mabraham
Deity
Thanks bc - good game and very good analysis.
I have three other small analytical observations to make:
... and down by 3 and 10.
That extra worker does have a significant value, and I don't expect he'd go fully to waste, but with only one galley available, each additional thing to get moved around tends to subtract a bit from the value of all the other things that now aren't as effective either. This is very hard to estimate and depends how AI trading goes. Certainly a second galley should be on the planning table soon after that trireme. R1's next priority would be another settler. bc's is might be a third worker, but if we had found another nearby 2-seafood city site, then I'd want a settler for that, first.
I think that's a wash, but even if you accepted my 18 estimate and deducted it from your total output, your 8-cities approach is still ahead. (You could argue that the effectively-earlier whip is worth more than the raw . Also that it should be added, rather than subtracted!)
In this scenario, Vicky has quite few cities. In the real game, she may have more (so more trade route opportunities), or we may meet more AIs (so the 8th city actually gets foreign trade routes).
I think that stems from his higher total population, rather than some systemic difference. Consider the effect of 4 people working lighthouse-coast.
I think it's fairly close, but your fast-expansion approach has demonstrated an edge.
If there's still doubt, we should also look at the rates of and production for the two empires, working equivalent tiles, and adjusted somehow for population. My expectation is that the extra trade route, extra free central tile and extra worked seafood will offset the extra maintenance to put bc's game slightly ahead there too.
I have three other small analytical observations to make:
- At 0% slider, R1 and bc had respectively 10 and 6 on their next tech, with respectively 90 and 55 in the bank increasing at respectively 32 and 25 /turn. So if we give bc the extra turn to T151, he's behind by 3 and 10 .
- Of the cities where whip- was going to impact on how they were going to do things in future, at T151 R1 had 35/18/0 turns left of whip- in CC/FH/PC and at T150 bc had 36/24/2. So I estimate that bc has done his relevant whips 6 turns net earlier, which you might say is 40% of 45, or 18. So I don't think either game has whipped in such a way as to unbalance the comparison.
- If R1 did whip down 4 population per bc's comparison approach, if those 4 population were each working a lighthouse-coast, that would also reduce R1's T151 science advantage of ~8/turn.
So with T150 production my latest test game is up 17 food in bins, 28 hammers, 59 food/hammers (extra settler vs. extra worker)
... and down by 3 and 10.
That extra worker does have a significant value, and I don't expect he'd go fully to waste, but with only one galley available, each additional thing to get moved around tends to subtract a bit from the value of all the other things that now aren't as effective either. This is very hard to estimate and depends how AI trading goes. Certainly a second galley should be on the planning table soon after that trireme. R1's next priority would be another settler. bc's is might be a third worker, but if we had found another nearby 2-seafood city site, then I'd want a settler for that, first.
I have more infrastructure that I've whipped a bit earlier (so whip anger might decay a few turns earlier)
I think that's a wash, but even if you accepted my 18 estimate and deducted it from your total output, your 8-cities approach is still ahead. (You could argue that the effectively-earlier whip is worth more than the raw . Also that it should be added, rather than subtracted!)
biggest difference is producing 1 more settler vs 1 more worker
(more cities busts more fog so less likely to get as many enemy galleys)
(more cities increases maintenance that isn't quite offset by trade route and tiles, but situation will improve quickly with currency (and somewhat soon whipped courthouses)
In this scenario, Vicky has quite few cities. In the real game, she may have more (so more trade route opportunities), or we may meet more AIs (so the 8th city actually gets foreign trade routes).
Ron has a research advantage at T151 of 8 sustainable / turn.
I think that stems from his higher total population, rather than some systemic difference. Consider the effect of 4 people working lighthouse-coast.
I hope this helps people decide what is the better option.
I think it's fairly close, but your fast-expansion approach has demonstrated an edge.
If there's still doubt, we should also look at the rates of and production for the two empires, working equivalent tiles, and adjusted somehow for population. My expectation is that the extra trade route, extra free central tile and extra worked seafood will offset the extra maintenance to put bc's game slightly ahead there too.