Micromanagement is alive and well in Civ 4!

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

jar2574 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DaviddesJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

DaviddesJ said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jar2574 said:

I also mentioned that my goal is fastest finish.

Click to expand...

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".

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Zombie69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zombie69 said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mutineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.