I come from a poker background so I'm used to looking for the expected value of things. I wonder if there's been any work done to compare the values of the various in-game currency? I imagine there's more art to this than science, and the values of hammers, gold, faith, or food can fluctuate over time or depending what social policies you use or what your civ's UA is.
Just a few random thoughts:
Hammers vs Gold:
These aren't directly convertible because they have different natures. Hammers appear to be worth more, but the nature of spending hammers to acquire buildings/units is that you have to wait; with gold you do not have to wait and there is direct, measurable value to that convenience.
Interestingly, the value of a hammer IMO increases as a city can produce more and more, because the interval that one must wait to build the unit is shorter and shorter. I.E. if you have a major production city that can build one Knight per turn, there's not a point to rush buying knights (unless you need more than one per turn of course!). Conversely, a city that produces one hammer will take 40 turns to build a scout, those hammers are nearly worthless.
This principle can be applied in practice to workshops. The 2gpt and initial hammer cost for a workshop in an underdeveloped city isn't worth it because it will still be a poor producer until it can grow large enough for those extra hammers to be worth something.
Gold vs Time:
I haven't tabulated all of the gold costs but it would seem to appear that they approach hammer cost over time, and initially cost many times the hammer cost of a unit/building. For example 310 gold for a worker, but industrial era stuff that has 5 times the hammer cost might cost only twice as much gold.
From this we can deduce that the value of gold is far less in early game. The only way you can justify the cost of rush buying things in ancient or classical is if the snowballing benefits of that purchase will recoup that cost. I.E. if rush buying that worker gives you X more hammers and gold from improvements over time that you wouldn't have accumulated otherwise, and X is greater than 310 gold, then the purchase was sound.
In opposition to this are unit gpt costs which increase over time. Its interesting that rush buying gets cheaper and cheaper and maintenance gets more and more expensive. It would seem logical that both would have the same trend.
Also, a couple of minor points. Roads remain 1gpt/tile throughout the entire game, so it can be deduced that roads get effectively cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on, at least in relation to unit maintenance. And interestingly it would appear that gold (and to a lesser extent, faith) is the only currency whose worth can be directly changed by policies, with the 25% reduction from Commerce and Big Ben's 15%.
Value of Food:
A couple of facts should be stated. First, population points seem to be of slightly declining value as the number increases. This is because the first tiles worked are probably the most valuable. This is countered somewhat by the aforementioned principle of increasing hammer value in a city.
Second, population points are directly convertible to Food and vice-versa. Also, the specialist buildings (and policies that enhance them) enhance the value of citizens past a certain number, as those would otherwise be working garbage tiles.
Third, the value of food is clearly great in the beginning and diminishing over time, as it takes more and more food to grow a new citizen.
So we these points, we can say that food has diminishing value, but incredibly high value in a fledgling city. Also, the higher the food surplus in a city, the more significant the growth bonuses are.
Faith/Culture/Happiness:
I haven't done much work on valuating these. They are highly dependant on situation. Thoughts are welcomed.
Just a few random thoughts:
Hammers vs Gold:
These aren't directly convertible because they have different natures. Hammers appear to be worth more, but the nature of spending hammers to acquire buildings/units is that you have to wait; with gold you do not have to wait and there is direct, measurable value to that convenience.
Interestingly, the value of a hammer IMO increases as a city can produce more and more, because the interval that one must wait to build the unit is shorter and shorter. I.E. if you have a major production city that can build one Knight per turn, there's not a point to rush buying knights (unless you need more than one per turn of course!). Conversely, a city that produces one hammer will take 40 turns to build a scout, those hammers are nearly worthless.
This principle can be applied in practice to workshops. The 2gpt and initial hammer cost for a workshop in an underdeveloped city isn't worth it because it will still be a poor producer until it can grow large enough for those extra hammers to be worth something.
Gold vs Time:
I haven't tabulated all of the gold costs but it would seem to appear that they approach hammer cost over time, and initially cost many times the hammer cost of a unit/building. For example 310 gold for a worker, but industrial era stuff that has 5 times the hammer cost might cost only twice as much gold.
From this we can deduce that the value of gold is far less in early game. The only way you can justify the cost of rush buying things in ancient or classical is if the snowballing benefits of that purchase will recoup that cost. I.E. if rush buying that worker gives you X more hammers and gold from improvements over time that you wouldn't have accumulated otherwise, and X is greater than 310 gold, then the purchase was sound.
In opposition to this are unit gpt costs which increase over time. Its interesting that rush buying gets cheaper and cheaper and maintenance gets more and more expensive. It would seem logical that both would have the same trend.
Also, a couple of minor points. Roads remain 1gpt/tile throughout the entire game, so it can be deduced that roads get effectively cheaper and cheaper as the game goes on, at least in relation to unit maintenance. And interestingly it would appear that gold (and to a lesser extent, faith) is the only currency whose worth can be directly changed by policies, with the 25% reduction from Commerce and Big Ben's 15%.
Value of Food:
A couple of facts should be stated. First, population points seem to be of slightly declining value as the number increases. This is because the first tiles worked are probably the most valuable. This is countered somewhat by the aforementioned principle of increasing hammer value in a city.
Second, population points are directly convertible to Food and vice-versa. Also, the specialist buildings (and policies that enhance them) enhance the value of citizens past a certain number, as those would otherwise be working garbage tiles.
Third, the value of food is clearly great in the beginning and diminishing over time, as it takes more and more food to grow a new citizen.
So we these points, we can say that food has diminishing value, but incredibly high value in a fledgling city. Also, the higher the food surplus in a city, the more significant the growth bonuses are.
Faith/Culture/Happiness:
I haven't done much work on valuating these. They are highly dependant on situation. Thoughts are welcomed.
