+% Gold and +% sci buildings, how to set up a efficient configuration.

[jdros13]

as was mentioned, it really depends on the civics you are running. Personally I love to settle most of my great people, but I'm usually running representation.

For the person that said they save their Prophets for building shrines in captured cities....you realize I'm sure that you are giving up many, many turns of guaranteed income and hammers by not just settling them in your capital immediately, correct? An early GProphet can allow you to afford extra cities as well while keeping your science slider at 100%.

I've also always been surprised by the number of people that automatically use their GM's for trade income. Personally I've always thought they were better for me to settle unless they were ready to bulb something really important at that particular time. 2 settled GM's in the capital not only provide income, but also allow you to support an additional specialist as well.

If you like the late game (as I do) Merchants are also extremely important to build sushi....usually if I'm going to try for corporations and sushi is a viable option I'll attempt to get the economics GM for that purpose.

 

[mtr12]

I settle Scientists if my tech is really in the crapper and I have no good trade partners. Also, steady BPT is always good.

 

[krikav]

as was mentioned, it really depends on the civics you are running. Personally I love to settle most of my great people, but I'm usually running representation.

For the person that said they save their Prophets for building shrines in captured cities....you realize I'm sure that you are giving up many, many turns of guaranteed income and hammers by not just settling them in your capital immediately, correct? An early GProphet can allow you to afford extra cities as well while keeping your science slider at 100%.

I've also always been surprised by the number of people that automatically use their GM's for trade income. Personally I've always thought they were better for me to settle unless they were ready to bulb something really important at that particular time. 2 settled GM's in the capital not only provide income, but also allow you to support an additional specialist as well.

If you like the late game (as I do) Merchants are also extremely important to build sushi....usually if I'm going to try for corporations and sushi is a viable option I'll attempt to get the economics GM for that purpose.

Glad to hear that someone else also appreciate settling great merchants. That +1 food is quite powerfull indeed.

 

[krikav]

I disagree. If you pop a GS early, and settle them, you'll see a HUGE benefit all game. I'm playing a game as the romans (Julius) where I butil the GW, and settled the first GS, then beelined for alphabet and CoL. After reaching CoL i didn't haev to turn on the research slider again until later in the game, when I'd stolen all there ws to steal.

Madscientist did an RPC as Peter the great that shows the power of settled great spies.

I'd urge you to read it.

I have read it, I still don't agree.
You are making arguments that early espionage points are good, I agree compleatly with this.

But a espionage mission gives as much espionage points, as your settled spy would generate.. over one third of the game?
So if you want things NOW, espionage mission is the thing to do.
If you want to run a espionage economy, you are most likely going to use the espionage slider, in which case a +100% espionage points in your capital will almost guaranteed give you more than the settled spy gives.


The only advantage the settled spy has, as far as I can see it, is that it allows you to choose which person you want your espionage points on, and that you can change this over time. Which you can't do with the espionage mission.

I am glad that you appreciate the settled spy, but your anecdote about how well your game went after you settled him, doesn't really say much about it's efficiency.

 

[ahcos]

For the person that said they save their Prophets for building shrines in captured cities....you realize I'm sure that you are giving up many, many turns of guaranteed income and hammers by not just settling them in your capital immediately, correct? An early GProphet can allow you to afford extra cities as well while keeping your science slider at 100%.

Why are people always talking about "running the slider @100% with settled GPs"? Sure, you want 100% slider, but that's only possible with failgold, and on top you only want that for the reason that you'll produce more research that way. The only thing that counts is the actual research you'll get, and 100% doesn't ensure high output by itself.

I've also always been surprised by the number of people that automatically use their GM's for trade income. Personally I've always thought they were better for me to settle unless they were ready to bulb something really important at that particular time. 2 settled GM's in the capital not only provide income, but also allow you to support an additional specialist as well.

Unless you bulb for Maces/Knights rush, you're better off sending them on a trade mission. As someone recently said, Civ4 is about transforming a current advantage into a long term advantage, and that's why trademissions are so great: they'll give you that edge. Something a settled GM can't even come close to in the early/early midgame.

I find myself to settle alot of GPs from any kind in the lategame, but that's when the games are usually already won and there's nothing better to do with them. But keep in mind that we're not talking about your 8-12th GPs, but about the first 6 GPs most of the time. Apart from the occassional Academy, it's almost always better to send those GMs on a trademission.

If you like the late game (as I do) Merchants are also extremely important to build sushi....usually if I'm going to try for corporations and sushi is a viable option I'll attempt to get the economics GM for that purpose.

Yes, it can be very useful to hold on with one GM for that purpose. Personally, i prefer state property alot.

 

[krikav]

Why are people always talking about "running the slider @100% with settled GPs"? Sure, you want 100% slider, but that's only possible with failgold, and on top you only want that for the reason that you'll produce more research that way. The only thing that counts is the actual research you'll get, and 100% doesn't ensure high output by itself.

What you are saying has been pointed out many times allready. And it is understod.

What people are talking about is how to research efficiently, and getting alot of BPT.
IF you run the slider at 100%, then _all_ of your commerce is siphoned through the libraries.
This makes full use of the libraries, and it's a very efficient setup.

Sure, you can get the same BPT at 80% research slider in one setup, as you can get with 100% in another setup.

But in the first case, you are only utilizing your +% science buildings to 80%, and this indicates that there is room for improvement.
If you can aquire gold (either a lump sum to run deficit research, or a steady GPT), then you an turn that 80% scenario to a even better 100% scenario.


I hope I have now adressed your question:
"Why are people always talking about "running the slider @100% with settled GPs"? ", and that you can now see more aspects of the optimization problem that I am interested in.

 

[Dirk1302]

What you are saying has been pointed out many times allready. And it is understod.

You say it is but is it?

What people are talking about is how to research efficiently, and getting alot of BPT.
IF you run the slider at 100%, then _all_ of your commerce is siphoned through the libraries.
This makes full use of the libraries, and it's a very efficient setup.

Sure, you can get the same BPT at 80% research slider in one setup, as you can get with 100% in another setup.

But in the first case, you are only utilizing your +% science buildings to 80%, and this indicates that there is room for improvement.
If you can aquire gold (either a lump sum to run deficit research, or a steady GPT), then you an turn that 80% scenario to a even better 100% scenario.


I hope I have now adressed your question:
"Why are people always talking about "running the slider @100% with settled GPs"? ", and that you can now see more aspects of the optimization problem we are trying to discuss around, and take a more active part.

Sure i agree that slider at 100% is better than 80% with the same number of cities. But slider at 80% with 20 cities >>> slider at 100% with 6. That's what ahcos is talking about and why he's talking about trade missions as a trade mission can get those upgraded troops out 10 turns earlier leading to more cities. And you can't have it both ways. Also Late game with so many cities settling a GM in wallstreet city for 18gpt isn't going to cut it for a large empire. As i said before one good trade deal late game will net more than 20 gpt. Best way for 100% slider in a 20+ city empire is building factories and plants and set some cities to building wealth. One good city set to building wealth equals 3-4 Wall street settled GM's already.

So figuring out ways to have slider at 100% at all cost is a nice thought experiment but it doesn't win you close games. ahcos is correct in pointing this out and i feel you can't dismiss his post as "not taking an active part".

 

[krikav]

You say it is but is it?

Yes, it has been pointed out several times, and I (and probably most people that take a interest in this optimization problem) allready have a firm understanding of this.


He joined the topic with:

"Why are people always talking about "running the slider @100% with settled GPs"?"

Which is essentially non-contributing.
It is simply a bashing on other people.
"Why are you allways bringing this up..."

It is brought up, because it is a interesting issue!



And about your own contribution. 20 cities with 80% is better than 6 cities with 100%.
Yes, but this is not the point.

I am not interested in comparing apples with pears.

What should be compared is 20 cities with 80%, to 20 cities with 100%.
This can be achieved through many ways, the way you mention is to produce wealth in a few cities.

Now, this might very well be a more efficient solution than settling great merchants. And I am very interested in more comparisson between these two alternatives.

 

[Dirk1302]

I wondered if the point was fully understood not if it was brought up because i brought it up myself sometime ago in this thread iirc.

I don't agree that ahcos is not contributing. Also wondering why people are bringing up an issue and then explaining (correctly imo) why it shouldn't be a prime issue is not bashing on people imo.

My point (and also ahcos's if i understood him correctly) is that 20 cities with 100% can not be achieved by settling GM's as you'll need the GM's for trade missions. If you settle instead there's at least a good chance that you'll end up with less cities. So the comparison shouldn't happen.

As a thought experiment it might be an interesting issue.Settled GM's don't do that much, Sushi in the right circumstances or any corps spread to Ais would net you much more gold on top of the benefit of the corp.Golden ages net more profit too i suspect.

 

[krikav]

I wondered if the point was fully understood not if it was brought up because i brought it up myself sometime ago in this thread iirc.

I don't agree that ahcos is not contributing. Also wondering why people are bringing up an issue and then explaining (correctly imo) why it shouldn't be a prime issue is not bashing on people imo.

My point (and also ahcos's if i understood him correctly) is that 20 cities with 100% can not be achieved by settling GM's as you'll need the GM's for trade missions. If you settle instead there's at least a good chance that you'll end up with less cities. So the comparison shouldn't happen.

As a thought experiment it might be an interesting issue.Settled GM's don't do that much, Sushi in the right circumstances or any corps spread to Ais would net you much more gold on top of the benefit of the corp.Golden ages net more profit too i suspect.

Yes, you are most probably correct. I have removed the insult since it was unwarranted. Just frustration about that the issue is not discussed in the way _I_ want it to I guess.

I am trying to discuss this as a thought experiment, and may intrepret peoples who lend out advices about how to play in a pracical game as condecending or ignorant.

 

[ahcos]

Well okay, you say that you've understood so i'll leave it as that...

Btw, i wasn't bashing people, i was just under the impression that it's have been made clear that settling the GMs is a very inefficient way to make best use out of them (at least most of the times) and that one, in this case jdros13, wasn't reading carefully enough. I thought it might be worth the words to clarify once again that settling your first GM is usually, not always, a bad idea.

Either way, my apologies, and as i have a feeling everything is set regarding that topic, i'll keep out for good, otherwise i'll start bringing up the same topic over and over again as i don't have the feeling you fully understand what i was pointing out. Apologies in advance if i'm wrong on that.

Edit: Oh, okay, just got your drift. As an thought experiment that's indeed a different story. You'll need ALOT of settled GMs to keep the slider @ 100%, though. With a 6-8 city empire + wallstreet it should be possible. Again, it's not very practicable in a common game, but it can be done, i think. Focusing on techs that improve your gold output should have priority here, CoL, Currency, Guilds and Banking. When you want the GMs to be settled, at least max their efficiency as soon as possible. Also, you'll want to avoid popping too many scientists early on: when you want your GMs to be your "source of failgold", you will have to gather them very early. CoL + an early, dedicated GP farm. Elizabeth should be perfect for that with FIN/PHI.

 

[krikav]

Well okay, you say that you've understood so i'll leave it as that...

Btw, i wasn't bashing people, i was just under the impression that it's have been made clear that settling the GMs is a very inefficient way to make best use out of them (at least most of the times) and that one, in this case jdros13, wasn't reading carefully enough. I thought it might be worth the words to clarify once again that settling your first GM is usually, not always, a bad idea.

Either way, my apologies, and as i have a feeling everything is set regarding that topic, i'll keep out for good, otherwise i'll start bringing up the same topic over and over again as i don't have the feeling you fully understand what i was pointing out. Apologies in advance if i'm wrong on that.

I think I know what you are focusing on; you are taking a very practical aproach to the discussion, taking interest in what is best in a majority of the games. What preserves (or gets you) momentum. Right?

I do like such aproaches, but when people have differing opinions about something, this aproach can lead to stagnant discussion, to make progress, I find that it is often good to keep things abstract, and discuss about things that one can phrase in math.

 

[Cheps]

But when you're running Representation, settling them will give you 30 BPT in oxford + observatory

Personally I love to settle most of my great people, but I'm usually running representation.

I thought you only get the 3 beakers from representation for specialists, and not for settled great persons? Or you get them for both?

I may have never noticed since I rarely settle them (maybe priest early game) but it may be a bit more appealing when I get pyramids.

 

[krikav]

You do get 3 beakers in bonus for settled great people. You even get it for settling great generals.

 

[MyOtherName]

But slider at 80% with 20 cities >>> slider at 100% with 6. That's what ahcos is talking about and why he's talking about trade missions as a trade mission can get those upgraded troops out 10 turns earlier leading to more cities.

If you have a large stack of Macemen, are about to finish researching Rifling, and just popped a GM, then yes it would be silly to settle. But that's a rather narrow situation to consider.

So figuring out ways to have slider at 100% at all cost is a nice thought experiment but it doesn't win you close games.

From skimming the thread, I never got the impression it was "at all cost". I got the impression it was considering the topic of "squeezing some extra efficiency out of your empire", which does win close games.

e.g. you just got Code of Laws from the oracle. Do you:

• Throttle GP production so you get just a few GPs right when you want a bulb or a trade mission?
• Run lots of scientists, and when there aren't any good bulbs you just settle? (Or build Academies in mediocre cities? Or sub-par bulbs?)
• Run merchants / priests in a handful of cities with markets, and settling? (excepting the occasions where you could build a shrine or bulb something unusually good or have a really good use for a short-term gold boost)

 

[Dirk1302]

I need to ask you what level you play on. I'll comment as if we're considering immortal/deity.

If you have a large stack of Macemen, are about to finish researching Rifling, and just popped a GM, then yes it would be silly to settle. But that's a rather narrow situation to consider.

What's so narrow about that? Doesn't make attacking for instance 1200 AD as opposed to 1300 AD a huge difference? It does period.

From skimming the thread, I never got the impression it was "at all cost". I got the impression it was considering the topic of "squeezing some extra efficiency out of your empire", which does win close games.

e.g. you just got Code of Laws from the oracle. Do you:

• Throttle GP production so you get just a few GPs right when you want a bulb or a trade mission?
• Run lots of scientists, and when there aren't any good bulbs you just settle? (Or build Academies in mediocre cities? Or sub-par bulbs?)
• Run merchants / priests in a handful of cities with markets, and settling? (excepting the occasions where you could build a shrine or bulb something unusually good or have a really good use for a short-term gold boost)

Apart from other things even in a non critical situation settling GM's is dubious. I would only do that if i know i'm isolated and i get a GM very early. Can only be because i built GHL. Which is dubious in itself with only internal TR but better with known islands in the neighbourhood.If you go this way be sure to get a scientist by running 2 scientists in another city. Academy will work out bette.Would do that now but i have settled GM in the past for this reason.

As for your questions:

Code of laws of the oracle is unreliable on deity but if it works about your alternatives....

I would certainly not try to get a GM as a trade mission won't be that helpful at the time. Actually if went this way i'm typically not warring early but i'm out for early lib. So i will probably farm scientists

Run a lot of scientists and then settle?? Of course not, How can there be no good bulbs available if you go this route? We did have a plan didn't we to do the things we do? Of course there are bulbs available, typically philo -> Tao->paper->edu->lib. Isn't this well known by now. Not having bulbs available is a non starter in a discussion about strategy.

Run Priests/Merchants for settling?

What i really don't understand is why you ask me those questions? As you said it's obvious that you only skimmed the thread and didn't really read into it. But since you quoted me i assume you have at least read what i wrote. So no nothing gets settled GM's are send on trade missions in order to squash our neighbors, GP's are avoided like the plague.

 

[MyOtherName]

What's so narrow about that? Doesn't make attacking for instance 1200 AD as opposed to 1300 AD a huge difference? It does period.

It's narrow because this comment is only relevant in the sole situation where you have an opportunity to upgrade and attack. You make the comment as if it's the end of story, but there is a wide variety of other circumstances where you could either make or consider making a GM.

Even ahcos considered other circumstances -- e.g. he talked about running a trade mission so as to "fly through the midgame techs".

Apart from other things even in a non critical situation settling GM's is dubious. I would only do that if i know i'm isolated and i get a GM very early. Can only be because i built GHL.

There are lots of ways you can get one. You could start running merchants after getting CoL or Currency, for example.

As for your questions:

I wasn't asking "how have you decided to play" but commenting "evaluating these alternatives is a point of discussion".

Code of laws of the oracle is unreliable on deity but if it works about your alternatives....

I wanted a hypothetical where you could have Merchant access not too long after Scientist access.

I would certainly not try to get a GM as a trade mission won't be that helpful at the time.

Trade missions are always helpful. So is settling.

Run a lot of scientists and then settle?? Of course not, How can there be no good bulbs available if you go this route?

I don't play deity, but I've read enough deity game reports to know that the people who do sometimes find themselves in situations where, even when aiming for Liberalism, they believe settling gets them where they want to go faster than, e.g. bulbing paper or bulbing the second half of Education or bulbing Liberalism. Or, they simply get more scientists than the 5 that you proposed to use for bulbs.

In terms of sustained output, there are certainly situations where running merchants in a city with a market is worth more than running scientists in a city with library / academy. (And similarly with settling the corresponding great person -- even before considering the and the ) On a liberalism -> rifling run, running merchant specialists for a time instead of scientist specialists could mean getting there faster.

 

[RJM]

In terms of sustained output, there are certainly situations where running merchants in a city with a market is worth more than running scientists in a city with library / academy.

I can see this being the case where you have a low commerce city with a library and academy and a high commerce city with a market but no library or academy. Perhaps there are other circumstances as well, although I can't think of them at the moment. However, I wonder why the academy would be built in a low commerce city. I can't think of the circumstances where you needed to choose between running merchants in one city or running scientists in another. Were you just pointing out that running merchants can frequently raise the rate by more than running scientists? If so, its a good lesson which I wish I had learned earlier than I did.

 

[Dirk1302]

Running merchants in cities with market without academy is often better for overall science output since you can raise the slider. Same with building wealth as opposed to research. Building academy in a low commerce city isn't something you usually do. However if you run a lot of scientists there under rep it can pay off in the long run.

 

[MyOtherName]

I can see this being the case where you have a low commerce city with a library and academy and a high commerce city with a market but no library or academy.

Actually, its the other way around -- if your is mostly +% modified, that's precisely the time that sources of raw are most useful.

Were you just pointing out that running merchants can frequently raise the rate by more than running scientists? If so, its a good lesson which I wish I had learned earlier than I did.

Yes, I think that was main point. An empire whose is mostly +%-modified benefits greatly from +. A specialist city skewed towards +% modifiers running merchants will contribute more to sustained research than one skewed towards +% modifiers running scientists. A settled merchant will often to contribute more to your sustained research than a settled scientist. A trade mission will contribute more to your burst research rate than a bulb of equal magnitude -- at least, if your deficit at 100% research is big enough to burn through the gold infusion in the time-frame you care about.