Early game strategy? / Getting a good start

[Turinturambar]

A conventional production city in FfH doesn't lose much time building stuff compared to one in BtS because of this - but a slavery based one kills a lot more population. And because of the larger populations, it takes more food to regrow.

The necessary food increase per point of population is rather marginal at +2/level. It's true that it's more efficient to whip at smaller pops, but the decrease in efficiency is not big and it's almost always better than a 1food:1hammer ratio. Additionally with the abundance of food in every city can regrow quickly. You whip the necessary infrastructure in place and can quickly grow to the (higher)happy cap afterwards.

I was thinking more along the lines of the vannila/bts threads of Specialist Economy vs. Cottage Economy filled with number crunching, but for FFH.

My comment was meant more along the lines that in BTS it is pretty even, although at the highest levels you usually start with a Food economy and transition rather late to a cottage economy with democracy.

In FFH the cottage economy gets only two benefits(taxation and faster growth rate), whereas the Food economy gets supercharged right from the start with normal farms being twice as effective and lots of perks from civics/wonders later on and a very early sanitation tech.

So given that the Food economy gets all the benefits and the cottage economy gets virtually none the decision to go for the food economy should be rather obvious. Especially since the food economy even surpasses the cottage economy in raw science output lategame with scholarship.

 

[nealhunt]

I gotta go with Turiturmbar on this one.

Food/SE is definitely more powerful in FFH than in vanilla in comparison to a cottage economy. The increase in growth speed helped but it's still not quite fully competitive. Cottages have their roles and there are certain factors that can make it better based on civ or terrain but overall food is where it's at.

That said, agrarianism/aristocracy isn't the only way to do it. Using farms to power high levels of production is a lot more viable in FFH than vanilla, imho. The availability of flat beaker/gold production buildings means that a production city can quickly become self-sufficient whereas in vanilla, because the buildings are primarily bonus-based, it's harder for a production city to come out ahead in economy. After the buildings are in place to be self-sustaining you can always switch over to specialists (you'll have lots of specialist slots from all the buildings) or you can turn it to military or you can supplement with a wonder economy boost.

I've found that with a food/production economy and city states I can usually run a globe-spanning empire and still out-tech everyone else.

 

[EverNoob]

You guys totally got me curious about FE vs CE

So I thought I'd crunch some numbers. Obviously any number crunching supposes ideal and artificial conditions, but at least it's a reference point from which we can start real discussions.

Graph of Commerce vs Population

This simulation supposes:

• All flat grassland tiles.
• Aristocracy is run with Agrarianism.
• Cities are run as if at population cap. Therefore once population cap is reached, all extra food is used to run a specialist instead of growth.
• Specialists run by FE are all sages. I thouhgt it would be the most helpful since sages get the most bonuses from civics/wonders.
• FE are made to run as many sages as possible to maximize economic output.
• = = --> They are all treated as equivalent.

The 2 dotted lines are FE run without Scholarship, so can't be taken seriously because of the sage limit. In theory, you could run up to 6 sages without Sholarship, using only building (Elder Council, Library, OO and AV temple, Asylum, Alchemy Lab). In which case "Aristocracy No Sanitation" and "Aristocracy with Sanitation" are valid up until population 17 and 11, respectively.

"Aristocracy with Sanitation Sages +6" uses Scholarship, Caste System, and Great Library. So that would prevent the use of Slavery.

In terms of raw economic output CE beats FE overall. Then once all 20 city tiles are used up, FE starts to look more attractive. However, it's very difficult to grow cities that large without Guardian of Nature.

Obviously this hasn't taken into account production capacity, rate of city growth, GPP, and slow cottage maturity rates. Which are advantages for FE.

From this, I'd tentatively conclude that an early CE in initial cities seems appropriate. Especially since FE requires alot of techs. Once techs for FE become available, new cities should be FE because of the superior growth rate and production. However your older core cities should remain CE because by then your cottages will have matured, and FE can't compete vs fully matured cottages economy-wise.

Note: I kinda did this abit quickly, it's possible some errors crept in my calculations.

 

[nealhunt]

I really think a FE needs to be broken down into the Ag/Arist plan and a more traditional SE in vanilla style because they really do play differently, but I digress...

Obviously this hasn't taken into account production capacity, rate of city growth, GPP, and slow cottage maturity rates. Which are advantages for FE.

From this, I'd tentatively conclude that an early CE in initial cities seems appropriate. Especially since FE requires alot of techs.

Those are really big advantages you're not taking into account. Also importantly, a basic FE doesn't actually require a lot of techs as you state. You really only need 1-2 specialist slots early on because that's all most cities can support on higher difficulties. Things like rate of growth, production capacity and GPs actually come substantially earlier with FE. Other advantages you left off are flexibility (changing mix of specialists and production) and recovery from Armageddon events where you get hit again with the growth rate difference. Because Civ is exponential, a quick early advantage often outweighs the later advantage, even if it's greater.

Most important to me is the difference in production. Sure, a fully developed CE might edge out an FE on a per-tile basis, but if the FE built more multiplier buildings it could still produce more overall on a per-city basis. Expanding that to the next step, even if a CE still provided a better per-city performance than FE, the FE can allow an earlier military conquest and build a larger empire that offsets a lower per-city performance.


That said, there are ways to leverage food production for CE as well, of course. A farm or food resource or two can jack a city's pop up quickly and allow cottaging at the happy cap almost as quickly as a food economy. You can even go back and cottage over the farms if you run out of good cottage land. It's not that it's bad. For some situations and some civs it's actually optimum.

Overall, and barring special considerations of terrain and civ abilities, I think the optimum is something like 75% FE/25%CE to provide maximum robustness with a dash of optimized commerce but I'm sure any combo with both in the 25-75% range would have good performance and various advantages based on specific situations.

 

[Turinturambar]

The graph is misleading, because the limiting factor in every mid-lategame economy is the amount of tiles you can work. (Chant the land is power mantra here):

A FE is far more tile efficient. In your graph the size 20 FE city uses only 10 tiles. You could build an additional overlapping city working the other 10 tiles and double your output for the cost of a settler and some maintenance.
More and bigger cities mean more trade income as well.

The only time for a CE (barring special boni) is right at the beginning, when you are limited by the low happy cap, you have an abundance of tiles to work and not much use for the superior production capability of the FE. You should farm those towns over later on to increase your tile efficiency.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I don't think you guys are reading the part where I'm advocating that all cities, including your capital and first few built ones, should be started off with farms to grow population.

No one can deny the power of FfH farms at boosting growth... which means, you need LESS. Once you're growing at breakneck speed thanks to those first 3 or so farms, there's almost nothing you can do with more food, since the production advantage you get from slavery is so small unless you're purposefully keeping your city tiny. You want to use the food to work tiles that produce actual output, like mines or cottages.

You're going to have your size 20 cities with ~4 farms and no aristocracy. And those remaining 16 citizens will do more for you on mines or towns (or even lower level cottages) than they will on farms.

Pure CE sucks.
Pure FE sucks.

Don't use either.

Most important to me is the difference in production. Sure, a fully developed CE might edge out an FE on a per-tile basis, but if the FE built more multiplier buildings it could still produce more overall on a per-city basis. Expanding that to the next step, even if a CE still provided a better per-city performance than FE, the FE can allow an earlier military conquest and build a larger empire that offsets a lower per-city performance.

By the time you have the tools to start whipping (sanitation, way of the wicked) you should have already beat someone up. So I don't see where the "earlier conquest under FE" thing applies here. (And if you want to keep conquering, go for Honor -> religious law instead of that tech path. I shouldn't have to spell out why.)

 

[avalonnn]

I played Elohim first because the tolerant trait lets you use other civ's buildings and units when you conquer their cities. If you do use Keelyn first, read the strategy threads here. The Bals are a very different civ if you're jumping from 23 to 34.

 

[EverNoob]

We should prolly move this to another thread

I don't think anybody is advocating a pure FE/CE. I was discussing more which to use when.

 

[Blackmantle]

@ EverNoob: Because I'm also curious about the matter: would it change the equation if the civ was financial and you add a river running by that city into it (both should be common enough occurences to consider)?

(Beeing aware that you left out the growth-time of cottages and the city in question among many other factors which speak for mixing anyways. So no need to elaborate further on that one.)

I actually learned to like like cities with lots of farms under Agrarianism + Aristocracy (+ sanitation a bit later) for financial civs now by experiences in my games with 0.33.
(For non financial-ones i go other routes actually.)

One thing which really is a rather huge factor now is the whopping reduction to maintenance from aristocracy right now (without the drawbacks from city-states in times of war or cultural conflict.)

 

[Zechnophobe]

Except that to run aristocracy you have to give up either god king or city states, which is always a horrible idea (you want GK for a small empire and CS for a big one), matured cottages very quickly overtake aristocracy farms for commerce, slavery blows ass in this mod since hammer costs are a lot higher than in vanilla, and massive growth can be gotten with like 3 grassland farms, assuming sanitation + agrarianism + no aristocracy.

Actually, Aristocracy ends up being ahead of cottages for a *long* time. I was just running the numbers, and am going to make a quick java calculator for it, since I'm curious to see it.

But, for instance, over 13 turns, the Aristocracy Grasslands made more than double the Cottages (Something like 70 to 33) and the ratio was increasing constantly, and would do so until it reached the population cap. Keep in mind this was a size 1 city growing to size 4.

The big thing to remember is that you have to work those cottages to get the benefits, which means that you very much are limited by population points before the greater max output is reached. Aristocracy reaches its max immediately per tile, and then works more tiles, at a faster and faster rate (because each new pop point INCREASES the speed at which you get to the NEXT pop point).

Edit: Evernoob, your graph is missing a time variable, which is kinda the most important concept here. I think we all pretty much know that Taxation Cottages producing the greatest amount per tile (population point, actually).

 

[Zechnophobe]

Finished the first test:

Assumptions: Grassland tiles, no river in radius. Aristocracy has Sanitation and Aggrarianism, Cottages do NOT have Taxation. Assuming a Happiness cap of 10, so you work 10 tiles (The city tile is discounted except for food, since it is equal in both cases).

It took the Cottage economy 131 turns to catch up. Note that in 28 turns, the Farm economy hit max yield per turn, and at that point produced 246 commerce, compared to the cottages 96. Farm econ city was at full size of 10, cottage at 3.

If the Cottage economy has Taxation, it equalizes out a bit faster, in 101 turns.

So a good rule of thumb is that Aristocracy + Agrarianism + Sanitation is great in the 50 to 100 turn ranges, but not so good over durations of turns 150+

That being said, there are other elements to consider. Of course you MUST run Aristocracy with this, and cannot use city states or God King. On the other hand, you do get Royal Guards as a unit to build, and the bonus' of Commerce are on an exponential scale (Commerce/Turn is more important early on, this is why 19 commerce on turn 1 is awesome, but not on turn 100).

I have been favoring this approach lately with Elves, but I'll detail that in another thread.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

The broken record states that that's why you use non-aristocracy farms first to boost growth then build cottages, and that you have to compare the aristocracy scenario to the cottage output PLUS the benefit from God King/City States.

That was a response to your first post, not your second, which came right as my post was trying to get through to the server.

And this "all grassland" assumption favors the farms. Cottage a plains and you get hammers. Farm a plains and you don't. Though granted, all grassland is a pretty common scenario for commerce cities if you have sanitation (clear out jungle, win), so I won't object too much to this assumption.

 

[EverNoob]

@Zechnophobe: I was trying to figure out how to factor in time actually, I'm just glad you did it cuz I had no idea how to

 

[Micky Onimusha]

I played Elohim first because the tolerant trait lets you use other civ's buildings and units when you conquer their cities. If you do use Keelyn first, read the strategy threads here. The Bals are a very different civ if you're jumping from 23 to 34.

I've been bouncing between civs through the past few days. Sadly, I don't think Keelyn is for me. As much as I love her personality lore-wise, it takes too long to really take advantage of Summoning (the Archmage tech is huge >.<). I might have to give Perpentach a try, but I'm not sure how well I'd gel to a leader whose traits change on a whim (but of course, I might like that aspect).

[Edit: Poo, I tried out Peppy. I don't like him. Suddenly losing creative in my new born city caught me offguard, and Charismatic randomly going away means a less happy city. Typically, I got Aggressive and Raiders just as I went into builder mode too. >.<]

I haven't really completed a game yet, still trying to find a civ that really gels with me. I've taken quite a liking to the Svartalfar because it means I can start near trees without a worry (save me going to Bronze Working to make Plantations and so forth). I also REALLY like Sinister, since those Scouts can actually take on animals fairly well compared to most Scouts which have 50/50 odds versus Lions. On the other hand, I really dislike Faeryl's traits. I don't rush towards Adepts and whilst Raiders is kind of cool, I'd rather have something else. Also finding myself torn between "building like a normal civ" tech-wise or trying to grab FoL. If the other Elves are nearby, I usually wait for them to research it and then capture their Holy City

At least one thing I've learnt from this thread is how valuable an rush of 10ish Warriors can be. Starting to find myself frustrated when I find my nearest neighbour is a lot of squares away, means a lot of fog between my Capital and my next city

We should prolly move this to another thread

I didn't wanna say anything Just sitting here quietly observing but thinking to myself "I'm still getting the basics down... this strikes me as a bit advanced for me".

 

[dagorkan]

Re: landlocked Lanun
That's comparatively rare. Very rare.

I got one in my last game, ideal otherwise but Lanun in a corner (near the polar ice cap) with two or three other civs in between them and the sea...

 

[nealhunt]

By the time you have the tools to start whipping (sanitation, way of the wicked) you should have already beat someone up. So I don't see where the "earlier conquest under FE" thing applies here.

I wasn't referencing whipping but an earlier rush. 2 farms/food resources will slam your happy cap in no time and 3-4 hills will turn out a warrior every 2-3 turns. That's enough to swamp most civs early on. That's only 2 early techs needed to build the rush stack (ag, calendar), with a 3rd (festivals) needed for econ around the time you start.

In contrast, going for Education takes 3 techs to start it plus time to grow the cottages and you don't get access to specialist-allowing buildings as quickly. A CE can be set up to be as flexible as a food economy early on. After all, at low population you have tons of spare tiles to switch around. But if you actually use the flexibility to move to non-cottage tiles (say, to give production for that early rush) it takes that much longer to mature the cottages.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I wasn't referencing whipping but an earlier rush. 2 farms/food resources will slam your happy cap in no time and 3-4 hills will turn out a warrior every 2-3 turns. That's enough to swamp most civs early on. That's only 2 early techs needed to build the rush stack (ag, calendar), with a 3rd (festivals) needed for econ around the time you start.

In contrast, going for Education takes 3 techs to start it plus time to grow the cottages and you don't get access to specialist-allowing buildings as quickly. A CE can be set up to be as flexible as a food economy early on. After all, at low population you have tons of spare tiles to switch around. But if you actually use the flexibility to move to non-cottage tiles (say, to give production for that early rush) it takes that much longer to mature the cottages.

I agree that hitting you pop cap, and then pumping out warriors works well, but I do not think this is particularly orthogonal to Education. You may ultimately get slightly fewer warriors via education, but you can get Apprenticeship to give them 2 xp, making them significantly more effective.

Also, early on, I don't think taking the time to research Calendar is worth it unless you have calendar resources to improve. You are likely only growing to size 5 anyhow, which you'll do as long as you have a farm or two, and perhaps one good food bonus resource (Irrigated Corn, for instance, gives 6 food).

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

umh, I tend to always get my capital to the happiness cap and then pump out workers and settlers. is that a very bad strategy at higher difficulty levels? tech usually goes Mysticism ( for god king and elder councils ) -> all the techs that get me access to resources in the BFC . production goes warriors -> elder council -> more warriors.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I don't always worry about resources in the Fat Cross. Consider spending 20 turns to get animal husbandry, so that one of your cities produces 2 more food due to a pasture on some pigs. Calendar resources are much more valuable due to the fast bonus they give to your GNP. I mean, 2 food is nice and all, but if you were 20 turns closer to Education, or founding a strong religion, that's likely a lot better.

I often build workers and settlers before the happiness cap for similar reasons. If you are working 4 squares giving roughly 2 food and 1 production, waiting 10 more turns to get another tile producing 2 food and 1 production isn't really getting you anywhere. If you had 10 production at size 4, and 11 at size 5, you only save 2 turns on building a 220 production settler, by waiting 10 turns. Might as well get it done faster so that settler can expand!

It's different obviously if you have other resources to work that give better than some food and some production, or if you really need those warriors for defense.

Last note on workers: If I'm researching, say, crafting to build a few wineries, or if I start with Agriculture, I'll often start the worker right away. While my city won't grow bigger, I'll get to improve those tiles faster. Consider: What do you gain by being 1 size bigger vs by upgrading a wine square with a winery? It's most often in favor of the winery. Similarly for farms in general early on, getting a few out will fairly quickly recoup the lost food from building the worker. A worker built in 18 turns (2 food, 2 production) will take 36 food worth of growth away from the city, so a single farm will recoup that in 36 turns, but two or three farms (Or a farm on an irrigable resource) will recoup it in a total of 12 turns... pretty quick. Plus then you have the worker already ready when you pick up something like education. Cottages build faster (4 turns) so waiting another 12 before you start building them is actually quite a penalty to production.

However, because workers are a lot cheaper than settlers, it is much more likely that waiting to grow will either not take longer to build the worker (Due to greater production) or won't slow it down much, and be worth it to have another warrior around for defense. As is usual, think about the numbers a little bit before you decide when to build.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

thanx for the good info Zechnophobe long build times freak me out, but I guess I'll have to try building my first worker sooner in the future. it worked pretty well in vanilla civ so it should work equally nice in FFH2 seeing as the mechanics are the same