Spend GS or save like always?

Now I want to add something new to this thread. I want to speak about using other great people and specialists other then GS and scientists.

Scientist and GS are easy that they are usefull because more science means faster SV. Gold alow you to get more RAs in many chases and a RA can give more science then a GS and a merchant can give instantly gold for about 2 RAs. How quickly you finish rationalism depends on culture and artist and great artist can increase the culture alot also great artist can also give you gold and production by golden ages. Great enginners will help you finish all the costly wonders fast which means that you will probably get them and you can concentrate on growth and producing other buildings which will help you on your goal.

Going for SV often means that you are going for hugh cities which should be able to have alot of specialists without problem. But the real qustion is do other specialists hurt or help in SV.

All specialists eventually give +2 Beakers so they help. I especially put up culture specialists when I can.

Gabriel Pyyrhic said:

S.K and Denkt et al

Here are the preliminary results, without RA's (which I doing the Visual Basic for tonight hopefully).

I will just use the T115 Scientist for this example and add the others in later. I will also post the spreadsheet once its finished so people can play around with various values (ie science milestone turn time, bpt, GS spawns, RA times etc).

• By University = 1 turn saving.
• By Rationalism = 1 turn saving (Total = 2 turns)
• By Scientific Method = 1 Turn Saving (Total = 3 turns)
• By Free Thought (+Observatories) = 0 Turn Saving (Total = 3 Turns)
• By Research Labs = 2 Turn Saving (Total = 5 Turns)
• By Bulb Date = 0 Turn Saving (Total = 5 Turns).

• Remainder Beakers = 404.6
• Total Beakers from Turn Savings = 5 * 726.5 (bpt at bulb date without academies + a single academy) = 3632.5
• Total Beakers = 4037.1

This is a considerable difference from S.K original estimates which did not take into account the compunding effect of reaching science milestones earlier.

This figure does not have RA's factored in yet, which I believe will push it past the bulb amount.

I have computed values for GS spawning at all the science milestone dates (for simplicty) so we should get a good analysis of how the beakers are falling off over time.

For example a T130 GS (UNIVERITY MILESTONE) only nets 3280.6 beakers. T150 (RATIONALISM MILESTONE) is 2431.3 beakers. Remeber to break even we need slightly less than an 8 turn difference.

For those who want to know how this has all been computed I will write it up later and post the spreadsheet, but so long as I have not made any calculation errors I believe the mathematical method is sound.

The RA calculation is more complex as it depends on when the RA is taken, and the amount needs to be averaged over 30 turns (may make that a variable so other game speeds can be analysed) and then its compunding effect computed. The excel formulae would end up being ridiculous so I will use VB, and post the code when I am done for others to validate.

Anyway thats where the analysis currrently stands.

Comments ?

Click to expand...

Very interesting and I look forward to the explanation and spreadsheet.
Will be great to have a bunch of us test out the conclusions and see if it reduces our victory times...

@Denkt

As far as Great Merchants go (in terms of more RA's as you mentioned a while back), they should be pretty easy to compare once the GS calcs are completed.
The only variables will be the time the GP is expended and those that already pertain to the RA's.

Alternatively if you consider planting the GM , then you have to wait for enough gold to use and then use it on an RA.
This will give a result that is similar in practice to bulbing (ie the effects come later, so less compounding).
Considering you get no return until you have saved the money and completed the RA (so long as it does not prematurely terminate).

There is the arguement that GM's gold should not be considered in a vacume, and should be combined with your gpt, as no ones waits until the GM has paid for an RA before using it
This is pretty much incalculable unless you are using every piece of gpt, (not consumed by maintenance etc), for RA's. This would then be possible.
I might look at this if I can easily modify the science formulaes for gpt and RA's.

Personally I do not think this will be as efficient as using a GS as it would highlight some pretty poor game design if it did.
Addittionally part of the GM's effects is on the City State, at least for the non planting part.

In terms of other GP, they are only going to help if they allow a science miletsone to be completed earlier (directly through research, or indirectly through culture) or add to base science.
Hopefully I will have time to look at the cultural affects for GS's.

Certainly all worth looking at but very difficult to quantify without some solid baseline GS calcs to compare to. Without that its just conjecture and personal opinion.

Thanks for further clarifying your formulae. As mentioned previously the compounding effects will cause a considerable difference over time so even an average bpt will give a heavily biased comparison in favour of bulbing.
(Roughly 1700 beakers for a T115 GS comes from compound effects IIRC, thats close to 1/3rd of the bulb amount for the example we have been using ie S.K's).

@iffennim

Possibly, or this could be the most ingenious troll thread ever

Stephen Hawking said that you halve your book sales for every formulae you use within it; actually soemone else said it but he qouted them in a "A Brief History Of Time". So a good way to make people ignore your posts, but trust the premise, is to throw around lots of "interpolations", "calculations" and "postulations"

FTR Trolls should be hung by their pink bits.

@ All Interested and S K

I have completed the VB/Excel for computing base Academy contributions to RA's, but have yet to calculate the compounding effects they yield.

By this I mean I have calculated the science contribution a single academy gives to a single RA, based upon when that RA is negotiated, with respect to the RA length (ie 30 turns on standard speed).

What I have not done is taken these results and applied them to see if that raw science, yield per turn savings that result in science milestones being pulled forwards.

In other words knowing a given RA yields 200 beakers in the University to Rationalism period, and then another 180 between Rationalism and Scientific Method may mean that Free Thought is attained a turn earlier which would then yield an approximate 700bpt science contribution instead of a 180+200 = 380 science contribution. The 700 comes from the bpt earned at the bulb date.

If this is hard to follow it works in a similar way to how getting a free culture policy, if you are going for a CULTURAL VICTORY, does not save you the cost of the policy you receive, but rather the cost of the last policy you would need to attain. This is a much bigger saving and therefor the net cultural benefit of that policy is much higher.
So, for example, the Oracle essentially makes your last policy cost free. (Assuming it still works this way after G and K, I don't know as I havn't tried the Oracle since then).

Continuing with that analogy a single turn saving anywhere before the bulb date does not yield you the BPT on the turn it saves, but rather the bpt at the bulb date. That is where the 700 Beakers come from, and why compound effects are so important to consider.

So now for the preliminary results :
I chose RA's taken at dates aligned with the science milestones from S.K's examples. I did it this way so you could get a look at how the contribution increase over time.

Science Milestone-------RA T115--RA T135--RA T150--RA T170--RA T180--RA 230
Pre-Uni - Uni--------------180
Uni - Rat------------------220------293
Rat - Scientific Method--------------158-------317
SM - Free Thought----------------------------198-------198
FT - Research Labs--------------------------------------530-------795
RL - Bulb Date--------------------------------------------------------------212
Bulb Date - ???? ------------------------------------------------------------583

Totalled these values yield :

T115 RA - 400 Beakers
T135 RA - 451 Beakers
T150 RA - 515 Beakers
T170 RA - 728 Beakers
T180 RA - 795 Beakers
T230 RA - 795 Beakers
NOTE : These are the RA start dates, not the date they are completed.

You will notice that after Free Thought there is no more Beaker increase, as there are no more science multipliers; (exluding the Atomic Theory Academy bonus which I may factor in at alter date for completeness, its contribution will be small eitherway).

Now plugging these into the RA formulae, and assuming the partners bpt is greater than yours, and therefor does not affect the result.

T115 - 133.3 Beakers
T135 - 150.3 Beakers
T150 - 171.6 Beakers
T170 - 242.6 Beakers
T180 - 265 Beakers
T230 - 265 Beakers

So using S.K's example where I believe he said he was using 8 RA's, and assuming they all came after the Academy plant, you could receive anywhere from 1066.6 Beakers to 2120 Beakers contributed to RA's from a SINGLE Academy plant.

Please remember this is yet to take into account the compound effects of RA's, nor the compound effects of multiple RA's, nor the compound effects of multiple Academies, nor multiple Academies and RA's. All of that will be added in time, showing there is more beaker wiggle room to go

In summary the Beaker value for a single Academy, assuming 8 RA's taken, as the calculations currently stand , range from :

MINIMUM : T115 - 4037 + 1066 = 5103 Beakers
MAXIMUM : T115 - 4037 + 2120 = 6157 Beakers

When I produce my final calculations I will hopefully be able to provide a graph to show how everything inter-relates.

Hope this is of some help.

FYI I will next loook at the compound effects of RA's and then repost with the new data.

All hail the number king.

A more general view is more interesting. I decided to play two games with the same start, one optimized for bulbing and one for settling with a totally non-science related civ, normal size continents plus, emperor, epic speed.

I random rolled Japan, first game went for Liberty-partional Commerce-Rationalism first, following the best strategies for this type as I usually rarely go Liberty. Constantly had problems with money (no rivers), and gss costing maintenance, also got beaten to some wonders I really wanted. Napoleon constantly harrassing me was icing on the cake. RAs netted pretty nice beaker counts in the end, but I didn't really enjoy the whole thing, got the spaceship in 1924, which isn't overly fantastic.

Next I went Tradition-partial Commerce-Freedom-, had 6 academies when I finished Freedom, also got every wonder I wanted. Kyoto had an insane hammer/beaker count, during the whole game I was leading tech, strong military kept France and Russia at bay. Only scientists I burned came in modern era. Finished the ship in 1898, 25 turns faster, while having an easier game and more score as well.

Despite having chosen the same city spots, disregarding my knowledge of resource spots, there are tons of factors I couldn't calculate, such as pure luck, the two games felt totally different. I'd never again try saving those brightheads.

Only great people I burn most of the time are artists if I don't go fur a cultural victory.

wow, incredible thread. i cant believe i read the whole thing. and, yes, i do have a headache but it was worth it.

i just got my GnK 3 days ago and have only been able to take note of the changes/nerfs in a very limited capacity. mostly i only came here for something to help me understand the new RA mechanic. After playing (poorly) with some older assumptions of median values I realized i was no longer in my 'element' regarding the game. (i actually timed Rationalism 1 turn before an RA completed and I was PISSED when i realized the opener was no longer the RA benefit it was. i wasnt even reading the text before taking policies, how stupid!)

well, lo and behold, this thread delivereth. I am both stunned and impressed at the resolve and effort this game has initiated in its players as well as what those players are producing all in the name of getting to the bottom of a question. I am generally impressed at the intelligence it takes to enjoy a game like CiV but seeing these efforts amplifies that several fold. Yeah, I read the whole thing, but I retained maybe 10% of it. It's gonna take me some time to really absorb this info but I think i'll start with the new RA mechanic. My timings are all way off now that old strategies (relatively speaking) no longer apply. But that's a good thing so far. It makes it a new game and lets me toss some old habits (both enjoyable ones and irritating ones).

Thanks. I'm taking this class pass/fail, haha, because I'm pretty sure I already have a D in this subject.

@Nikae

Yes I totally agree that there are many incalculabe factors.

But I guess the goal here from my perspective (and probably S.K's and others too) is to see the relative beneifts to raw science and tech progression from bulb vs plant.

If you know that prior to TURN X (based on your own playstyle milestones) Plant will always beat a saved bulb, then there will never be a reason to save it before TURN X; (why forgo the benefits now, and pay maintenence for a lesser effect later ?).

After that date, the player can then weigh the benefits of planting/bulbing against in game factors. I can see no factors that will ever make a SAVED bulb better than a planted Academy, prior to this date viable. As of yet this date is unknown and will ultimately range dependent on milestone dates.

If you want to compare two games, with the luck factor removed, just make sure that the games use the same fixed seed. This will then ensure all "random" events in one game, are computed the same in another. The only affecting factor will be your own decisions.

For example ruin benefits should not change, AI strategy on the unmet continent (assuming continents) should play out exactly the same until they meet you.

I am not sure where you input this, but I think it is in one of the config files. This is based on a half memory so please don't take as writ. Perhaps civ does not allow changing the seed other then the Checkbox in the Advanced Options Tab.

I realise you probably do not care eitherway, but thought I would mention it in case you were.

BTW Interesting game account.

@SK

Who the hell is the number king, and why isn't he/she doing this ?

Gabriel Pyyrhic said:

@SK

Who the hell is the number king, and why isn't he/she doing this ?

Click to expand...

Dat vud be yous boss!

I am more of a jester. I play around and put up convincing 'acts' but beyond my initial investment I tend to get sidetracked easily But with the effort you've put in, you clearly have a more dedicated skillset.

Also, whats with people giving the Date of their victory and not the turn count and speed. I annoys me to no end that I have to look up what the date/turn correlation is due to the heavy time compression in the early eras of the game.

I'd care if I knew more about IT stuff, but I am a multi-language teacher, human studies didn't give much basis to deal with config files

As for the random seed, ruins boni are constant on a map, but only as long as you take the same choices, I've tested this in several games. The most I can do for the same game is reloading the initial autosave.

My point was not to face the mathematic challenge on the topic, for that I apologize, I know that my post is rather derailment, but it had a simple forum reason. Most of the people who read forums about games do that in an effort to get better at the game. I only wanted to point out for people, that trying to follow maths to the letter may lead to ignoring crucial factors, and people who read the otherwise very valuable information you gave might blame you if things don't play out as they think was planned.

What do you mean by interesting?

@Nikae

Hmmm sorry if my post came off badly, that was not my intent. I am in 100% agreement with you about the contributing factors.
Thats actually what got me interested in SK's thread in the first place, attempting to qualify the MANY factors at play. To that end I am trying to quantify all of the factors I can, whilst enumerating (and stressing) all of those I cannot.

For example cultural benefits that come from a faster tech progression has not yet been considered.
As SK mentioned getting rationalism as policy 6 saves him about 20 turns, thats huge.Perhaps further culutural benefits, from tech progesssion resulting from academies, could push into rationalism faster and yield more beakers.
I am NOT looking forward to trying to quantify this

Once done I will write it all up and explain what the results do, and do not cover, and when they should be considered. Till then I am just posting preliminary results as they come, and general thread lurking/hijacking

I will also endeavour to post my VB/Spreadsheet (have no idea how to upload to these forums but I am sure it cannot be too hard) and people can then fully customize it to answer there own questions.
I will LOCK the spreadsheet so the only variables that can be changed are the ones that should be being tampered with, making it a little more user friendly.
Anyone that wants to get to the "guts" of the calculations can always unlock it.
In addititon I will try to summarise the results with a series of graphs plotting GS spawn times, BPT, Science milestones, RA number, RA time generated, game speed etc; not all of the same graph BTW .

Also I will endeavour to make two results posts, one for the TLDR idealogues and one for those that are as interested in the WHY, as well as the HOW.

Luckily my job ATM, entails alot of waiting for program compilations, test runs etc, so I have time to pursue these thought experiments. Its much more interesting then staring at a percentage completion bar for 15 minutes at a time.

RE: Other Stuff
Please no need to apologise, I took no offence and thought you raised very good point(s).
Also by interesting I meant it was interesting reading your examples, that highlighted your premise.
I enjoy reading about other peoples in game experiences, espeically when you read emotion creeping in to their descriptions

Sorry if my previous response came off as being facetetious, it was not my intent. I was going for brevity in order to shorten my usual WALL OF TEXT Yes I know I failed big time in this reply......
PS A multi-language teacher, cool. I am very interested in civilization development (hence my civ interest), and in particular languages and language development. I think its pretty cool how language is one of the most reliable ways of tracking a given civilizations cultural and genetic links. Unfortunately though I only speak english and a little latin. Wish I had your language ability! All the best, happy civing, and hope you found/find my posts helpful.
(FYI I shifted my reply about seeds/ruins into the below post)

@Nikae

RE : Seed
As far as a set seed goes. I was talking about fixing it between disparate games, rather then just using the advanced tab, although I certainly did not explain myself very well.
The advanced tab only means the seed will be fixed at game start and NOT changed throughout, so results that require a random result will always be the same, given the same in game parameters, thus preventing the reload and re-ruin tactic.

SEED EXPLAINED
In case you do not know what a SEED is : A seed is just a number (Integer generally) that is used as a basis for random number generation within a program. So for example during combat when Civ is calculating if one Unit injures another it adds a small random component. With a set seed this random component, uses the SEED as the random part of the calculation. With a random seed, it will generally use the current time (in milliseconds).

So say that Civ adds a 10% random component to combat (I have no idea how much it really adds). With a set seed it could just take the seed and Mod it by 10 to get a "random" percentage between 1 and 10. MOD just means divide by, and keep the remainder.

So 5 MOD 10 = 5, 15 MOD 10 = 5, 17 MOD 10 = 7, 117 MOD 100 = 17 etc.

As the seed does not change, neither will the random amount that is added to combat this time. To make sure it changes each combat, you could just add the TURN number and combat engagement number, to the calculation thus ensuring the result is always the same - for the same set of circumstance. So turn 115, second combat, means add 117 to the seed, then MOD by 10.
Alternatively a random seed (not a set one) would always be different, even in the same set of circumstances.

These were just simple examples for determining a random component, the exact formulae will be more complex, but similar in principle. I hope that is not too bad an explanation. I would have explained further but I am fighting against the WALL OF TEXT​

What I actually meant (RE: Seeds), was taking the seed from one game (making sure the non random seed checkbox was set), and then using it in another. Thus making the difference between the games totally dependent on your choice as a player.
This allows you to use, for example, a different civ. You can do the same thing by just saving your game and then reloading (so long as non random seed is checked) but this wont allow you to try a different Civ, or starting position. I am not sure if the seed is used for the map too, so you may need to save the map seperately.

There are actually some cool things you can change in the Civ V config files (4 files IIRC) to improve your gameplay experience.
For example you can enable reflections which look pretty cool but are disabled be deault. Change the maximum Zoom level, etc. Again all this comes without a warranty

There are also some variables you can set that stop you having to set the advanced tab options each game.
I am actually working on cracking the code for some of these as people seem to want to know how to save their advanced options very badly, and I would like to help if I can find the time to figure it out. I am kinda baffled at the moment.

RE : Ruins
In regards to how ruins work, I am quite interested in your observations as I have not explicitely tested these myself in Civ V and was going to look into the mechanics for a couple of other Fanatics who were interested.

I believe Ruins are not just affected by the random seed, but also by past ruin results.
I think (and I stress this is still not much better than conjecture ATM) that each ruin of a given type actually reduces the odds of getting that same type again.
This could then make ruins appear to be changing (via the seed) when they are actually changing via earlier results.
For example take one more ruin and you alter the odds, take them in a different order and you alter the odds, etc.

So as it stands now, do you know what happens in the following situation : You have a non-random seed, select the same three ruins in a row, then reload, change a few of your choices but still take the same 3 ruins in the same order, will you get the same results ?
I am very interested in this answer, if you know off hand, and mind replying.

Thanks

S.K. Ren said:

Dat vud be yous boss!

I am more of a jester. I play around and put up convincing 'acts' but beyond my initial investment I tend to get sidetracked easily But with the effort you've put in, you clearly have a more dedicated skillset.

Also, whats with people giving the Date of their victory and not the turn count and speed. I annoys me to no end that I have to look up what the date/turn correlation is due to the heavy time compression in the early eras of the game.

Click to expand...

@S . K Ren
Certainly wouldn't underestimate your own contributions. I thought you posed a very good question, and provided enough REAL data to make me rethink both my approach to GS's and the mechanics behind them. Prior to your question I did not really think I could come up with a way of finding a turn-tipping-point for Bulbing/Planting. Now I think that I most certainly can find a Maximum beyond which BULBING is always better, (in terms of long term tech yield), a Minimum below which PLANTING is always better and middle area where options should be weighed against the in game situation.

Thanks for the generous interpretation of my skillset , and BTW I sent you a PM, not sure if you got it or not.

@Hammer Rabbi
Glad you find/found it usefull, I am sure SK is grateful for your interest too. Helps keep the thread alive, outside my incessent postings

@ Gabriel - can you summarize your conclusions about the tipping point so far?

I would like to, but it is still far to premature. Too many factors to give a remotely accurate answer and I don't want to give you bad info.

All I can really confirm is its reasonably safe to say a pre-uni GS is always going to be better Planted. But that is not really telling anyone anything earth shattering Even that I am hesitant to say without confirming through hard data once all the factors are considered.

I really am not keen to draw any more conclusions then I already have. I tend to be precise by nature, if you hadn't noticed

The only example I can give is the Turn 115 GS Plant comes out ahead of a saved bulb, (given 8 RA's) , without considering many of the factors I intend to eventually consider. So it is reasonable to assume the tipping point is much higher then that.

In the end the tipping point will not be a number but rather a range of numbers dependent on RA's, science milestones, game speed etc.

The best I can probably give is a table to look it up, or spreadsheet to calculate it. That way it is done with respect to each persons game.

I really wish it was simpler, and I could just say plant before your halfway through the tech tree, or something similar but I can't. Will try to get it out as soon as possible but there is much more to do. At least 4 more factors to consider before the science side is done. I also only really get a limited amount of time to do it each day, so it will take a bit. I will try and add a bit each day where I can. Today I did not really get much of chance, just a bit of time to reply to a few of the thread contributers (and a couple of XCom : EU posts ) and thats it.

@iffinnem

Sorry I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were asking where it was located, which I didn't want to answer as I am fairly sure whatever I say will end up being wrong once I have more data added.

It is 3:13 am here and I finished work about 30 minutes ago and was just checking in before bed. Tommorrow I will try and provide the summary you asked for along with my next update, but it all depends on how work shapes up.

Glad to see you are still following us

Gabriel Pyyrhic said:

@iffinnem

Sorry I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were asking where it was located, which I didn't want to answer as I am fairly sure whatever I say will end up being wrong once I have more data added.

It is 3:13 am here and I finished work about 30 minutes ago and was just checking in before bed. Tommorrow I will try and provide the summary you asked for along with my next update, but it all depends on how work shapes up.

Glad to see you are still following us

Click to expand...

Sounds good
Paying attention? yes, following? not so much

Gabriel, I've been following your work since your analysis of diplomacy last year. That was easy to grasp. Here the only easy thing for me is waiting for your conclusions, and seeing how much they vary from Madjinn's quick-and-dirty tipping point calculation, or the gut-based one I had been using (after most RL's are completed). What I have learned already is the connection between RA's and planting. Thanks for all your work. A lot more people will appreciate your effort once the formula is released into the CFC nervous system.