Builder's Bargain

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Builder's Bargain

An Open Exercise in Constraint

• Leader Hammurabi
• Difficulty Noble
• Speed Normal
• Map Hub
• Size Standard
• Events Disabled
• Huts Disabled

Handicaps

INFRASTRUCTURE shall be understood to mean all buildings, national wonders, and world wonders constructed in a city. Edit: late clarification - the Palace is NOT infrastructure; it may be ignored in your planning, and it may be moved at the players discretion

INVESTMENT shall be understood to mean the number of hammers required to construct the building at normal speed, without modifiers (in other words, the number that shows up in the 'Pedia. In particular, please note that investment does not depend on the number of hammers that you actually invest - if there's a monument in the city, that costs 30 hammers, regardless of how it got there.

With those definitions in mind, here are the rules

1) For each city in your empire, you may invest 100 hammers in infrastructure anywhere you like. These hammers are available immediately upon the city joining your empire.

2) For each pair of cities, you have 500 hammers that you may invest in either of the two cities (but may not be transfered elsewhere). These hammers are only available when the pair is completed. Pairs are determined by the order the cities join the empire - the capital with city #2, city #3 with city #4.

2a) Pairs are permanent, once established.
2b) You may draw on the pool of 500 only while you control both cities. If a rival controls one of the pair, the pool is suspended, and may not be used for further construction.
2c) If a city is destroyed, the pool of 500 is dead.

Example: at 1000 BC, I have 5 cities. This means I have 5 * 100 hammers to invest anywhere I like. In addition, I have 500 hammers to share between Babylon and Akkad, and 500 more to share between Dur Kurigalzu and Nippur. When I found Sippar, I will get 100 more hammers added to the general pool, and 500 hammers to be invested in Sippar or Borsippa.

3) Once you decide where to invest hammers, you cannot change that location. In other words, once you start constructing a granary, the hammers for the granary are budgeted to that city, and cannot be shifted away (you may, however, abandon the granary for some other building in that city).

4) If you lose budget (a city is captured, so you lose 100 discretionary hammers, or a paired city is captured), buildings come off the build queue at once.

5) If you go over budget (a city is captured, and you have already spent the hammers), you may make no further investment until the budget is recovered.

Note: the city capture rules aren't deliberately complicated, but since getting your cities captured is a bad idea anyway, don't sweat them.

6) If by some device you think you can exercise some loophole by deliberately allowing a city to be captured, it's against the rules (and spirit). So don't ask.

Rulesets

BUILDER RULESET: CITIES refer only to those cities founded by your settlers. Captured/Acquired/Flipped cities may be developed without constraint.

GENERAL RULESET: CITIES include all cities in your empire. Captured cities should be paired just as though you had founded them (in other words, when you capture city #6, it gets paired with city #5). Infrastructure that survives capture counts toward the investment cap. Capturing too many goodies in a city is not a forfeit BUT you can only construct more buildings if you can cover what's already there.

In short, the general ruleset is intended to apply the constraints to all cities, without screwing you over if the AI blew your budget. You may, however, want to choose the ordering of your captures to minimize the risks. Razing cities because they blow your budget map is in play.

UNIBUILDER RULESET: CITIES include only those cities you found - you may not capture cities, nor acquire them in a peace settlement or extortion. Culture flips are allowed. Victory must be Space (Apollo mission and space parts do not count as "infrastructure").

Theme

The intention here is to show builders that a well played game doesn't require building everything in sight. So please grab the general ruleset, and publish a well played game that will look familiar to a beginner. Or show off with a constrained space win.

One last thing....

the SAVE

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think this is a very good idea and will help people who over-invest in infrastructure. My one criticism is that it's a bit complicated for what is likely a rookie or otherwise inexperienced player. Nevertheless, I encourage anyone who is at noble level or below (or simply overbuilds) to play it.

Of course, this exercise would be a little silly for me since just thinking over my last few games I've "invested" well under these amounts for the vast majority of games...so far under that in some cases the 100 hammers/city founded would cover alone before the ADs. I can't imagine how one would spend 350 hammers/city (which is the typical amount you'll get with a pairing + the 100 allowed anywhere per city founded) until possibly the timeframe where you whip in universities to set up oxford.

 

[pi-r8]

Question: what about AI cities? Like if you capture an AI city with 5 wonders in it, that will completely wreck your budget. Are you supposed to not capture cities, since this is a builder game?

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Of course, this exercise would be a little silly for me since just thinking over my last few games I've "invested" well under these amounts for the vast majority of games...so far under that in some cases the 100 hammers/city founded would cover alone before the ADs. I can't imagine how one would spend 350 hammers/city (which is the typical amount you'll get with a pairing + the 100 allowed anywhere per city founded) until possibly the timeframe where you whip in universities to set up oxford.

100 hammers? Are you not promoting your chariots, or not whipping them?

Thought #1: Granary, Library, Courthouse, Gardens. Naive, perhaps, but not all that difficult to imagine.

Thought #2: Granary, Barracks, Stable, Forge is 290. If it's early it may need a monument for another 30.

Thought #3: Granary, Library, University. Not to dispute your point, but note that means that until education the city is Granary, Library, and nothing else.

I don't think the ceiling is too low for a good player who plans, but it may feel a bit cramped. However, you've given me an interesting idea for a third ruleset....

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Question: what about AI cities? Like if you capture an AI city with 5 wonders in it, that will completely wreck your budget. Are you supposed to not capture cities, since this is a builder game?

It's not a builder game; it's a game for players who overbuild to see what building less is like, and to compare their game to advanced players trying to demonstrate that you don't really need the extra infrastructure.

The AI is allowed to build whatever it wants.

If you capture a city
... playing the BUILDER ruleset, you can do whatever you want inside it. Quite frankly, I want overbuilders to see what happens if they try to conquer the world just to get their fix.

... playing the GENERAL ruleset, you can keep what you capture, but if you want to keep building you need to have the budget for it. In other words, if you have 400 hammers of reserve left to put Oxford in the capital, and you capture the Pyramids, then you have a problem to work through.

... playing the UNIBUILDER ruleset, it's almost a non issue, because you aren't permitted to capture cities, and you aren't likely to be able to flip one with a wonder in it (not intended to be a challenge). But if you do, it follows the rules of the general ruleset.


The save is on the 3.19 patch, so you've got the opportunity to check the city before you commit to keeping it.

 

[peapd]

How about something more simple, like you get 3 buildings per city...something like that?

This would give you either:

granary/courthouse/library or granary/courthouse/barracks

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

How about something more simple, like you get 3 buildings per city...something like that?

Edit: decided I didn't like my first answer. This is a reasonable approximation of the constraint, but it doesn't really seem like a good fit with what I'm trying to achieve. If the winner abides the three buildings per city limit, but violates my hammer based constraints, half of the prize money is instead donated to charity. Clear?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, for my games where I am going < 100 hammers/city by 1 AD, the idea is kind of like...

1. Settle initial city. Settle 2nd if needed.

2. Both cities get a barracks, maybe the 2nd one gets a monument, maybe not

3. Chop and work hammer tiles until you have 10+ axes, chariots, or horse archers while turning the slider down

4. Capture a bajillion cities and become excessively backwards but with a ton of land.

The above works if the #civs on your continent is less than 2 (warmongers/tough targets) to 3 (normal targets), assuming you move quickly between civs after crippling the first one and manage the idea of when to keep/raze and that a crippled AI doesn't really tech much so can be left for later. Extorting tech is a big help on faster speeds too.

 

[PieceOfMind]

A bit of book keeping involved but this sounds like it might be interesting. I'll probably give it a go!

I don't really understand the reasoning behind having to "pair off" cities. Why can't there just be a universal pool for empire wide that increases with each city added to the empire and a pool for each city?

Also, there appear to be three rulesets. Is the idea that the lower the ruleset the greater the difficulty? Which one would you recommend going?

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I don't really understand the reasoning behind having to "pair off" cities. Why can't there just be a universal pool for empire wide that increases with each city added to the empire and a pool for each city?

The pairing is intended to produce a particular kind of result/lesson, which I hope will play out as the game develops. I don't promise it will work. My original sketch had only pairs, the shared pool was added only to make things more "real" (ie, to create some slack so that you could construct a national wonder).

I deliberately rejected the single pool result to avoid the "put all your hammers in one city" outcome, because several advanced players would decide its cool and clever to put all of the buildings in one city, which would probably be entertaining,

Also, there appear to be three rulesets. Is the idea that the lower the ruleset the greater the difficulty? Which one would you recommend going?

My original guideline was "if I know who you are, you should be playing the general ruleset".

The Unibuilder ruleset was an afterthought, but the one that I hope advanced players will pursue, with the spirit of trying to show that a predominantly builder game can be successful without (excessive) buildings. I've seen some pretty crazy restrictions be beaten at noble, but I don't know that the combination of a hard cap on buildings and a soft cap on land can be beaten all the way to Ceti Alpha Five.

 

[learner gamer]

As someone whose cities are all too frequently afflicted by the congestion that comes from overbuilding, this looks like a great idea! I have just two questions though before proceeding with the start:

(a) At the risk of sounding extremely naive (many apologies for which if I am), have you tested out how binding your constraints will prove on this map by playing it? I ask BTW because the best advice I’ve seen on these forums is simply to play the map (and I of course appreciate that there are many different ways to play a given map). With this in mind though, my first point is that the distribution of resources and level of isolation on a map can heavily influence the extent to which (i) you have to build infrastructure or (ii) can take cities from others to secure resources and so grow your cities. Moreover, I’ve also lost count of how many times I’ve seen many of the better players such as Sis advocate building a monument, granary, forge and courthouse in every city (although I appreciate that TMIT - who's also a terrific gamer - does not seemingly advocate this judging by his post re: infrastructure), and inspection of their game saves suggest that they follow their own rhetoric. Unless I’m mistaken however, the cost of building even just these buildings in a pair of cities is 660 hammers, leaving no room for a barracks or library in any city (depending on its specialisation) if you build just this quadruple, never mind Oxford in a commerce city or the epics in a GP farm or military pump.

(b) In addition to attempting to cure overbuilding, the rule that suggests that cities are paired as they are settled or captured means that you’re also heavily influencing the order in which cities are so settled or captured. Is this also your intention (which your post suggests is the case)? Again, I ask because, going back to my earlier point re: playing the map, if I find a chokepoint, then I’m going to want to settle that city ASAP and then backfill – irrespective of how its specialisation compares to my capital (which is where the pairing constraint gets binding.) Similarly, if I see an enemy holy or otherwise prize city, then I’m going to want to capture that city ASAP to cripple my enemy’s economy. With that in mind, isn’t there a case to be made for relaxing this rule and allowing pairings to be decided and changed by the player as circumstances dictate? Admittedly, this opens up the risk that a player settles a junk city to maximise the hammer cap available to a capital or similar city (which goes against what your idea is trying to do), but maintenance costs work against adopting this as a wholesale solution.

As mentioned VoU, I think your idea is a great one, but I just wonder if it needs a little fine tuning before implementation. Perhaps for example, you could spend a little time thinking about what you consider to be the core infrastructure in a city (which I’ve listed as monument, granary, forge, courthouse, but I appreciate that your whole point may be that this represents an overbuild), and then raise the pairing cap (perhaps as time progress in game) to a number which allows what you consider the core buildings and a very limited number of specialist buildings - but absolutely no more - to be constructed?

PieceOfMind: the pairing constraint is designed to encourage you to specialise cities. To illustrate, the 100 hammer per city allowance will allow you to build a monument and granary (which together cost 90 hammers) in every city. If however you want to then build a library or barracks, the only way to do it would be to pair (i) a military city with (ii) a commerce city or GP farm, and then build a barracks in the former and a library in the latter. The paired city allowance discourages building both buildings in both cities.

 

[Lansky]

Out of curiosity for the Unibuilder ruleset is war in general a no go? Going around and razing AI cities and/or pillaging their land with a handful of advanced units would make it a cake walk.

 

[Lansky]

which I’ve listed as monument, granary, forge, courthouse

With an organized leader and a tightly packed empire courthouses are probably not essential.
A religion can circumvent monuments.
While nice, only production cities really *need* a forge. Your commerce city can generally get by without one.

I would not call these items overbuilds in general, however if you are aggressively cutting corners then there is indeed fat to be trimmed.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Out of curiosity for the Unibuilder ruleset is war in general a no go? Going around and razing AI cities and/or pillaging their land with a handful of advanced units would make it a cake walk.

If the demonstration you want to publish is "eliminate 5 civs, leave the last alive but smothered to avoid the Conquest condition, then slowly tech to space", go ahead. It's not what I have in mind, but I'm not interested in closing the loopholes to prevent it.

My intention was that you could eliminate a neighbor, but would then have to deal with the land advantage of the other civs. But you can just run them off the map in turns. Honorable rules? Maybe, but probably what happens is a diplo exercise to show off how easily the AI can be manipulated.

Maybe someone will suggest a ruleset that should have the right effect, and I'll have it for next time, but I'm not going to change the conditions here.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

(a) At the risk of sounding extremely naive (many apologies for which if I am), have you tested out how binding your constraints will prove on this map by playing it?

No, I haven't. I know no more about the map than you do.

I ask BTW because the best advice I’ve seen on these forums is simply to play the map

I've always thought that was the worst advice on the forum, but that's a rant for another time.

Unless I’m mistaken however, the cost of building even just these buildings in a pair of cities is 660 hammers, leaving no room for a barracks or library in any city (depending on its specialisation) if you build just this quadruple, never mind Oxford in a commerce city or the epics in a GP farm or military pump.

Yup, it's tight. Good luck with that.

the rule that suggests that cities are paired as they are settled or captured means that you’re also heavily influencing the order in which cities are so settled or captured. Is this also your intention (which your post suggests is the case)?

Definitely deliberate for the builder ruleset - the extension is just a generalization, but I'm OK with that.

Again, I ask because, going back to my earlier point re: playing the map, if I find a chokepoint

The map is Hub - I'd say your odds of finding a choke point are really high.

(If you don't get the joke - pull up a practice map and look at it before playing the game).

With that in mind, isn’t there a case to be made for relaxing this rule and allowing pairings to be decided and changed by the player as circumstances dictate?

Yes there is. Feel free to make it. Do not be mislead into believing an outstanding presentation of your case will change the ruleset for this game, but I'll happily nick the best ideas I get for my next attempt at something like this.

 

[Negator_UK]

An Open Exercise in Constraint

AWESOME spec Just what I need. I'll finish my current game tonight and get right on it. I suspect my approach will be.

1. Grow capital, then build settler.
2. Settle 2nd city near military resource, build SH in capital, maybe barracks if in budget.
3. Check out locals, maybe go on rampage, maybe build more settlers.

My main weakness in early games is not building granaries, so thats a few hammers saved then

Yes I know SH will add knock 30 hammers off each city budget anyway, but it will get me into the constrained frame of mind sooner, & with less brainache.

Speaking of brainache, one question - can I grow my capital with SH, then switch to settler - I promise only to finish SH when the second city is built (opening the 500 hammer-pair budget).

I've always thought that was the worst advice on the forum, but that's a rant for another time.

Its a good advice-qualifier ie, "that advice I gave you was pants, but its good on the maps that I play"

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Yes I know SH will add knock 30 hammers off each city budget anyway, but it will get me into the constrained frame of mind sooner, & with less brainache.

You clearly understand the implications, so... good luck.

Speaking of brainache, one question - can I grow my capital with SH, then switch to settler

No - you can't have infrastructure on the queue unless you already have the budget. There are only 100 hammers (from your discretionary budget) available when your capital is your only city, and Stonehenge has an investment cost of 120.

That you don't have room for (much) infrastructure prior to settling your first city is a deliberate part of the design.

 

[Groogaroo]

Hmmm... Sounds like a fun idea and a good learning exercise I might have to give it a whirl.

I don't consider myself an excessive builder but I probably still build a little too much. I'm probably going to go with the Unibuilder ruleset.

 

[r_rolo1]

Obviously the next chalenge will be a rehash of this ( I would love to see some players ( yes, I'm looking at you TMIT ) coping with this variant )

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Obviously the next chalenge will be a rehash of this ( I would love to see some players ( yes, I'm looking at you TMIT ) coping with this variant )

It would be pretty hard on immortal, but if it's just a prince game it would be a total cake walk. I would probably even avoid nonsense like letting finished units sit in the queue before war just so I could quickly snipe a city before the target wants peace .

Also note that with a lot of maps, NSR can let you win enough favor to win UN as long as the AIs aren't fighting amongst themselves constantly (and if they are, you're in good shape).

Edit: there are two MAJOR loopholes in the OP thread rules in that game:

1. You can bribe the AI to war with each other without lifting a finger.

2. You can, as far as I can tell, switch between a religion you founded and NSR. Smells like AP victory.