GR12 - AWM vs 30 civs, Pangea

[vmxa]

Great game, guys!!!

I'm finding the discussion on scientists vs taxmen very interesting. I usually use enough scientists to drop research by a turn (or two) and the rest tax. It's a whole lot of MMing every 3 turns or so. I'm still not sure what to think about that.

My point is only for that exact set of turns, not a general stratefy. It will not come up frequently. You need to be ahead in tech and the AI not ever giving you a second researcher discount. You need to be at the minimum research rate of 4 turns and you need to have less taxment than could make a big enough difference as well as running 0 tax.

This is not going to be an every day occurence.

 

[Greebley]

It may just be the way we play. My Science rate is NEVER constant. Cities grow and get a new scientists. Settlers get built and cities get readjusted, aquaducts complete and switch from engineers to scientists . I capture large number of cities throwing off everything. Cities reach full size and are adjusted to zero food. If I really feel like MMing, I will lower science and make scientists until the number of turns goes down again. Getting it exact without using any taxmen and lost revenue. Don't usually do this, but since the science slider is about 1000 at max, then 10% is 100. That means I waste 0-100 (some random amount since I don't calcuate).

As you say it totally doesn't really matter when you are talking about the total cost of tech. In that case I claim that always making scientists is easier. No worrying about adjusting between taxmen and scientists.

Actually, it occurs to me the KEY difference. I CAPTURE cities. This causes science to flucuate wildly. You RAZE cities and build new ones (that won't use scientists right away). Thus you are not suddenly adding large amounts of science to your empire (not until the cities grow enough). If I am starving a city then every non-rebel person is a scientist. If I am not starving it, I usually still do not let it grow so will have often added about 9-12 science per city. Calculating science ahead if you capture cities is futile. I can add 100 science in a single turn in these big games.

 

[vmxa]

Actually I am unable to get my point across, that is my fault. You keep pointing to conditions that I already agreed are correct. If you can add enough extra beakers, it can make a difference. No doubt and if you are adding enough cities and scientist that can be accomplished.

In almost all games, that is doable. In a game point where techs cost 10K+ and you start out with the min research time, those are not going to occur or at least only very rarely.

In my normal games, you cannot risk capture, but in this game I did capture cities. It is not something that is optimal that often as the locations are usually not to my liking.

Really the big difference is you guys are willing to lose armies to get a town a turn sooner and I am not. I dislike losing 2 or 3 armies every few turns to get the job done sooner. It is not wrong, I just do not do it. Well I would once I decide the game is about to end. Then I have no further need of the armies.

In the case I have been talking about, you would need to add more than 1155 beakers in 2 two turns. That is about 193 scientist. I am not sure that it wil do any good, even if you could do it. The one time I tried, I could not lower the time as the 4 turn limit seemed to be enfored.

Now if you have unlimited gold or no need for all the gold you have, then do not be concerned with the lost gold. This is seldom the case and the 100gpt is usually welcomed. Not to mention the addition gold from the newly aquired specialist.

I say again you are absolutely right, if the game is not meeting the condition I listed earlier. That is going to be most of the game, except for those times where you cannot run a large enough deficit.

Again the fact that 3 beakers is better than 2 gold is irrelevant, if you cannot use the beakers and cannot convert them to gold. They are just lost.

 

[Greebley]

It isn't a matter of thousands of beakers.

Taking a concrete example:

At the start of your turn 100% science was 1130 beakers and 90% science was 1063 beakers. That means if I gain 67 more beakers via scientists, I can lower science by 10 percent. I also checked and we get 59 gold if we lower science by 10%.

So assume you make 25 taxmen for 4 turns and get the tech exact. Those 25 make 200 gold as taxmen.

As scientists they make 300 beakers. 300 beakers allows me to lower science 40% (on the last turn - this is 4*67 less science which is less than 300 that I gained). That then gains me 59 * 4 gold = 236 gold. Thus the scientists got me more gold than running taxmen.

I could do even better if I added 3 more scientists. Normally adding 3 scientists over 4 turns would get me 36 beakers. But in this case I got 336 beakers. That means I can lower science by 50% (on the last turn) and get 59*5 = 295 gold. So instead of 25 taxmen, I could create 3 scientists and gain 95 gold over 4 turns.

Note that small number of taxmen can also benefit. If I made 2 taxmen, then I get 23*3*4 = 276 science which allows me to lower science by 40% (4*67 = 268) That is 59*4 gold = 236 gold. The 2 taxmen also made 2*2*4 gold = 16 gold. I therefore got 252 gold. Thus 2 taxmen is worth 52 gold more than 25 taxmen. This is the best option if I can't afford to make 3 more scientists.

Running all scientists has the additional benefit of when you get a tech you don't have to adjust all those taxmen back to get science to work out for the next tech. If you just leave those taxmen, then you won't be exact anymore and you continue to lose gold.

-------------------------------------
So science and gold IS interchangable in increments of 67 science getting back 59 gold. Each taxman costs you 1 gold/science per turn. If you lose more than 67 gold/science then you can get 59 more gold by running them as scientists than taxmen - by lowering science on the last turn.

 

[vmxa]

Now tha tis an example I can understand. Bravo.

 

[ThERat]

sorry to interupt this discussion (Greebley finally put numbers in to show why scientists are better than taxmen).

Anyway, I have downloaded LK's world map and it has 16 Civ's 'only'. This makes the game faster but at the same time easier. Do you plan to play this on DG or emperor. I guess starting around the mediteranean location makes the game initially much harder, but easier later on due to almost unlimited space to expand.
Australia would be boring, but the Americas would be a nice thing to start I guess.
Just some thoughts....

 

[Greebley]

Actually I think it has 19 civs or something like that.

I think I would like to play Emporer, but maybe start in a trickier spot. Something like Brazil (who IIRC is in the game).

 

[Salarakas]

That should be interesting. LK101 was played as Argentina (deity, ended in domination) so Greebley should know how to handle the South American start. Keep in mind that there's a LOT of jungle where Brazil starts though

I'd be interested in seeing how a start in Africa would play out. I'm not sure about this world map but the land in there is usually pretty poor so it wouldn't be easy. Not to mention that you would meet a lot of enemies before caravels/galleons too.

Edit: the needed files are mentioned on page 2 of the LK101 game thread:

The new WM players will need to run the following batch file. It should be run from C:\Program Files\Infogrames Interactive\Civilization III\Art\units.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/SETUP-UNITS4.zip


You also need:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/LKCWorld-V3B.zip

 

[Greebley]

Thanks.

Ya Africa could be interesting as well.

Not sure which I would prefer - starting in the Americas or Europe/Asia/Africa.

 

[ThERat]

Africa sounds sure interesting for a change

 

[M60A3TTS]

Great job as always, guys. Nice to see big scale games still alive and well.

 

[Greebley]

I started a thread for GR13 - AWE on LK's world map.

Link To the Thread