got this:

"Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator."

Zombie69
Jun 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
I just fixed the link. I have no idea why the URL changed. I hope it won't keep doing this.

DeafDolphin
Jun 12, 2006, 01:40 PM
I just fixed the link. I have no idea why the URL changed. I hope it won't keep doing this.
Thanks, man! :goodjob:

malekithe
Jun 12, 2006, 04:32 PM
I have no idea why the URL changed. I hope it won't keep doing this.

Probably because I updated it over the weekend. I don't anticipate any more updates, so this shouldn't be an issue anymore.

Compromise
Jun 12, 2006, 11:48 PM
Since whipping is best exploited when you have a production bonus, I'm wondering how much you prioritize getting to Metalcasting and forges. In general, is this something you do before heading for writing the tech paths that opens up?

Zombie69
Jun 13, 2006, 12:09 AM
Very good question!

I prioritze granaries, as those are much more important than the 25% bonus. Granaries always double the power of whipping, while the 25% bonus only doubles it if you rush one pop at a time, and requires micromanagement which may otherwise be detrimental to you (e.g. forcing you to wait a few more turns before whipping, thereby getting the building later, although for lower cost).

I do try to get either forges (usually a priority if industrious, because of cheap forges) or organized religion (more a priority if spiritual) sooner than rather, but i don't plan my entire tech tree on getting one of those at the detriment of everything else.

Since i play at very high difficulty levels (immortal and deity), happiness is a huge issue. This is compounded by the use of slavery. Therefore techs that allow me to increase my happiness limit are often more of a priority to me than those that increase my whipping production. Sometimes though, these are one and the same. If i have one or more of gold, silver or gem, forges can provide happiness as well as more efficient whipping. In that case, i definitely prioritize metal casting more.

As with everything else, it depends. But certainly i prioritize metal casting more than someone who wouldn't use the whip this way, even if i don't necessarily make it a priority from the very start.

At game start, my first two priorities are always :
1. Bronze working, so that i can switch to slavery and start whipping, which is efficient even without bonus and without granary. The facts it also allows me to chop, find copper and build axemen are all very nice, but even with no forest and no intention of using copper, i still would go for bronze working first if only for slavery.
2. Pottery, for granaries. Access to cottages is also very nice, since i always play financial civs.

After that, it depends on many factors, and i'll probably get metal casting sooner than later, but it's not an immediate priority.

Compromise
Jun 13, 2006, 05:11 PM
Thanks for the prioritization insight. Very sensible.

[Edit: Here begins a series of posts wherein I disagree with Zombie69 about some details. You might enjoy the reading, but the end result from here to post 276 is that 1) Zombie69 is right. Follow his advice on whipping if you want to optimize your city's productivty and 2) in a particular case where you might (I did) think working mines for productivity in a commerce city would be a good idea, whipping still came out as about 16% better in both productivity and commerce.]

I'm still working out the whipping micromanagement ideas for myself. I'm trying to frame it in terms of "opportunity cost". Bear with me as I think as I write, if you will.

Say you have a city that's happiness limited to size 5 and you've got at least that much health. Using the whip every 10 turns essentially makes this a size 4 city. It sounds like the best return you can get from your whip with a 25% production bonus is 60 hammers for 1 pop. Assuming your food situation is such that you can grow back that one pop in the 10 turns of unhappiness, you're essentially trading 1 pop point for 60 hammers/10 turns. That's a mine and a half, which is awesome and is why you exploit it.

If you whip more than one citizen, your opportunity cost goes up because it'll take you time to bring that citizen back online. So, if you whip from size 5 to size 3, you're out 2 tiles instead of one until you get to size 4, your new happiness limit.

You micromanage so that on the 10th turn, you grow from size 4 to size 5 and so never have to pay civic costs on an unhappy citizen.

So from an opportunity cost point of view if you whip at size (NormalMaxPop=5), the tradeoff is:

Whip Option: However many hammers you get for your whip

versus

Opportunity Cost: Last Marginal tile's use for 10 turns (due to unhappiness) + Other marginal tiles use for fewer than 10 turns because you have to grow your pop back to NormalMaxPop-1.

If you are keeping an unhappy citizen or two around and whipping them, then your opportunity cost is your Last Marginal Tile x 10 turns plus the increased civic maintenance of the unhappy citizens (assuming you have surplus food to feed then and still grow back to the point where you whipped).

I seem to recall reading that although it depends on the cost of the civics you're running, civic costs are around 0.5 GPT per population point. That would imply that unless your marginal tiles are unimproved (and why would you do that if you can at all help it?!), you are probably better off always running your city at NormalMaxPop-1 or greater and only whipping citizens who are unhappy for reasons other than previous whips.

Do I have it?

Zombie69
Jun 13, 2006, 11:36 PM
Assuming your food situation is such that you can grow back that one pop in the 10 turns of unhappiness, you're essentially trading 1 pop point for 60 hammers/10 turns. That's a mine and a half, which is awesome and is why you exploit it.

6 hammers per turn is a lot more than a mine and a half. Heck, it's more than two mines. In fact, it's better than three mines! Imagine 2 grassland mines. They give you 6 hammers, and cost you 2 food (because staying two pop below instead of working them gives you a net food surplus that's two points higher). 3 grassland mines give you +9 hammers and -3 food. If you consider 3 food to be worth the same as 3 hammers, then that's the same as +6 hammers. If like me, you consider one food to be worth more than 1 hammer (notably because you can whip 11 food into 60 hammers), then you must conclude that 6 hammers per turn is actually even better than 3 grassland mines. As for plains mines, they're even weaker, so let's not even go there.

The only reason not to whip every 10 turns is if the city has very low food and can't grow sufficiently to get to its max size. For any city that has at least +3 food (which only requires at least one tile with 3+ food, since the city tile itself gives you +2 food), you're always, and i do mean ALWAYS, better off whipping at least every 10 turns, and definitely whip as soon as there's no unhappiness anymore from the whip. For any city that has at least one 3+ food tile, you should always have at least -1 unhappiness due to the whip, permanently.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 01:23 PM
Hi Zombie69,

Thanks for the replies; I appreciate the attention. But I hope you'll bear with me a little longer, because I think I'm still not seeing the whip as the super deal you have described it as, at least not without a good amount of micromanaging.

I've set up a little experiment on paper. (Away from the game at the moment.) nF means n food. nH means n hammers. Size 6(30) means size 6 with 30 food in the food bar. +nF or -nF means the extra/deficit food, so a farmed grassland is 3F because it produces 3 food, but +1F because it takes 2 food to feed the citizen who's working that tile. Here's the setup:

Look at one city and concentrate only on food an production (we're trying to maximize production. Your only building is a granary. Playing at normal speed. Your happiness limit is 7. Your health limit is at least that, say 10.

You have just grown your city from size 6 to size 7, so all your people are happy and working. More people would be unhappy. It took (20 + 6x2 =) 32 food to grow so you have 16 food in the bank from the granary: size 7(16).

The tiles surrounding your city are 1 grassland pigs with a pasture (6F), and as many mined grassland hills (1F3H) and irrigated pre-biology farms (3F) as you want. Your city is located on a normal square and is 2F1H.

To maximize production and not grow, you would set your 7 citizens to work the pigs and 6 grassland hill mines. Per turn, and including the city center, that's:

Center(+2F1H), Pigs (+4F), 6 GHMines (6 x -1F3H): Total 0F 19H

If you work that setup for 10 turns, you get no growth and 190 hammers.

Below, I've separated the Turn numbers (what you see when you look at your cities during your turn), from the calculation (where the game runs the update and the AI's turns.

In the whip case you have:
Turn 0: (whip) 7(16) --> 6(16) + Whip Hammers
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 1: 6(17)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 2: 6(18)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 3: 6(19)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 4: 6(20)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 5: 6(21)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 6: 6(22)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 7: 6(23)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 8: 6(24)
. . City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 5 grass hill mines (5x-1F+3H): +1F +16H
Turn 9: 6(25)
. . Work City(+2F1H), pig(+4F), 3 farms(3x+1F), 2 GH mines(2x-1F3H): +7F +7H
Turn 10 6(32) --> 7(16) pop growth
. . This is back to where we started, so we can whip again (or not!)

After ten turns...
Non-whip total: 0F +190H
Whip total: 0F +(16x9 + 1x7 + Whip = 151+Whip)H

So, you get 190 hammers over 10 turns from not whipping and 151+whip hammers from whipping and working as many production tiles as you can. You need to get 39 un-bonused hammers per whip to get the same total number of hammers as the no-whip case.

This implies that it hurts not to be working improved tiles. And unhappy citizens, such as those incurred by cracking the whip, can't work improved tiles.

There are many things neglected in this analysis:

1) Exactly what tiles you have--and whether or not you've improved them--makes a difference.
2) When you get those hammers can make a (big?) difference. (Aaahh...sneak attack!)
3) What your population size is and what your happy/health limits are make a difference.
4) Whether or not there is a production bonus makes a difference, and when you have a production bonus, you're also looking at the possibility of roundoff losses.

But unless I made some error--definitely possible!--I think you have to be exploiting an error in the pop-to-hammers calculation to get more total hammers over the total turns. I think the absolute best you can do is 48H/pop. Here, that would be a total of 211 compared to 190 hammers over 10 turns, or about 2H per turn (and you get many of them up front). But you have to get more than 39 hammers per whip to get a better-than-not-whip total number of hammers. [Edit: I had originall used 60H/pop, but Zombie69 points out that it is 48H+25% bonus. So to be fair you compare to 48 base hammers. This particular example doesn't use a production bonus, but the issue is discussed below.]

I realize that you need to have a production bonus of some kind to exploit the pop->hammers bug, but here I think I'm showing that without a production bonus, whipping will actually net you fewer hammers than you'd otherwise get. (Though again, you do get them sooner!)

For the example above, if you added a forge for a 25% production bonus, you'd lose 0.75H per turn in the no-whip case because of roundoff, but this is just an example. In real-life, you would have different tiles and might be able to micromanage to get most of that back, so maybe 6 or 7 extra hammers over 10 turns for the no-whip case. That's about the bonus (7) that you'd be getting from the population point too if it were calculated correctly.

It seems to me that unless there's an error in my analysis (and somebody please check it to find out!) that it is possible to use the whip to get more hammers than you otherwise would, but:

1) you need lots of micromanagement,
2) you need to exploit the pop-to-hammers calculation error
3) the max benefit is around 2H/turn which is less appealing the bigger your city is.

If that analysis is correct, then the take-home lesson is, Whip when:

1) you need/want it finished right now
2) the last tile your city is working is unimproved
3) you really like optimizing and are willing to extremely micromanage and take advantage of the bug for a max 2H/turn/city increase in hammers.

If I made an error, let me know by post or PM, and I'll correct the analysis so that readers don't have to flip between posts to find out the truth.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 02:16 PM
The main issues i have with your analysis are these :

1. You'll rarely, if ever, have a city with 6 grassland hills. Any other type of tile (not counting bonuses like iron and such) will give more advantage to the whipping method, and less to the stagnant method. For instance, try a more likely scenario with 2 grassland hills, 2 plains hills and 2 grassland farms. Same food output, but only 14 hammers instead of 18.

2. You neglected commerce. One of the main strengths of the whip method is to be able to completely neglect any kind of normal hammer production, as well as farms most of the time. Both mines and farms are inferior compared to cottages. Whipping means you don't need mines anymore for your production. Since you don't need mines anymore, then you don't need farms anymore to support the mines. Use only grassland cottages, no mines and no farms. Whip every 10 turns to get all the production you need, and still make tons of money, and still let your cottages grow because you're working nothing but cottages! The whip provides enough production for me in all my games that except for one production city, all my cities will actually have cottages on grassland hills, not mines! Also cottages on floodplains, cottages on flat grassland, cottages on flat plains, cottages on river tundra... you get the idea.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 03:08 PM
I think my example (long-winded though it is) is misleading. The only thing that matters is the last tile that you're either working or not working. In my example, the only thing that's different regarding the tiles the city is working between the whip and the not-whip case is that the no-whip case can work a tile that the whipped city can't. You can replace the pigs and first 5 grassland hills with anything you want, including food-self-sufficient (or food-surplus) cottages.

The point is that when you're at size MaxHappy and you want a little production, you have the choice of:

1) Whip. Over 10 turns, your Cost/Return is -(HoweverManyFoodToReplacePop)F +(30+bonuses)H

or

2) Don't whip. If you have a single grassland hill mine that your city isn't already working, then your Cost/Return is that of working the grassland hill mine for 10 turns: -10F +(30+bonuses)H.

Since "HoweverManyFood..." is always going to be greater than 10, your biggest benefit to the whip is getting the hammers earlier.

And this neglects the food you have to accumulate to replace your population. If food isn't an issue, then your marginal tile might be a plains hill mine (-20F +40H over 10 turns) or a quarry or metal mine (even more H). -20F might be more food than it takes to replace your population, but 4H/turn is guaranteed not to lose any hammers to production bonus (if multiples of 25%) rounding, and the assumption here is that food isn't a problem.

If you do have to pull citizens off of more productive tiles (e.g. cottages or mined tiles depending on the city's focus) in order to produce food to regrow your population, then those are lost citizen-turns that you're not getting the benefit you want in this city.

So you can still feel to cottage everything in sight (and I agree that farms with +1F and mines with +2H are pretty pathetic compared to cottages), but just save a production tile or two until you've got your infrastructure in place or have run out of places to put your other improvements. Then replace the grass hill mine with a cottage and/or the plains hill mine with a windmill.

Bottom line: having at least one productive tile that your city is not otherwise using means that the normal route of production will be competitive with whipping and might require less micromanaging.

Ironically, having that one tile is probably easier to find in a non-production city than a production one, especially as your happy limit rises. If you're working all the mines and quarries you can, the next tile you can work might not be good for production, and so you whip away the citizen who would be trying to work it.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 03:25 PM
I think my example (long-winded though it is) is misleading. The only thing that matters is the last tile that you're either working or not working. In my example, the only thing that's different regarding the tiles the city is working between the whip and the not-whip case is that the no-whip case can work a tile that the whipped city can't. You can replace the pigs and first 5 grassland hills with anything you want, including food-self-sufficient (or food-surplus) cottages.

My point is that your whip scenario was very inefficient. It would have been better to work no mine at all there and all cottages. In that case, your non-whip scenario still looks good next to it, but taking away the unrealistically numerous grassland hills would then make it look rather weak compared to whipping.

2) Don't whip. If you have a single grassland hill mine that your city isn't already working, then your Cost/Return is that of working the grassland hill mine for 10 turns: -10F +(30+bonuses)H.

Ok, this is a valid point. Especially since i'm typically not using any grassland hill at all, so there's a decent chance of having one free for use. However, how about cities without any grassland hills? Those are, after all, pretty common.

Now that i think about it some more, no it's not a valid point, even if you do have a grassland hill available. Like i said, cottages are better. Therefore, you should replace the first 5 mines in both of your original scenarios above with 5 grassland cottages. What happens then in the case with no whipping? Excess food. How do you use that excess food? You whip. Since excess food is almost always easy to get without a single farm, that's why whipping is almost always worth using. That was my original stance and it's still valid. That is, for any city that can have at least +3 food without a single farm (which in typical games of mine is about 90% of my cities), you should always whip every 10 turns.

And this neglects the food you have to accumulate to replace your population. If food isn't an issue, then your marginal tile might be a plains hill mine (-20F +40H over 10 turns) or a quarry or metal mine (even more H). -20F might be more food than it takes to replace your population, but 4H/turn is guaranteed not to lose any hammers to production bonus (if multiples of 25%) rounding, and the assumption here is that food isn't a problem.

Food may not be a problem, but more food can always be turned into more hammer very efficiently using the whip, so more food is always good. A plains hill is actually a rather crappy tile that i would never use with anything but a windmill, and even then avoid if there's anything else i could use instead (including a plains cottage, even that would be better).

Bottom line: having at least one productive tile that your city is not otherwise using means that the normal route of production will be competitive with whipping and might require less micromanaging.

It won't be, because you neglected the excess food that's obtained from not using 5 mines. This excess food is most efficiently used through whipping.

Again, try your example above but replace the first 5 mines with 5 cottages. You'll see that no matter how you slice it, you'll end up whipping, and whipping often.

malekithe
Jun 14, 2006, 03:35 PM
If I made an error, let me know by post or PM, and I'll correct the analysis so that readers don't have to flip between posts to find out the truth.

While not an error, per se, I do have a problem with one aspect of your analysis. You're looking at a situation in which the mariginal tile is a very productive tile, designed to do exactly the same thing the pop-rushing does; generate a lot of hammers given a food supply. A grassland hill converts food to hammers at a ratio of 1:3 which, you'll note, is better than the conversion rate for slavery at 6 population (~1:2). What you've shown, essentially, is that pop-rushing is sometimes not worthwhile in cities focused on hammer production, or cities that still have mined hills they are able or willing to work. I pretty much took that as a given. However, in some (most) cities, you can't readily obtain that 1:3 conversion ratio, and, as such, you need to settle for a lower ratio. Slavery is the most readily available efficient hammer source through most of the early game.

Additionally, relying on hills to convert your food to hammers can only convert as much food as you have hills available. Slavery, on the other hand, is only (possibly) limited by your available population cap, as you can whip multiple citizens at a time. What this means is: cities with plenty of hills available and a relatively small food surplus are better off mining most of the time. However, any city that does not have abundant hills, or does possess a large food surplus, will find it can more efficiently produce hammers through the whip.

Also, as Zombie pointed out, employing slavery as your food-to-hammers converter often allows you to continue to work (and grow!) commerce generating tiles.

Note: Both you and Zombie added another post while I was working on this, but after reading over your comments, I still think this adds to the discussion.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 04:23 PM
Just to make a nice, easy to understand conclusion. You've shown that with +1 food (what we have in your example at pop 6) and being already at max pop, whipping is slightly better. You would find that at +2 food, whipping becomes even better compared to not whipping, at +3 food it would become even better, and at +6 food (which you'd get by replacing all the mines with superior cottages), whipping would be a total no brainer.

From personal experience, like i said before, +3 food is the point where i start whipping constantly and never go below +1 unhappiness through whipping. At +2 food, i'll whip a lot, but not constantly, since the city must be allowed to grow. At +1 food, the city is so crappy i wonder why you'd even want to make such a city! But if i have one such city, i won't whip at all unless it's at max pop, and then only whip one pop so that it can have a chance to grow back up.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 04:24 PM
Again, try your example above but replace the first 5 mines with 5 cottages. You'll see that no matter how you slice it, you'll end up whipping, and whipping often.

Okay. But all that matters is the very last tile!

Using the +/- food surplus for the tile, not absolute food produced.

No whip:

10 turns of:
. . .Center: +2F 1H 1C
. . .5 x BestTownsOnGrassWithAllCivicsOnRiverWithFinancial: 5 x +0F 1H 9C
. . .(We don't need the pig for grassland, so let's make it a cottage as above): +0F1H9C
. . .1 x GrassHillMine: 1 x -1F3H
. . . . .Total: 10 x +1F 10H 55C => +10F +100H +550C
. . . . .Note: all 10 food is wasted because we don't want to grow

Whip: (warning: cut and pasted and edited...an error-generating process!)
Turn 0: (whip) 7(16) --> 6(16) + Whip Hammers
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 1: 6(18)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 2: 6(20)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 3: 6(22)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 4: 6(24)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 5: 6(26)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 6: 6(28)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 7: 6(30)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 8: 6(30) (Note: 2 Food wasted because we don't grow and pay unhappy support)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 9: 6(30) (Note: 2 Food wasted because we don't grow and pay unhappy support)
. . City(+2F1H1C), 6 BestCottages (6 x +0F 1H 9C): +2F +7H +55C
Turn 10 6(32) --> 7(16) pop growth
. . This is back to where we started, so we can whip again (or not!)

Total: +4F (wasted to prevent civic-cost popgrowth)
+(70+whip)H
+550C

Comparison:
. . Whip: 70+whip hammers; 550C
. . Nowhip: 100 hammers, 550C

All that matters is the last tile! With the food surplus, both routes waste food, though the nonwhip wastes less. Commerce is exactly the same and comes on the same turns. That's because both techniques use the same tiles, except that in the whip case we can't use a tile, and in the nowhip case we use it for production (to try to match the productivity of the whip.

So: whip=30 hammers now, nowhip = 3/turn over next 10 turns.

It gets better for the no-whip case!: Use those 10 wasted food (and remember that's left over after giving 1 food per turn to a grass hill mine) to feed a plains hill mine instead of a grass hill. Now, the nowhip is 110 hammers and 550 commerce.

In that case, your choice is whip for 30 hammers now versus 4/turn for the next 10 turns!

And what if you happen to have just one quarry around a commerce city?!

I agree that whipping is a good way to get production in a city whose last tile is not very hammerlific.

And I agree that there is an exploitable bug in the computation of pop->hammers for the whip.

And I agree that if your production isn't a multiple of 4 in each turn, you'll probably get better rounding results from getting all your hammers in one blow and thus one roundoff, rather than fractional losses in each turn.

But I think the way to evaluate whether or not to whip has everything to do with the opportunity cost of the would-be unhappy citizen. What's he gonna do if you don't throw him into the cement mixer to increase the volume?

@malekithe: Just noticed your post. I agree that it depends on having a productive marginal tile. I also agree with the limits of the number of hills. For just these reasons, and I know it's ironic, but whipping might be most useful in production cities with a food resource or two (as it runs out of mines to work) rather than a commerce city with only one hammerlific tile!

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
A grassland hill converts food to hammers at a ratio of 1:3 which, you'll note, is better than the conversion rate for slavery at 6 population (~1:2).

Just because it's important to the discussion, i must correct you here.

At pop 6, whipping one pop, going back to pop 5 and going back up to pop 6 costs you 15 food. You this, you get 60 hammers. Those 60 hammers, obtained with a 25% production bonus, correspond to 60 / 1.25 = 48 base hammers. Therefore, you got 48 hammers for 15 food, which is a ratio of 1:3.2, not 1:2. 1:2 is only if you don't use the trick highlighted in my article, and we're discussing a situation where we actually use the trick.

Also, Compromise, you should put the hammers gained from whipping at 48, not 60. Yes, you get 60 hammers, but those are after applying the 25% bonus. They are the same as 48 base hammers.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 04:35 PM
. . .5 x BestTownsOnGrassWithAllCivicsOnRiverWithFinancial: 5 x +0F 1H 9C


Try just hamlets on rivers with financial, which are more realistic for this discussion : +0F +4C.
Personally, i consider the fact that the hamlet is growing to be worth 2 commerce. If you agree with this assumption (which i actually use in game to decide which tile to work), that makes them worth +0F +6C.

. . .(We don't need the pig for grassland, so let's make it a cottage as above): +0F1H9C

This is where you're wrong! This is what i've been saying all along! You can always use more food, and should always work the pigs. This is the main reason why whipping is so powerful! You should use the pigs AND the cottages, no matter what, because those are all your best tiles (the mines are weaker than the cottages, which are weaker than the pigs). Then you'll see that whipping makes the most sense.

I won't comment on the rest of your post because this invalidates everything after that. I'll comment on your conclusion though, just to make my point clear.

But I think the way to evaluate whether or not to whip has everything to do with the opportunity cost of the would-be unhappy citizen. What's he gonna do if you don't throw him into the cement mixer to increase the volume?

No, the efficiency of whipping depends on two things, and the one you mention above is actually the least important :
- Your food surplus (you keep giving examples with low food surplus, give me my pigs back!)
- Like you said above, what tile you could use instead

@malekithe: Just noticed your post. I agree that it depends on having a productive marginal tile. I also agree with the limits of the number of hills. For just these reasons, and I know it's ironic, but whipping might be most useful in production cities with a food resource or two (as it runs out of mines to work) rather than a commerce city with only one hammerlific tile!

On the contrary, because production cities tend to have lower food surplus, whipping is less attractive for them. Remember, you want as high a food surplus as possible. Of all three resources in the game, namely food, hammers and commerce, food is by far the most important and the most powerful, and one of the reasons is because food can so efficiently be turned into hammers using slavery. You want super high food!

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 04:39 PM
Also, Compromise, you should put the hammers gained from whipping at 48, not 60. Yes, you get 60 hammers, but those are after applying the 25% bonus. They are the same as 48 base hammers.

Ooops. I thought the 60 came because the algorithm gave out the hammers in multiples of 30 and that those hammers were then multiplied by 1.25 for the bonus. If it's only 48 base hammers, that's less appealing for the whip.

In my examples, none of the turn-by-turn hammer outputs have included a bonus. I'm trying to come up with a way to analyze the situation properly.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 04:47 PM
In my examples, none of the turn-by-turn hammer outputs have included a bonus. I'm trying to come up with a way to analyze the situation properly.

Then just count the whip as 48 hammers, which doesn't include the 25% either.

By the way, i added a big part to my post above after you posted (but before i saw that you posted), which means you probably didn't see it. Be sure to check it out again.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 05:29 PM
Z, I've read through your extended post. Thanks for the heads up.

Please reread my post (#207) past the point where I "remove the pigs." It doesn't invalidate the rest of what I write at all. The point is that you don't need to work the pigs at all; I would give them to you if it helped, but it would hurt the whip analysis in this case. You would waste every food your pigs gave you because with the city center's free 2 food, you have enough food to grow back to size 7 in 10 turns.

And as for cottage vs. hamlet vs. town: it literally does not matter at all. Both the whip and the no-whip case work exactly the same tiles for almost all of the 10 forget-the-whip turns! Except that the whip might need to lay off the cottages a little to grow whereas the no-whip works a mine because it needs production.

:cry: Please, PLEASE, oh god I beg of you, PLEASE read my ramblings :)

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 05:32 PM
In a private discussion about this topic with Blake on another forum, he pointed out something I've neglected in the preceding discussion: you can whip more than one person at a time and get more hammers but only one unhappy citizen.

This is true. But while those extra citizens aren't around, he can't be working tiles so you'll have to wait until they grows back to have him work your tiles. And if you've got enough food surplus for them to grow back quickly, why are you working a food resource instead of a cottage?

A way around this is to grow your city past the happy point and whip those citizens, but this requires extra food. And again, if your city has that much extra food, why aren't you working more cottages instead of food resources. And you'll have to pay some (probably small) civic upkeep for those unhappies until you throw them into the Great Wall....

As Blake and others point out, another time whipping is really good is when your massively-fed city is growing and before your workers have gotten around to improving your tiles. That's usually when you need infrastructure too. Whipping and cities growing too fast for their improvements are a good combo.

I like whipping. I just want it to take its proper place in the repertoire of tactics.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 05:47 PM
Please reread my post (#207) past the point where I "remove the pigs." It doesn't invalidate the rest of what I write at all. The point is that you don't need to work the pigs at all; I would give them to you if it helped, but it would hurt the whip analysis in this case. You would waste every food your pigs gave you because with the city center's free 2 food, you have enough food to grow back to size 7 in 10 turns.

No, the pigs are crucial. If you still get too much food, you just whip more than 2 pop at once, creating the same unhappiness but getting more production. Not working the pigs is just plain dumb.

I won't add anymore on the subject until you actually try it with the pigs. You'll see how awfully powerful pig + 5 cottages + whip is.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 05:48 PM
No, the pigs are crucial. If you still get too much food, you just whip more than 2 pop at once, creating the same unhappiness but getting more production. Not working the pigs is just plain dumb.

I won't add anymore on the subject until you actually try it with the pigs. You'll see how awfully powerful pig + 5 cottages + whip is.

Fair enough. I have to go offline for a while, but hope to be back before too late tomorrow.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 05:52 PM
In a private discussion about this topic with Blake on another forum, he pointed out something I've neglected in the preceding discussion: you can whip more than one person at a time and get more hammers but only one unhappy citizen.

Finally, you get it.

This is true. But while those extra citizens aren't around, he can't be working tiles so you'll have to wait until they grows back to have him work your tiles.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Do like i say in my article. Whip at the end of a pop level. Whip 2 pop. The very first turn after the whip, you'll grow back up one pop. With pigs, you'll probably grow back up the entire 2 pop in 2 turns.

I'm sorry, but it does get irritating when you explain something carefully (in an article no less), and someone still argues with you without taking into account the entirety of what you're proposing.

And if you've got enough food surplus for them to grow back quickly, why are you working a food resource instead of a cottage?

Because the food resource will allow you to get more food, hence gain more production! Why is that hard to understand? ALWAYS work the food resource, no matter what your strategy is. The food resource is UBER POWERFUL.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 06:00 PM
By the way, for your analysis, know this :

- whipping 1 pop can yield 60 hammers = 48 base hammers
- whipping 2 pop can yield 90 hammers = 72 base hammers
- whipping 3 pop can yield 120 hammers = 96 base hammers

Use those values in your analysis. As you notice, this means that the more pop you rush at a time, the less effect the exploit giving you 30 extra hammers will have. You can get more than 30 extra hammers using the exploit, but assuming a 25% bonus, you need to whip at least 5 pop for this to happen.

malekithe
Jun 14, 2006, 07:11 PM
By the way, for your analysis, know this :

- whipping 1 pop can yield 60 hammers = 48 base hammers
- whipping 2 pop can yield 90 hammers = 72 base hammers
- whipping 3 pop can yield 150 hammers = 120 base hammers

Use those values in your analysis. Try to whip 1 or 3 pop, because that's more efficient than whipping 2. If 2 happens to be the average you can afford, then whip 3, then 1, then 3, then 1. If 2.5 happens to be what you can afford, whip 3, then 3, then 1, then 3 (for an average of 2.5).

Just curious, but how do you get the 150 hammers out of 3 pop? The most I think you can get is 120, for 96 base hammers. (Given a 25% production bonus)

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 07:11 PM
By the way, for your analysis, know this :

- whipping 1 pop can yield 60 hammers = 48 base hammers
- whipping 2 pop can yield 90 hammers = 72 base hammers
- whipping 3 pop can yield 150 hammers = 120 base hammers

Use those values in your analysis. Try to whip 1 or 3 pop, because that's more efficient than whipping 2. If 2 happens to be the average you can afford, then whip 3, then 1, then 3, then 1. If 2.5 happens to be what you can afford, whip 3, then 3, then 1, then 3 (for an average of 2.5).

Thanks Z, that'll help. Agreed about the averaging technique.

I know the best-possible whips will be better, because they are bugs. What I'll be computing is the no-whip alternative, so that you know what you're comparing to. This will still be useful if they ever fix this bug. I will compare to the optimum too, though.

As for the value of food, yes I get it. All I'm saying is that the food is not valuable directly. A city working 10 grass pigs makes 42 food and can grow to size 21 even if the happy cap is 10. The value comes when you whip the people, not from the food itself. In fact, happy and unhappy people cost the same to support, so the unhappy people in this ridiculous situation have negative value.

You're right about the whip being better at the end of the pop growth. I took the no-whip case--where you wouldn't put excess food into the granary after growing to the happy cap--as the default. I can change that. Like the pigs, it makes zero difference in the 1-pop whip case. It will make a difference in the multi-pop whip, though, so I'm glad you reminded me before I ran those numbers.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 07:16 PM
Oops, sorry, that was at 50% bonus. You're right of course, you can't get 5 for 3 at 25% bonus. Thanks for correcting me.

I'll edit the post above accordingly.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 07:17 PM
Compromise, i changed my post after Malekithe's correction. Use the new version instead.

malekithe
Jun 14, 2006, 07:45 PM
As for the value of food, yes I get it. All I'm saying is that the food is not valuable directly. A city working 10 grass pigs makes 42 food and can grow to size 21 even if the happy cap is 10. The value comes when you whip the people, not from the food itself. In fact, happy and unhappy people cost the same to support, so the unhappy people in this ridiculous situation have negative value.

True, food isn't valuable directly. It is only valuable as far as your ability to convert it into hammers or commerce. Mines are one such way of performing that conversion; slavery is another. The primary difference between the two is this fact: working a mine is limited to converting 1 food per turn (2 if it's on a plains hill, but the return is lower). Slavery, however, can convert a large amount of food each turn (sometimes at an even better rate). To put it this way, if I have a city at 4 population making +3 food, I would have to grow three additional population and have hills available to convert those food into hammers via mines at 1:3. With slavery, though, I can always and easily convert all 3 surplus food into hammers (at either ~3:7 or 3:8 ratio depending on whether you make use of the bug) by sacrificing 2 citizens.

The reason that pigs and other food resources are valuable is because they have a large food output that enables lots of hammers. In many cities, though, there are not methods available to convert that excess food to hammers on the same scale that slavery can. To fully realize the potential of just one pig resource, you would need 4 grassland hills available, and would need to grow to fill those hills (costing you population maintenance). Slavery allows you to convert all of the food from the pigs at a high efficiency.

Food is only as powerful as two things: a) the ratio at which it can be converted into hammers (or commerce) and b) the amount that can be converted. Slavery gives you nearly the maximum value in both of those criteria. Mines nearly maximize (a), but sacrifce (b).

The reason your analysis showed poor returns for slavery is because you looked at a situation with 1 surplus food. In that scenario, a single mine is a very likely and accessible method of conversion into hammers. The reason you eliminated the pigs from the equation is, likely, because you couldn't think of anything for the city with the mine to do with all that excess food. That is precisely the problem you're faced with in game. Slavery provides you a very easy way to fully utilize the (very powerful) food resources at your disposal.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 08:45 PM
The reason your analysis showed poor returns for slavery is because you looked at a situation with 1 surplus food. In that scenario, a single mine is a very likely and accessible method of conversion into hammers. The reason you eliminated the pigs from the equation is, likely, because you couldn't think of anything for the city with the mine to do with all that excess food. That is precisely the problem you're faced with in game. Slavery provides you a very easy way to fully utilize the (very powerful) food resources at your disposal.

Hi malekithe, Glad there are more eyeballs and cerebral hemispheres in on the discussion.

But I think what post #207 shows is that if you have a pastured grass pigs, boatloads of grassland cottages in any state of development (and you can use them with your happiness cap), and a mined plains hill, the choice you make with slavery if there is no production bonus is simply "30 hammers now" versus "4 hammers/turn for the next 10 turns. With a production bonus, the issue is slightly complicated because of integer roundoff errors, but if done with real numbers and the bug, it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

Gotta run. More in a bit.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 09:29 PM
Seems to me that you still don't get it.

You work the pigs because that's the best tile you've got.
You work the cottages next because those are the best tiles left.
You work no hill at all.
You use the extra food with slavery.

If you're using hills, you're using unoptimal tiles when you have better tiles available.
If you're not using the pigs, once again you're not using your best tiles.

In this setup, it's so much better to use cottages and whip that the non-whip city is totally left in the dust. Compare those, you'll see.

Also :

it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

You're still not getting this either! My god, how thick are you? I'm sorry but repeating something 10 times to the same person really gets annoying.

It's either 37 vs 60, taking the 25% bonus into account, or 30 vs 48, not taking it into account. It's never 37 vs 48.

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 09:39 PM
...the choice you make with slavery if there is no production bonus is simply "30 hammers now" versus "4 hammers/turn for the next 10 turns. With a production bonus, the issue is slightly complicated because of integer roundoff errors, but if done with real numbers and the bug, it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

Compromise you idiot...Don't hit "Submit reply" when you're in a hurry. The single pop whip comparisons should be:

No production bonus: "30 hammers now" (whip) versus "4 hammers/turn for the next ten turns (marginal tile is plains hill)"

25% Production bonus: "30 base hammers correct/48 base hammers bug now" (whip) versus "4 base hammers/turn for the next ten turns"

[Edit to chastise self]

Compromise
Jun 14, 2006, 09:48 PM
You're still not getting this either! My god, how thick are you? I'm sorry but repeating something 10 times to the same person really gets annoying.

I'm pretty thick. I apologize for annoying you.

I want to set up the 3-pop whip case tonight and tomorrow morning. Do you mind if instead of one of the very best early food tiles in the game, I use a 5F tile such as farmed but unirrigated corn or wheat? More commonly not by a river than near one, and you probably won't be chaining many farms to get them irrigated.

Zombie69
Jun 14, 2006, 10:10 PM
Sometimes though, you'll have 2 or more food ressources available.

Do the test with a 5 food tile if you want. It won't be as good for slavery as a 6 food tile, but slavery will still come well ahead.

If you really want to be more realistic though, your city shouldn't have 6 grassland hills available to it. I don't think i've ever seen that in any game i've played. Try 2 grassland hills and 2 plains hills, that's a lot more common. Plus space for farms of course if you want them.

malekithe
Jun 14, 2006, 11:18 PM
I want to set up the 3-pop whip case tonight and tomorrow morning. Do you mind if instead of one of the very best early food tiles in the game, I use a 5F tile such as farmed but unirrigated corn or wheat? More commonly not by a river than near one, and you probably won't be chaining many farms to get them irrigated.

I'll take care of it for you (just worked through it on paper).

Let's say our city is sitting at 6 pop, about to grow to 7 (the happiness limit). We have an unirrigated grassland wheat tile (5F) and as many grassland hamlet (2F 4C) and mined grassland hills (1F 3H) as we want. Furthermore, I'm going to say this is a commerce city that is still working on putting up infrastructure, so it needs a mix of commerce and hammers. Let's do the no-whip first:

For the sake of convenience I'm going to start this analysis after we've reached 7 pop and have a food box of 17/36. I'm going to work 5 of the grassland hamlets and 2 mines resulting in a net 0 food surplus, 20 commerce, and 6 hammers. Wait 10 turns and you've got 200 commerce and 60 hammers.

Now, the whipped version:

We'll start at 6 pop and a food box of 34/34 (for all intents and purposes, identical to the previous analysis). I immediately sacrifice 3 population, producing (a modified) 96 hammers. This takes me down to 3 population and a food box of 34/28. Now I'm working the wheat and 2 hamlets, getting +5 food surplus and 8 commerce. This turn and the remaining turns break down like this:

Turn Pop Basket Surplus Comm. Hammers
1 3 34/28 5 8 96
2 4 25/30 5 12 0
3 5 15/32 5 16 0
4 5 20/32 5 16 0
5 5 25/32 5 16 0
6 5 30/32 5 16 0
7 6 19/34 5 20 0
8 6 24/34 5 20 0
9 6 29/34 5 20 0
10 6 34/34 5 20 0


That gives us a grand total of 96 hammers and 164 commerce. Factor in the turns spent with less pop maintenance (1 commerce per 2.5 pop*turns = ~8 commerce), and that's 96 hammers and 172 commerce. We've also lost 9 total turns growing various hamlets (1.5 turns of growth per hamlet), but I'm not sure how to valuate that.

So, no whip = 60H / 200C, whip = 96H / 172C. We've traded 28 commerce for 36 hammers. I'll take that trade any day. Let's say the building we pop-rushed was a library. In that case, the whipped city actually outputs more total commerce because of the library bonus.

What was going on here was slavery converting an entire +5 food surplus into hammers at a ratio of ~1:2. The no-whip case, instead, converted only a +2 surplus into hammers at a ratio of 1:3. The efficiency was higher for the mines, but the total output was much lower because you couldn't make use of the very powerful wheat tile.

Things would be much different for a production city, as, by it's nature, you're going to have more hills available to efficiently convert your food surplus. In this case, you'd actually lean toward a 1-pop rush instead, as it's more efficient and you get more relative benefit from the slavery bug. Ideally, you'd do this after using up all of your other high production tiles (for instance, if the marginal tile was a farmed plains).

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 01:41 AM
Also note that for a production city, a grassland farm produces more than a mined grassland hill. Whipping 1, 2 or 3 pop produces respectively, per food used (assuming you start at pop 6), 3, 2.32 and 2.13 hammers. This means that the grassland farm is actually worth 2, 0.64 or 0.26 more hammers than a grassland hill. Since a grassland hill is the best non-bonus-resource tile for production, and a grassland farm is actually pretty weak (a flood plains farm, for instance, would be much better), you can clearly see why whipping is powerful for any city that can manage the food to do it, even a production city (which should have farms and no cottages anyway, whipping or not).

Roland Johansen
Jun 15, 2006, 03:52 AM
I'll add a simple observation to this discussion which is independent of the bug that allows you to produce more hammers than you should get. It's a comparison of the efficiency of the multi-pop whip to the 1-pop whip. It's the reason why Zombie says more food is better (at least, I think it is the reason).

If you have a very fast growing city that can grow 2 citizens in 10 turns, then you can whip 2 pop per 10 turns. After 5 turns, 1 of the citizens will have been grown again and after another 5 turns, the second citizens will have been grown again in the city. On average you are 1.5 citizen below maximum while you get the production from a 2 pop rush.

If you have an extremely fast growing city that can grow 3 citizens in 10 turns than you can whip 3 pop per 10 turns. After one third of the 10 turns (3 or 4 turns dependent on the exact amount of food in the box when you whip) 1 citizen will have regrown, after another one third of 10 turns another will have regrown and after another one third of 10 turns another citizen will have regrown. On average you are 1/3*3+1/3*2+ 1/3*1=2 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 3 pop whip.

If you have a ridiculously fast growing city that can grow 4 citizens in 10 turns, then you are on average 1/4 * 4+ 1/4 * 3 + 1/4 * 2 + 1/4 * 1 = 2.5 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 4 pop whip.

This comparison doesn't take the best (ab)use of the bug into account. It also ignores the fact that the first pop points return a bit quicker than the later pop points.

If the bug were not in the game and you could only whip one citizen, then 30 hammers for 10 turns at -1 pop might be comparable to using a hill mine. However, the bug and multi-pop rushing tips the scales clearly in favour of whipping.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 04:38 AM
It's the reason why Zombie says more food is better (at least, I think it is the reason).

That's not the reason, but thanks for helping! The reason was simply that 1 food can provide about 2 to 4 hammers, so certainly having a tile that produces 5 or 6 food is much too good to pass up.

If you have a very fast growing city that can grow 2 citizens in 10 turns, then you can whip 2 pop per 10 turns. After 5 turns, 1 of the citizens will have been grown again and after another 5 turns, the second citizens will have been grown again in the city. On average you are 1.5 citizen below maximum while you get the production from a 2 pop rush.

Actually, if you whip near the end of a pop level, it will be rather :
- grow back one pop after 1 turn
- grow back the other pop after 10 turns

It's easy to grow back the first pop point when you start at 30/26 food! This makes whipping even more efficient, because you're down a pop point or two for a much shorter period of time.

If you have an extremely fast growing city that can grow 3 citizens in 10 turns than you can whip 3 pop per 10 turns. After one third of the 10 turns (3 or 4 turns dependent on the exact amount of food in the box when you whip) 1 citizen will have regrown, after another one third of 10 turns another will have regrown and after another one third of 10 turns another citizen will have regrown. On average you are 1/3*3+1/3*2+ 1/3*1=2 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 3 pop whip.

If you whip properly, i.e. at the end of a pop level, it will be more like :
- grow back one pop after 1 turn
- grow back the other pop after 3 turns
- grow back the last pop after 10 turns

Remember, the first two pop points grow back quickly if you whip at the end of a pop level.

So on average, you're 1/10*3 + 2/10*2 + 7/10*1 = 1.4 citizens below the maximum. Much better than the 2 cited above, which is the reason why i try to always whip at the end of a level.

If you have a ridiculously fast growing city that can grow 4 citizens in 10 turns, then you are on average 1/4 * 4+ 1/4 * 3 + 1/4 * 2 + 1/4 * 1 = 2.5 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 4 pop whip.

In this case, you'll most certainly regrow the first 2 pop in 2 turns if you whipped at the end of a level like you should. You'll probably get back the 3rd pop point after about 6 turns, and the last one after 10. Which gives us an average of 1/10 * 4 + 1/10 * 3 + 4/10 * 2 + 4/10 * 1 = 1.9 citizens below maximum, again, much better than the 2.5 from whipping at any dumb moment!

This comparison doesn't take the best (ab)use of the bug into account. It also ignores the fact that the first pop points return a bit quicker than the later pop points.

What you're probably refering to is the fact that the first pop points to recover require less food. This means just a little bit less time to recover, which explains why you don't take it into account. However, when after rushing 4 pop you can start from 34/26, it's easy to regain the first two levels in just two turns. This makes a huge difference and must be taken into account!

What i'm talking about here was clearly understood by Malekithe when he made his table a few posts above. He started the no whip scenario one turn after barely going up to level 7. He started his whip scenario one turn after he could have barely gone up to level 7, but set the governor on prevent growth to instead remain at level 6 but with a full granary. This is exactly how i explain in the article that you should do this.

And this, as you said, doesn't even take the exploit into account.

Roland Johansen
Jun 15, 2006, 06:08 AM
I see that your comments are all correct. I should have known that I couldn't write a simple comparison in this thread. I should have written about the optimal situation as that is what this thread is about. Whipping just before you go to the next size is of course much more efficient.

I was just trying to show that the 1 pop whip is less efficient then the multi pop whip, something that is known to most (good) players. This remains true, if you whip at an arbitrary moment and if you whip at the optimal moment just before the city grows. At the optimal moment, the difference between the multi pop whip and the single pop whip is even greater, so it is good that you pointed this out.

By the way, I really hope that this pop-rushing bug gets fixed because I like to play at huge maps with many dozens of cities and it is really not fun to try to find optimal whip points for all of those cities. But if I don't, I feel that I'm hurting myself. I'm probably going to reduce the hammers gained from whipping. With the bug it is indeed too powerful.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 08:56 AM
Whipping just before you go to the next size is of course much more efficient.

Welcome Roland! More minds are better.

The quote above is something Zombie has stated in his thread and criticized me for not taking note of.

In the case where you are happiness limited, it is also wrong.

Using the example above of a city that is happy cap limited to 7, the optimal time to whip is on the turn that you grow to 7. If you are whipping every 10 turns, you want to make sure that you grow to 7 on the 10th turn and can whip again.

Why is this optimal?

With a happiness cap of 6 (7 minus the one who's unhappy you whipped his buddy), you can work 6x10=60 tiles over 10 turns.

Consider the two alternatives which are "whipping just before you grow".

The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Bottom line: when you are at your happy cap, the time to grow is just as any existing unhappiness expires (or you get a new happy resource online). And the time to whip is that very turn that you've grown.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 09:03 AM
I've come up with a different way of saying why I didn't need to use the pigs in one of my earlier examples.

If you're working all grasslands, you have a +2 food surplus from your city center.

Over 10 turns, +2F gives you 20 food.

20 food is enough to grow from size 6 to size 7 if you had a granary in place the last time you made the growth. (Remember that you are happy-limited to 7 happy citizens or 6 with the whip.)

Why would you work the pigs? You'd be giving up time working another tile to generate food that you're going to throw away anyway?

You work the pigs to grow quickly. If you're bringing another happiness resource online, then you want to get you population up to use that (ideally improved) tile as quickly as possible, so you work the pigs. If you are happiness limited, you don't want to grow until your happiness limit rises.

Bottom line: Don't work food resources unless you need to grow quickly.

Roland Johansen
Jun 15, 2006, 10:33 AM
Welcome Roland! More minds are better.

The quote above is something Zombie has stated in his thread and criticized me for not taking note of.

I've already discussed many things with Zombie. We mostly agree, but he can get rather pissed if someone fails to see his point. His patience is limited, especially if he feels that there is nothing to discuss and everything is clear (not everyone is good at mathematics, Zombie ;) ). Luckily, I usually have the same opinion as he has.

He has thought about this a long time and thus is probably correct in his writings. However, a bit of discussion can add to the understanding of anyone reading this.

As far as I can see, you have nothing to worry about. You haven't written really stupid things in this thread. You just look at it from a different perspective. That's why I've written my post. I thought you didn't consider the possibility of the multi pop whip.

In the case where you are happiness limited, it is also wrong.

Using the example above of a city that is happy cap limited to 7, the optimal time to whip is on the turn that you grow to 7. If you are whipping every 10 turns, you want to make sure that you grow to 7 on the 10th turn and can whip again.

Why is this optimal?

With a happiness cap of 6 (7 minus the one who's unhappy you whipped his buddy), you can work 6x10=60 tiles over 10 turns.

Consider the two alternatives which are "whipping just before you grow".

The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Bottom line: when you are at your happy cap, the time to grow is just as any existing unhappiness expires (or you get a new happy resource online). And the time to whip is that very turn that you've grown.


I see what you mean. No need to have a 7-th citizen eating food and costing civic upkeep while not doing anything (except complaining about your harsh working methods). The eating food part is more important in my opinion because it limits your future whipping.

I will calculate the amount of food needed to grow from size 6 to size 7 assuming a granary is present (normal speed). I need this to see how much excess food is needed to grow within 10 turns from size 6 to size 7. You need 20+ 6*2= 32 food to fill the size 6 foodbox and thus carry over 16 food to the next size. So you need 16 food to grow from size 6 to 7. To produce this amount in 10 turns, you need less than 2 food per turn.

So if you have a city that has an excess food production of only 1 per turn, then you'd want to wait until you have 10 food less than needed to grow from size 6 to 7 (you have 22/34 food in the size 7 food box and whip to get 22/32 food in the size 6 food box). After 10 turns the city again grows to size 7.

However, if the excess of food is larger than this, then you can whip multiple citizens at once. Say, we have an excess of 2 food per turn, still not a lot but more than enough for this example.

We wait until 34/34 food in the size 7 box and then whip 2 citizens (for lots of production, more than the 1 citizen if timed correctly). Then we are at 34/30 in the size 5 foodbox. Next turn we are at 19/32 in the size 6 food box (34/2 (food from the granary) + 2 (food excess)= 19). Within the 9 remaining turns of unhappiness, the remaining 13 food can easily be produced. I think it is better to let the city grow to size 7 if it will still grow on because the food produced can be used for another whipping soon. If it will not grow any further because of the unhappy citizen eating food, then you can halt its growth at size 6 until the unhappiness ends.

I think that this is the reason why more food is good for whipping. But you have to whip multiple citizens otherwise the excess food is wasted.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 10:38 AM
Let's say our city is sitting at 6 pop, about to grow to 7 (the happiness limit). We have an unirrigated grassland wheat tile (5F) and as many grassland hamlet (2F 4C) and mined grassland hills (1F 3H) as we want. Furthermore, I'm going to say this is a commerce city that is still working on putting up infrastructure, so it needs a mix of commerce and hammers.

Now, the whipped version:

We'll start at 6 pop and a food box of 34/34 (for all intents and purposes, identical to the previous analysis).

These {code} tags are awesome! Thanks.

For the analysis, I think you mean 32/32 since at pop 6, the growth is at 32 food. And the growth is 20+2n, so there are some slight changes to your numbers. I find your system difficult to follow because the granary boosts are hidden in the Pop column. So, I've modified he presentation to separate out what you see in your city versus what happens when you press "next turn". The latter lines are indented. 6(32) is a size 6 city with 32 food in the food bar. [Edit: added some text to the end of this paragraph.]

Turn Size(food) FoodSurplus Commerce Hammers
0 6(32) Whip...
90
0 3(32)
5 8
1 3(32+5) --> 4(13+6+5) = 4(24)
5 12
2 4(29) --> 5(14+1) = 5(15)
5 16
3 5(20)
5 16
4 5(25)
5 16
5 5(30) --> 6(15)
5 20
6 6(20)
5 20
7 6(25)
5 20
8 6(30)
2 24 Don't work the food resource, but rather a hamlet.
9 6(32)
2 24 Again no food resource, and 2 food is still wasted
10 6(32) back where we started, people are happy again.


I get 90/96 hammers depending on the bug and 44x4=176 commerce. [Edit: Plus 10 hammers for the city center: total of 100/106 hammers]

Good catch on the reduced pop maintenance! :goodjob: Here, you're down 19 pop-turns over the 10 turns. Your figure (I don't have a better one) of 1 commerce per 2.5 pop-turns gives you 8. I agree.

For the no-whip case, let me see if I can get to 90 hammers. I'm going to use a difference presentation...let me know if its better.

Over 10 turns, I have 70 tiles I can work (7 at a tile for 10 turns). I need to net zero food, just like the whip case. I get 20 food and 10 hammers from the city center, so I need to come up with 80 hammers and -20 food from my tiles. I can spend 26 turns on -1F +3H grass hills at get -26F and 78H. I can then spend 2 turns working the +3F food resource.

So, for the no-whip case, I spend 2 turns on the food resource, 26 turns on the grass hills, and the rest on hamlets or whatever: 28 total lost turns

For the whip case, I lose 10 turns due to unhappiness, 9 because of lost population that could be happy and 8 because of working the food resource when its useful: 27 lost turns.

Also, this assumed that your marginal tile was a grassland hill mine. With a food resource, a plains hill mine is better. :eek: Using this example, give me some plains hills mines instead of just grassland mines. Now, I can get my 80H (+10 from city center) from 20 x -2F4H. -40F, +20F from city center, +21F from 7 turns on the food resource.

I just remembered something that will benefit the whip argument! The city center generates hammers in that case too!

So now, what's the difference over 10 turns?

No-whip with grass hill mines: 28 lost turns on hamlets, no food loss, 88H
No-whip with plains hill mines: 27 lost turns on hamlets, +1F, 90H
No-whip with 2 0F5H metal resources: 27 lost turns on hamlets, +1F, 100H [Edit: you need 2 to get these results. I know, I know...this is never going to happen in your commerce city unless things pop for you, but the math is right.]
Whip: 27 lost turns on hamlets, no food loss, 100(fair)/106(bug) hammers generated, 8 commerce earned for civic cost

Is the whip better? Yes. Is it ungodly better? You be the judge. If you can get a three-person whip, you can get about 1H1C/turn more. That's ~10% on the hammers and ~5% on the commerce. I think my previous analysis shows that for a 1-person whip, you get less of a benefit, even including my recent realization about the city-center hammers applying to both cases.

One last thing:
Let's say the building we pop-rushed was a library. In that case, the whipped city actually outputs more total commerce because of the library bonus.


I'm already on board for the potential value of hammers earlier rather than later, so I totally agree with this. In fact, a lot of the buildings you'd rush would give you things you want sooner rather than later: temples, libraries, banks, etc. I'm not against whipping--far from it. I'm just trying to figure out how to evaluate it fairly.

Bottom line: it's about 5-10% better to whip versus working good marginal tiles when you can get a 3-pop whip. If you don't have good tile to work, whip. If you do, think about it.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 10:47 AM
I've already discussed many things with Zombie. We mostly agree, but he can get rather pissed if someone fails to see his point. His patience is limited, especially if he feels that there is nothing to discuss and everything is clear (not everyone is good at mathematics, Zombie ;) ). Luckily, I usually have the same opinion as he has.

He has thought about this a long time and thus is probably correct in his writings. However, a bit of discussion can add to the understanding of anyone reading this.

Thanks. I agree with just about everything that you and Zombie and others have said. I'm just trying to make sure we're correct.

@Z too: I really am thick, and can take the abuse if I seem to deserve it :)

As far as I can see, you have nothing to worry about. You haven't written really stupid things in this thread. You just look at it from a different perspective. That's why I've written my post. I thought you didn't consider the possibility of the multi pop whip.

Thanks for the not-yet-stupid rating :blush: . I hope the post I made while you made this shows that I'm capable of evaluating the multi-pop whip too.


I will calculate the amount of food needed to grow from size 6 to size 7 assuming a granary is present (normal speed). I need this to see how much excess food is needed to grow within 10 turns from size 6 to size 7. You need 20+ 6*2= 32 food to fill the size 6 foodbox and thus carry over 16 food to the next size. So you need 16 food to grow from size 6 to 7. To produce this amount in 10 turns, you need less than 2 food per turn.

So if you have a city that has an excess food production of only 1 per turn, then you'd want to wait until you have 10 food less than needed to grow from size 6 to 7 (you have 22/34 food in the size 7 food box and whip to get 22/32 food in the size 6 food box). After 10 turns the city again grows to size 7.

However, if the excess of food is larger than this, then you can whip multiple citizens at once. Say, we have an excess of 2 food per turn, still not a lot but more than enough for this example.

We wait until 34/34 food in the size 7 box and then whip 2 citizens (for lots of production, more than the 1 citizen if timed correctly). Then we are at 34/30 in the size 5 foodbox. Next turn we are at 19/32 in the size 6 food box (34/2 (food from the granary) + 2 (food excess)= 19). Within the 9 remaining turns of unhappiness, the remaining 13 food can easily be produced. I think it is better to let the city grow to size 7 if it will still grow on because the food produced can be used for another whipping soon. If it will not grow any further because of the unhappy citizen eating food, then you can halt its growth at size 6 until the unhappiness ends.

I think that this is the reason why more food is good for whipping. But you have to whip multiple citizens otherwise the excess food is wasted.

I didn't evaluate the 2-pop whip, but I did the 3-pop case. It's probably suboptimal because I used the case where you whip right before you grow rather than after, but I suspect that's a turn or 2 of working hamlets difference. I'm running out of time to devote to this.

I really do think that they key thing to think about with respect to whipping is: what would your lost or unhappy citizens be doing if you hadn't whipped them? If they're working unimproved tiles, whip 'em. If not, maybe it's a close call. In addition, on the plus side for whipping, there's the earlier hammer recovery. On the minus side, there's more micromanaging to whip than to let the city ride.

Roland Johansen
Jun 15, 2006, 11:01 AM
Thanks for the not-yet-stupid rating :blush: . I hope the post I made while you made this shows that I'm capable of evaluating the multi-pop whip too.

You are surely not stupid. Most people don't understand Zombie's article or cannot find the patience to understand it or think it is stupid (because they do not understand it). You have a large degree of understanding and dare to discuss the things that are a bit vague to you. You dare to challenge Zombie's point of view which makes you susceptible to criticism but you chose to do it anyway and accept any criticism. I think all of that is positive as long as you read and try to understand the arguments given by others.

Sorry, but I have to leave now for an oppointment. I'll take a look at these last writings later.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 11:25 AM
...I think all of that is positive as long as you read and try to understand the arguments given by others.

I want to give no less and expect no more than this.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 01:16 PM
The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

No, this is actually optimal and explained in my article. Moreover, as is also explained there, this becomes more important to do the more pop you rush at a time. Since i'm tired of repeating myself, i refer you to the article to understand why it's better to whip before growth. The short answer is that you then save 1 food per pop whipped, per level lower that you whip at. Thus, whipping 4 pop at level 6 saves 4 food compared to whipping 4 pop at level 7.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Again, you're not seeing the big picture. First, you shouldn't even be able to go up to pop 7 with a full granary, because you should always have +1 unhappiness from whipping. But let's assume that you played badly and forgot to whip for a few turns. Whipping at the end of pop 7 is good. Just make sure you whip more than one pop at a time. This is so obvious it's a wonder that i actually have to spell it out for you. Always whip as many pop as you can regrow in 10 turns. This is like "Civ 101", it's so basic it should be taught in the elementary school of civ playing.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 01:32 PM
I think i'll change my stance on this. It may actually be that if your food excess on the turn before growing is larger than the amount of food saved by whipping one level lower, it may be better to let yourself grow before whipping. I'll think about it some more, and change the article accordingly if that happens to be the case. Either way, the avoid growth function of the governor should still be used to fill the granary to the max. In one case, the turn before whipping, and in the other case, 2 turns before.

My gut feeling is that in certain circumstances it may be better to whip just before growth, and in other circumstances it may be better to whip after growth. And what would determine which applies would be how many turns you need to regrow each pop level for either option, and what FPC the extra tiles can give you when regrowing quicker. If that's the case, it's becoming a little too complicated and i don't think even i would want to calculate the best option for every new situation (as every situation would be different).

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 01:58 PM
You're still doing the whip very inefficiently in your example. I don't know how many times i need to say this before you finally understand, but :
ALWAYS WORK THE FOOD RESOURCE

On turn 10, you should have worked the food resource and gained 5 food to be applied to your next whip. You go up to level 7, but whip on the very turn where you get there, so there's no unhappiness penalty. Besides, on the turn you go back up to level 7, you lose the whip penalty, so even if you didn't want to whip immediately (though not doing so would be a bad move), going up to level 7 would be the thing to do.

NEVER WASTE FOOD (it's far too valuable), AND NEVER LET A FOOD RESOURCE LIE IDLE.

In an real game, i would actually work the food resource on turn 9 also, let my city grow, and whip again the next turn. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE WHIP UNHAPPINESS GOES BACK DOWN TO ZERO BEFORE YOU WHIP AGAIN. Sure, doing this 4 or 5 times in a row, with all the food you're making, you'll eventually get to a point where you whip with still 10 turns left to go to the whip unhappiness. So be it. Better than not whipping to your max potential. In a real game, after all this time, you max happiness should be going up due to new resources or new buildings.

Just one extra happiness will then let you do the following :
- grow to max granary at size 6, with one turn left to whip unhappiness
- grow to size 7, now happy
- waste 1 or 2 turns of not whipping to grow to level 8
- whip 4 pop instead of 3, putting to good use the extra food that you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS have been working

Two more happiness makes it even better, because you don't have to waste happy turns not whipping :
- grow to level 7, full granary (or near full)
- grow to level 8
- whip 4 pop right after you got to level 8 (do this even if there's still unhappiness left due to whipping, NEVER WASTE FOOD)

I hope i made it clear enough, what with all the uppercase. It seems like repeating something over and over will be the only way to make you understand the principle.


As for your example without whipping, please redo it in a more comprehensible manner. Just tell us how many turns you work each type of tile, and your total FPC so that we can compare it to the whip scenario. None of that "turns lost" thing, which just makes everything more confusing. Don't count the city center production and commerce in either scenario, since they just cancel each other out and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 03:20 PM
In the posts I've made over the last couple of days, here's what I believe I've shown to my satisfaction (I do not claim originality for many of these points):

1) The more citizens you whip at a time, the more efficiently they are converted to hammers. (Very far from original.)

2) If your city's citizens are working unimproved tiles, it's better to whip them, no matter how many you whip at a time. (not original, but proved here)

3) If you are happiness limited, your food surplus is +2F while working MaxHappy-1 tiles and your last citizen can either be whipped or put to work on a mined hill:
. . a) grassland hill mine: you can get 30H (or 48H max with the bugged whip) for him now plus 1H/turn for 10 turns, or 4H/turn for 10 turns
. . b) plains hill mine: you can get 30H/48H now plus 1H/turn for 10 turns, or 4H/turn for 10 turns
. . (these conclusions are, I think, original)

4) If you are happiness limited, the best time to whip is likely to be the very turn you grow to MaxHappy. I only outline the 1-pop whip case, but I think it's at least often, if not always, the case for 2+-pop whipping too. (original)

5) If you whip 3-pop from a happiness-limited city that has really high-productivity marginal tiles, the whip gives you a 5-10% return bugged or fair. (the idea is far from original, the quantification might be)

So what to make of this? Here are my bottom line, take-home, easy-to-follow results. Note how little they differ from Zombie69's original position that he has been strongly suggesting I don't understand or agree with.


1) Always work bonus food resources while under your happiness cap
2) Whip as many citizens at a time as you can
3) a) At HappyCap, whip just after you grow.
. . b) Below HappyCap, whip just before you grow.


Whoa! Those first two and half the third are exactly what Zombie69's said all along! I know. He's right. I have never once disagreed with him about any of them (except 3a). His replies to my posts indicates that he thinks I've disagreed with him, but he is mistaken.

The calculations I've made on these cases indicate something else that might be of interest to people glancing through this thread.

If you're not interested in micromanaging whipping for best production results, you're probably losing about 10% in production and/or commerce compared to those who do. This compares whipping to standard means of production.

The previous italicized statement is also one way to help evaluate the benefit of running the Slavery civic.

I think it might be of interest to some non-micromanagers to know what they're missing by not following all of Zombie69's excellent micromanagement techniques. This quantifies the cost for not using the whip optimally.

All I've shown is that there are a couple cases--e.g. when you have a spare high-production resource that you'd otherwise not be working and you're at your happiness limit--when you can squeak a little more (more, but delayed) production out of a city by working the resource by whipping one citizen. (Unless you exploit the bug. Then it's *always* better to whip.) Whipping three at once gives you a better return. I don't know about whipping two (probably close to even if a fair whip. I'm sure for 4 or more at a time it's an even better idea to whip. Because these special cases are not common enough, and because the benefit is small enough, the easier rule of thumb to remember and apply is just grow and whip.

I've also shown that in the happiness-limited case, it's better to whip just before you grow than just after.

Finally, I've quantified the benefit you get from the whip when you whip 3-pop at once. Think of it as about 10% over normal production methods.

What I've presented is only interesting to those interested in extreme micromanagement, which is why I've presented it here. It will have little affect on your gameplay if you ignore every single word.

Except these: Happy CIVing! :)

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 03:23 PM
...As for your example without whipping, please redo it in a more comprehensible manner....

No. I simply can't devote any more time to this. I think my last post indicates how much our thinking overlaps. I can see that I haven't been able to make you understand the conditions under which your strategy is just a little suboptimal. Actually, your strategy is *never* suboptimal if you can exploit the pop-to-hammer calculation bug.

I have presented my city totals in three ways: my original way, a modification of malekithe's way, and another way involving opportunity cost on missed tile-turns. You have glanced through or ignored the first two and not taken the time to understand the third. I believe I've been clear and complete. I can't think of more ways to show my calculations that won't take an inordinate amount of my time.

Again, I hope that my last post indicates to you that I completely understand your position, your calculations, and your conclusions. If you are not interested in taking the time to understand mine, that's fine. My thoughts are documented here for anyone with the time and interest to verify the calculations and conclusions for themselves.

malekithe
Jun 15, 2006, 04:17 PM
If you're not interested in micromanaging whipping for best production results, you're probably losing about 10% in production and/or commerce compared to those who do.

...

I think it might be of interest to some non-micromanagers to know what they're missing by not following all of Zombie69's excellent micromanagement techniques. This quantifies the cost for not using the whip optimally.

While you are correct, it's worth pointing out that in order to get similar results to whipping (in your last trial), you still had to perform a fair amount of micromanagement. Namely, you had to purposely go into a food deficit for a couple of turns so that you could benefit from the food resource to recover from that deficit. I'm not sure this is something most people do on a regular basis. It was really only a fall-out of the mathematical model used to simulate the management of the city. I use(d) it on occasion in real games, but, since I discovered the efficiency of whipping, I devote the same amount of micromanagement (possibly less, actually) and get better results.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 04:33 PM
1) The more citizens you whip at a time, the more efficiently they are converted to hammers. (Very far from original.)

I disagree. Because of the exploit, it's the exact opposite. Whipping 1 is more efficient than whipping 2, which is more efficient than whipping 3. Even without the exploit, the is the case (not taking into account happiness), because you're left working fewer tiles for a shorter period of time.

2) If your city's citizens are working unimproved tiles, it's better to whip them, no matter how many you whip at a time. (not original, but proved here)

Even if your city's citizens are working improved tiles, it's better to whip them. As long as there's no whip unhappiness in your city, and the city is at max pop, you should always whip. Improved tile or not.

3) If you are happiness limited, your food surplus is +2F while working MaxHappy-1 tiles and your last citizen can either be whipped or put to work on a mined hill:
. . a) grassland hill mine: you can get 30H (or 48H max with the bugged whip) for him now plus 1H/turn for 10 turns, or 4H/turn for 10 turns
. . b) plains hill mine: you can get 30H/48H now plus 1H/turn for 10 turns, or 4H/turn for 10 turns
. . (these conclusions are, I think, original)

I disagree with your results, because your methodology was faulty. Besides, the numbers depend on starting pop level, so you can't just blurt out numbers like that and expect them to be true for any case.

4) If you are happiness limited, the best time to whip is likely to be the very turn you grow to MaxHappy. I only outline the 1-pop whip case, but I think it's at least often, if not always, the case for 2+-pop whipping too. (original)

I disagree. It's often (if not always, i need to work on this one) better to whip just before going up in level, not after.

5) If you whip 3-pop from a happiness-limited city that has really high-productivity marginal tiles, the whip gives you a 5-10% return bugged or fair. (the idea is far from original, the quantification might be)

No, it gives more than that. It's just that you never used the whip properly (as can be shown by the fact that you actually left a high food tile idle for 2 out of 10 turns).

Note how little they differ from Zombie69's original position that he has been strongly suggesting I don't understand or agree with.

Still very different.

1) Always work bonus food resources while under your happiness cap

Always work bonus food resource no matter where you stand. If happiness becomes a problem, whip now rather than later, but always, ALWAYS work the food resource.

2) Whip as many citizens at a time as you can

Completely wrong. Cities with high food should whip as many as they can to maximize production while minimizing unhappiness. Cities with low food should whip as few as they can to maximize the bonus from while still being able to grow.

3) a) At HappyCap, whip just after you grow.

Wrong. Again, i must tell you, it's often (if not always) the case that you should whip before growth, not after.

. . b) Below HappyCap, whip just before you grow.

Whether you're at or below happy cap has nothing to do with whether you should whip before or after growth. The factors involved seem to be much more complex.

Whoa! Those first two and half the third are exactly what Zombie69's said all along! I know. He's right.

If you think that, then you still don't understand what i'm saying. It looks to me like we don't agree on any of your points.

I have never once disagreed with him about any of them (except 3a).[/u] His replies to my posts indicates that he thinks I've disagreed with him, but he is mistaken.

Your post indicates that you still don't know what i'm talking about, which explains why you don't understand why i say that you disagree with me.

The calculations I've made on these cases indicate something else that might be of interest to people glancing through this thread.

Be careful about trying to draw any conclusion from your calculations, since they still haven't been done correctly.

If you're not interested in micromanaging whipping for best production results, you're probably losing about 10% in production and/or commerce compared to those who do. This compares whipping to standard means of production.

You're losing more than that (your calculations still haven't been done properly even for one single scenario), and the actual numbers depend on circumstance, chief on which being your the amount of excees food you can manage.

The previous italicized statement is also one way to help evaluate the benefit of running the Slavery civic.

It would be a good way if your numbers were correct, but unfortunately you haven't reached that point yet. Either way, the numbers differ greatly for every city, depending on its size and its amount of excess food, so trying to decide whether to adopt slavery based on those numbers would be impossible without making a list for all different scenarios, finding in which scenario each if your cities stands, and adding those up, which would be ridiculously time consuming. Either way, it's not needed, because i can already tell you that slavery is always the best option. All the other options in this civics group frankly suck. The only time it's worth it to get out of slavery is when you're starting to get too much unhappiness from other civs switching to emancipation.

I think it might be of interest to some non-micromanagers to know what they're missing by not following all of Zombie69's excellent micromanagement techniques. This quantifies the cost for not using the whip optimally.

I agree it would be of interest, unfortunately you've provided no such info as of yet.

All I've shown is that there are a couple cases--e.g. when you have a spare high-production resource that you'd otherwise not be working and you're at your happiness limit--when you can squeak a little more (more, but delayed) production out of a city by working the resource by whipping one citizen. (Unless you exploit the bug. Then it's *always* better to whip.)

Even without the exploit, it's always better to whip, provided you have enough food surplus to afford it (except at very high city sizes). But since you've yet to shown appropriate use of the whip, you couldn't show this.

Whipping three at once gives you a better return. I don't know about whipping two (probably close to even if a fair whip. I'm sure for 4 or more at a time it's an even better idea to whip. Because these special cases are not common enough, and because the benefit is small enough, the easier rule of thumb to remember and apply is just grow and whip.

Actually, the return doesn't get better as you whip more, it gets worse (as shown by Malekithe in his excellent post. But if you whip more, it means you're using more food, so even though the return per food is less, the total hammers are more.

The last sentence in the paragraph above is the only thing i agree with in this entire post. It is indeed a good rule of thumb to remember to just grow and whip. Never refuse a food bonus, work all the food you can without building any non-resource farms, and whip all this great food into lots of hammers. A good rule of thumb for how many points you should whip at a time is how many you can regrow with the food surplus that you have, in the 10 turns it takes for unhappiness to subside.

I've also shown that in the happiness-limited case, it's better to whip just before you grow than just after.

Again, happiness has nothing to do with whether of these is better. The factors involved are totally different and much more complex.

Finally, I've quantified the benefit you get from the whip when you whip 3-pop at once. Think of it as about 10% over normal production methods.

No, you haven't. You've provided flawed calculations giving false results for one case (size 6, +5F), and didn't even attempt to provide the numbers for different sizes and different food surplus. Those numbers are completely different.

What I've presented is only interesting to those interested in extreme micromanagement, which is why I've presented it here. It will have little affect on your gameplay if you ignore every single word.

It would be interesting for those who like micromanagement, if the numbers were right. As it stands, it's not only uninteresting, but downright hurtful if someone bases his game on numbers he expects to be right, unaware that the numbers provided are completely wrong.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 04:37 PM
I think my last post indicates how much our thinking overlaps.

I think your last post indicates how our thinking is completely opposite.

I have presented my city totals in three ways: my original way, a modification of malekithe's way, and another way involving opportunity cost on missed tile-turns. You have glanced through or ignored the first two and not taken the time to understand the third. I believe I've been clear and complete. I can't think of more ways to show my calculations that won't take an inordinate amount of my time.

Again, I hope that my last post indicates to you that I completely understand your position, your calculations, and your conclusions. If you are not interested in taking the time to understand mine, that's fine. My thoughts are documented here for anyone with the time and interest to verify the calculations and conclusions for themselves.

Actually, i've made a huge amount of effort to understand your results above. I managed to understand the first part, even though it wasn't as well formatted as Malekithe's. The second part, i really tried, but it's hard to understand what you're talking about. I know that in the first part, which i understand for sure, you made big mistakes near the end, which totally disquilify any numbers you could come up with. You didn't use the whip properly, and so it will surely show up as less efficient than it truly is.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 04:52 PM
While you are correct, it's worth pointing out that in order to get similar results to whipping (in your last trial), you still had to perform a fair amount of micromanagement. Namely, you had to purposely go into a food deficit for a couple of turns so that you could benefit from the food resource to recover from that deficit. I'm not sure this is something most people do on a regular basis. It was really only a fall-out of the mathematical model used to simulate the management of the city. I use(d) it on occasion in real games, but, since I discovered the efficiency of whipping, I devote the same amount of micromanagement (possibly less, actually) and get better results.

You're right about the micromanaging I did in that case. I was specifically trying to get back to the same point the city started at within 10 turns so that the two cases could be compared on an equal--or near-equal--basis. In real life, under those circumstances, you'd just have to work your food bonus and production tiles so as not to lose a population point or grow above your happy cap.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Compromise
Jun 15, 2006, 04:58 PM
Actually, i've made a huge amount of effort to understand your results above.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Also, I apologize. I overstepped my bounds when I attempted to put words in your mouth about what we would agree or disagree about. It looks like we disagree on many points.

Your reply to my summary chastises me for not accepting as absolute truth that I must always work bonus food tiles and whip the resulting citizens efficiently into hammers.

I am aware of no errors in my examples, and will correct any that are pointed out to me. Telling me that I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

My conclusions are extrapolations based on my understanding and interpretation of my examples. That extrapolation is an error-prone process.

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 05:15 PM
You're right about the micromanaging I did in that case. I was specifically trying to get back to the same point the city started at within 10 turns so that the two cases could be compared on an equal--or near-equal--basis. In real life, under those circumstances, you'd just have to work your food bonus and production tiles so as not to lose a population point or grow above your happy cap.

Thanks for pointing this out.

No, like i said, in real life, you still wouldn't work the production tiles (which are inferior tiles, remember?) What you'd do, like i said, is keep growing and just make the next whip one turn sooner.

If you wanted comparisons that both finish where they started, you should have simply taken Malekithe's example, which was at pop 7 (with whipping) and 8 (no whipping).

Zombie69
Jun 15, 2006, 05:18 PM
Your reply to my summary chastises me for not accepting as absolute truth that I must always work bonus food tiles and whip the resulting citizens efficiently into hammers.

I am aware of no errors in my examples, and will correct any that are pointed out to me. Telling me that I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong.

Look a few posts before (#242), where i clearly explained where you went wrong. On turns 9 and 10 in the whip scenario, you used inferior tiles, making this option seem less attractive than it really is.

Again, if you absolutely must use an example where both cases end where they started, use Malekithe's example at pop 7 and 8.