Micromanagement is alive and well in Civ 4!

[malekithe]

As for the value of food, yes I get it. All I'm saying is that the food is not valuable directly. A city working 10 grass pigs makes 42 food and can grow to size 21 even if the happy cap is 10. The value comes when you whip the people, not from the food itself. In fact, happy and unhappy people cost the same to support, so the unhappy people in this ridiculous situation have negative value.

True, food isn't valuable directly. It is only valuable as far as your ability to convert it into hammers or commerce. Mines are one such way of performing that conversion; slavery is another. The primary difference between the two is this fact: working a mine is limited to converting 1 food per turn (2 if it's on a plains hill, but the return is lower). Slavery, however, can convert a large amount of food each turn (sometimes at an even better rate). To put it this way, if I have a city at 4 population making +3 food, I would have to grow three additional population and have hills available to convert those food into hammers via mines at 1:3. With slavery, though, I can always and easily convert all 3 surplus food into hammers (at either ~3:7 or 3:8 ratio depending on whether you make use of the bug) by sacrificing 2 citizens.

The reason that pigs and other food resources are valuable is because they have a large food output that enables lots of hammers. In many cities, though, there are not methods available to convert that excess food to hammers on the same scale that slavery can. To fully realize the potential of just one pig resource, you would need 4 grassland hills available, and would need to grow to fill those hills (costing you population maintenance). Slavery allows you to convert all of the food from the pigs at a high efficiency.

Food is only as powerful as two things: a) the ratio at which it can be converted into hammers (or commerce) and b) the amount that can be converted. Slavery gives you nearly the maximum value in both of those criteria. Mines nearly maximize (a), but sacrifce (b).

The reason your analysis showed poor returns for slavery is because you looked at a situation with 1 surplus food. In that scenario, a single mine is a very likely and accessible method of conversion into hammers. The reason you eliminated the pigs from the equation is, likely, because you couldn't think of anything for the city with the mine to do with all that excess food. That is precisely the problem you're faced with in game. Slavery provides you a very easy way to fully utilize the (very powerful) food resources at your disposal.

 

[Compromise]

The reason your analysis showed poor returns for slavery is because you looked at a situation with 1 surplus food. In that scenario, a single mine is a very likely and accessible method of conversion into hammers. The reason you eliminated the pigs from the equation is, likely, because you couldn't think of anything for the city with the mine to do with all that excess food. That is precisely the problem you're faced with in game. Slavery provides you a very easy way to fully utilize the (very powerful) food resources at your disposal.

Hi malekithe, Glad there are more eyeballs and cerebral hemispheres in on the discussion.

But I think what post #207 shows is that if you have a pastured grass pigs, boatloads of grassland cottages in any state of development (and you can use them with your happiness cap), and a mined plains hill, the choice you make with slavery if there is no production bonus is simply "30 hammers now" versus "4 hammers/turn for the next 10 turns. With a production bonus, the issue is slightly complicated because of integer roundoff errors, but if done with real numbers and the bug, it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

Gotta run. More in a bit.

 

[Zombie69]

Seems to me that you still don't get it.

You work the pigs because that's the best tile you've got.
You work the cottages next because those are the best tiles left.
You work no hill at all.
You use the extra food with slavery.

If you're using hills, you're using unoptimal tiles when you have better tiles available.
If you're not using the pigs, once again you're not using your best tiles.

In this setup, it's so much better to use cottages and whip that the non-whip city is totally left in the dust. Compare those, you'll see.

Also :

it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

You're still not getting this either! My god, how thick are you? I'm sorry but repeating something 10 times to the same person really gets annoying.

It's either 37 vs 60, taking the 25% bonus into account, or 30 vs 48, not taking it into account. It's never 37 vs 48.

 

[Compromise]

...the choice you make with slavery if there is no production bonus is simply "30 hammers now" versus "4 hammers/turn for the next 10 turns. With a production bonus, the issue is slightly complicated because of integer roundoff errors, but if done with real numbers and the bug, it would be 37 versus 48 for maximizing the bug.

Compromise you idiot...Don't hit "Submit reply" when you're in a hurry. The single pop whip comparisons should be:

No production bonus: "30 hammers now" (whip) versus "4 hammers/turn for the next ten turns (marginal tile is plains hill)"

25% Production bonus: "30 base hammers correct/48 base hammers bug now" (whip) versus "4 base hammers/turn for the next ten turns"

[Edit to chastise self]

 

[Compromise]

You're still not getting this either! My god, how thick are you? I'm sorry but repeating something 10 times to the same person really gets annoying.

I'm pretty thick. I apologize for annoying you.

I want to set up the 3-pop whip case tonight and tomorrow morning. Do you mind if instead of one of the very best early food tiles in the game, I use a 5F tile such as farmed but unirrigated corn or wheat? More commonly not by a river than near one, and you probably won't be chaining many farms to get them irrigated.

 

[Zombie69]

Sometimes though, you'll have 2 or more food ressources available.

Do the test with a 5 food tile if you want. It won't be as good for slavery as a 6 food tile, but slavery will still come well ahead.

If you really want to be more realistic though, your city shouldn't have 6 grassland hills available to it. I don't think i've ever seen that in any game i've played. Try 2 grassland hills and 2 plains hills, that's a lot more common. Plus space for farms of course if you want them.

 

[malekithe]

I want to set up the 3-pop whip case tonight and tomorrow morning. Do you mind if instead of one of the very best early food tiles in the game, I use a 5F tile such as farmed but unirrigated corn or wheat? More commonly not by a river than near one, and you probably won't be chaining many farms to get them irrigated.

I'll take care of it for you (just worked through it on paper).

Let's say our city is sitting at 6 pop, about to grow to 7 (the happiness limit). We have an unirrigated grassland wheat tile (5F) and as many grassland hamlet (2F 4C) and mined grassland hills (1F 3H) as we want. Furthermore, I'm going to say this is a commerce city that is still working on putting up infrastructure, so it needs a mix of commerce and hammers. Let's do the no-whip first:

For the sake of convenience I'm going to start this analysis after we've reached 7 pop and have a food box of 17/36. I'm going to work 5 of the grassland hamlets and 2 mines resulting in a net 0 food surplus, 20 commerce, and 6 hammers. Wait 10 turns and you've got 200 commerce and 60 hammers.

Now, the whipped version:

We'll start at 6 pop and a food box of 34/34 (for all intents and purposes, identical to the previous analysis). I immediately sacrifice 3 population, producing (a modified) 96 hammers. This takes me down to 3 population and a food box of 34/28. Now I'm working the wheat and 2 hamlets, getting +5 food surplus and 8 commerce. This turn and the remaining turns break down like this:

Turn	Pop	Basket	Surplus	Comm.	Hammers
1	3	34/28	5	8	96
2	4	25/30	5	12	0
3	5	15/32	5	16	0
4	5	20/32	5	16	0
5	5	25/32	5	16	0
6	5	30/32	5	16	0
7	6	19/34	5	20	0
8	6	24/34	5	20	0
9	6	29/34	5	20	0
10	6	34/34	5	20	0

That gives us a grand total of 96 hammers and 164 commerce. Factor in the turns spent with less pop maintenance (1 commerce per 2.5 pop*turns = ~8 commerce), and that's 96 hammers and 172 commerce. We've also lost 9 total turns growing various hamlets (1.5 turns of growth per hamlet), but I'm not sure how to valuate that.

So, no whip = 60H / 200C, whip = 96H / 172C. We've traded 28 commerce for 36 hammers. I'll take that trade any day. Let's say the building we pop-rushed was a library. In that case, the whipped city actually outputs more total commerce because of the library bonus.

What was going on here was slavery converting an entire +5 food surplus into hammers at a ratio of ~1:2. The no-whip case, instead, converted only a +2 surplus into hammers at a ratio of 1:3. The efficiency was higher for the mines, but the total output was much lower because you couldn't make use of the very powerful wheat tile.

Things would be much different for a production city, as, by it's nature, you're going to have more hills available to efficiently convert your food surplus. In this case, you'd actually lean toward a 1-pop rush instead, as it's more efficient and you get more relative benefit from the slavery bug. Ideally, you'd do this after using up all of your other high production tiles (for instance, if the marginal tile was a farmed plains).

 

[Zombie69]

Also note that for a production city, a grassland farm produces more than a mined grassland hill. Whipping 1, 2 or 3 pop produces respectively, per food used (assuming you start at pop 6), 3, 2.32 and 2.13 hammers. This means that the grassland farm is actually worth 2, 0.64 or 0.26 more hammers than a grassland hill. Since a grassland hill is the best non-bonus-resource tile for production, and a grassland farm is actually pretty weak (a flood plains farm, for instance, would be much better), you can clearly see why whipping is powerful for any city that can manage the food to do it, even a production city (which should have farms and no cottages anyway, whipping or not).

 

[Roland Johansen]

I'll add a simple observation to this discussion which is independent of the bug that allows you to produce more hammers than you should get. It's a comparison of the efficiency of the multi-pop whip to the 1-pop whip. It's the reason why Zombie says more food is better (at least, I think it is the reason).

If you have a very fast growing city that can grow 2 citizens in 10 turns, then you can whip 2 pop per 10 turns. After 5 turns, 1 of the citizens will have been grown again and after another 5 turns, the second citizens will have been grown again in the city. On average you are 1.5 citizen below maximum while you get the production from a 2 pop rush.

If you have an extremely fast growing city that can grow 3 citizens in 10 turns than you can whip 3 pop per 10 turns. After one third of the 10 turns (3 or 4 turns dependent on the exact amount of food in the box when you whip) 1 citizen will have regrown, after another one third of 10 turns another will have regrown and after another one third of 10 turns another citizen will have regrown. On average you are 1/3*3+1/3*2+ 1/3*1=2 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 3 pop whip.

If you have a ridiculously fast growing city that can grow 4 citizens in 10 turns, then you are on average 1/4 * 4+ 1/4 * 3 + 1/4 * 2 + 1/4 * 1 = 2.5 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 4 pop whip.

This comparison doesn't take the best (ab)use of the bug into account. It also ignores the fact that the first pop points return a bit quicker than the later pop points.

If the bug were not in the game and you could only whip one citizen, then 30 hammers for 10 turns at -1 pop might be comparable to using a hill mine. However, the bug and multi-pop rushing tips the scales clearly in favour of whipping.

 

[Zombie69]

It's the reason why Zombie says more food is better (at least, I think it is the reason).

That's not the reason, but thanks for helping! The reason was simply that 1 food can provide about 2 to 4 hammers, so certainly having a tile that produces 5 or 6 food is much too good to pass up.

If you have a very fast growing city that can grow 2 citizens in 10 turns, then you can whip 2 pop per 10 turns. After 5 turns, 1 of the citizens will have been grown again and after another 5 turns, the second citizens will have been grown again in the city. On average you are 1.5 citizen below maximum while you get the production from a 2 pop rush.

Actually, if you whip near the end of a pop level, it will be rather :
- grow back one pop after 1 turn
- grow back the other pop after 10 turns

It's easy to grow back the first pop point when you start at 30/26 food! This makes whipping even more efficient, because you're down a pop point or two for a much shorter period of time.

If you have an extremely fast growing city that can grow 3 citizens in 10 turns than you can whip 3 pop per 10 turns. After one third of the 10 turns (3 or 4 turns dependent on the exact amount of food in the box when you whip) 1 citizen will have regrown, after another one third of 10 turns another will have regrown and after another one third of 10 turns another citizen will have regrown. On average you are 1/3*3+1/3*2+ 1/3*1=2 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 3 pop whip.

If you whip properly, i.e. at the end of a pop level, it will be more like :
- grow back one pop after 1 turn
- grow back the other pop after 3 turns
- grow back the last pop after 10 turns

Remember, the first two pop points grow back quickly if you whip at the end of a pop level.

So on average, you're 1/10*3 + 2/10*2 + 7/10*1 = 1.4 citizens below the maximum. Much better than the 2 cited above, which is the reason why i try to always whip at the end of a level.

If you have a ridiculously fast growing city that can grow 4 citizens in 10 turns, then you are on average 1/4 * 4+ 1/4 * 3 + 1/4 * 2 + 1/4 * 1 = 2.5 citizens below the maximum population while you get the production from a 4 pop whip.

In this case, you'll most certainly regrow the first 2 pop in 2 turns if you whipped at the end of a level like you should. You'll probably get back the 3rd pop point after about 6 turns, and the last one after 10. Which gives us an average of 1/10 * 4 + 1/10 * 3 + 4/10 * 2 + 4/10 * 1 = 1.9 citizens below maximum, again, much better than the 2.5 from whipping at any dumb moment!

This comparison doesn't take the best (ab)use of the bug into account. It also ignores the fact that the first pop points return a bit quicker than the later pop points.

What you're probably refering to is the fact that the first pop points to recover require less food. This means just a little bit less time to recover, which explains why you don't take it into account. However, when after rushing 4 pop you can start from 34/26, it's easy to regain the first two levels in just two turns. This makes a huge difference and must be taken into account!

What i'm talking about here was clearly understood by Malekithe when he made his table a few posts above. He started the no whip scenario one turn after barely going up to level 7. He started his whip scenario one turn after he could have barely gone up to level 7, but set the governor on prevent growth to instead remain at level 6 but with a full granary. This is exactly how i explain in the article that you should do this.

And this, as you said, doesn't even take the exploit into account.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I see that your comments are all correct. I should have known that I couldn't write a simple comparison in this thread. I should have written about the optimal situation as that is what this thread is about. Whipping just before you go to the next size is of course much more efficient.

I was just trying to show that the 1 pop whip is less efficient then the multi pop whip, something that is known to most (good) players. This remains true, if you whip at an arbitrary moment and if you whip at the optimal moment just before the city grows. At the optimal moment, the difference between the multi pop whip and the single pop whip is even greater, so it is good that you pointed this out.

By the way, I really hope that this pop-rushing bug gets fixed because I like to play at huge maps with many dozens of cities and it is really not fun to try to find optimal whip points for all of those cities. But if I don't, I feel that I'm hurting myself. I'm probably going to reduce the hammers gained from whipping. With the bug it is indeed too powerful.

 

[Compromise]

Whipping just before you go to the next size is of course much more efficient.

Welcome Roland! More minds are better.

The quote above is something Zombie has stated in his thread and criticized me for not taking note of.

In the case where you are happiness limited, it is also wrong.

Using the example above of a city that is happy cap limited to 7, the optimal time to whip is on the turn that you grow to 7. If you are whipping every 10 turns, you want to make sure that you grow to 7 on the 10th turn and can whip again.

Why is this optimal?

With a happiness cap of 6 (7 minus the one who's unhappy you whipped his buddy), you can work 6x10=60 tiles over 10 turns.

Consider the two alternatives which are "whipping just before you grow".

The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Bottom line: when you are at your happy cap, the time to grow is just as any existing unhappiness expires (or you get a new happy resource online). And the time to whip is that very turn that you've grown.

 

[Compromise]

I've come up with a different way of saying why I didn't need to use the pigs in one of my earlier examples.

If you're working all grasslands, you have a +2 food surplus from your city center.

Over 10 turns, +2F gives you 20 food.

20 food is enough to grow from size 6 to size 7 if you had a granary in place the last time you made the growth. (Remember that you are happy-limited to 7 happy citizens or 6 with the whip.)

Why would you work the pigs? You'd be giving up time working another tile to generate food that you're going to throw away anyway?

You work the pigs to grow quickly. If you're bringing another happiness resource online, then you want to get you population up to use that (ideally improved) tile as quickly as possible, so you work the pigs. If you are happiness limited, you don't want to grow until your happiness limit rises.

Bottom line: Don't work food resources unless you need to grow quickly.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Welcome Roland! More minds are better.

The quote above is something Zombie has stated in his thread and criticized me for not taking note of.

I've already discussed many things with Zombie. We mostly agree, but he can get rather pissed if someone fails to see his point. His patience is limited, especially if he feels that there is nothing to discuss and everything is clear (not everyone is good at mathematics, Zombie ). Luckily, I usually have the same opinion as he has.

He has thought about this a long time and thus is probably correct in his writings. However, a bit of discussion can add to the understanding of anyone reading this.

As far as I can see, you have nothing to worry about. You haven't written really stupid things in this thread. You just look at it from a different perspective. That's why I've written my post. I thought you didn't consider the possibility of the multi pop whip.

In the case where you are happiness limited, it is also wrong.

Using the example above of a city that is happy cap limited to 7, the optimal time to whip is on the turn that you grow to 7. If you are whipping every 10 turns, you want to make sure that you grow to 7 on the 10th turn and can whip again.

Why is this optimal?

With a happiness cap of 6 (7 minus the one who's unhappy you whipped his buddy), you can work 6x10=60 tiles over 10 turns.

Consider the two alternatives which are "whipping just before you grow".

The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Bottom line: when you are at your happy cap, the time to grow is just as any existing unhappiness expires (or you get a new happy resource online). And the time to whip is that very turn that you've grown.

I see what you mean. No need to have a 7-th citizen eating food and costing civic upkeep while not doing anything (except complaining about your harsh working methods). The eating food part is more important in my opinion because it limits your future whipping.

I will calculate the amount of food needed to grow from size 6 to size 7 assuming a granary is present (normal speed). I need this to see how much excess food is needed to grow within 10 turns from size 6 to size 7. You need 20+ 6*2= 32 food to fill the size 6 foodbox and thus carry over 16 food to the next size. So you need 16 food to grow from size 6 to 7. To produce this amount in 10 turns, you need less than 2 food per turn.

So if you have a city that has an excess food production of only 1 per turn, then you'd want to wait until you have 10 food less than needed to grow from size 6 to 7 (you have 22/34 food in the size 7 food box and whip to get 22/32 food in the size 6 food box). After 10 turns the city again grows to size 7.

However, if the excess of food is larger than this, then you can whip multiple citizens at once. Say, we have an excess of 2 food per turn, still not a lot but more than enough for this example.

We wait until 34/34 food in the size 7 box and then whip 2 citizens (for lots of production, more than the 1 citizen if timed correctly). Then we are at 34/30 in the size 5 foodbox. Next turn we are at 19/32 in the size 6 food box (34/2 (food from the granary) + 2 (food excess)= 19). Within the 9 remaining turns of unhappiness, the remaining 13 food can easily be produced. I think it is better to let the city grow to size 7 if it will still grow on because the food produced can be used for another whipping soon. If it will not grow any further because of the unhappy citizen eating food, then you can halt its growth at size 6 until the unhappiness ends.

I think that this is the reason why more food is good for whipping. But you have to whip multiple citizens otherwise the excess food is wasted.

 

[Compromise]

Let's say our city is sitting at 6 pop, about to grow to 7 (the happiness limit). We have an unirrigated grassland wheat tile (5F) and as many grassland hamlet (2F 4C) and mined grassland hills (1F 3H) as we want. Furthermore, I'm going to say this is a commerce city that is still working on putting up infrastructure, so it needs a mix of commerce and hammers.

Now, the whipped version:

We'll start at 6 pop and a food box of 34/34 (for all intents and purposes, identical to the previous analysis).

These {code} tags are awesome! Thanks.

For the analysis, I think you mean 32/32 since at pop 6, the growth is at 32 food. And the growth is 20+2n, so there are some slight changes to your numbers. I find your system difficult to follow because the granary boosts are hidden in the Pop column. So, I've modified he presentation to separate out what you see in your city versus what happens when you press "next turn". The latter lines are indented. 6(32) is a size 6 city with 32 food in the food bar. [Edit: added some text to the end of this paragraph.]

Turn Size(food) FoodSurplus Commerce  Hammers
0       6(32) Whip...
                                             90
0       3(32) 
                  5             8               
1       3(32+5) --> 4(13+6+5) = 4(24)
                  5             12              
2       4(29) --> 5(14+1) = 5(15)
                  5             16               
3       5(20)
                  5             16       
4       5(25)
                  5             16
5       5(30) --> 6(15)
                  5             20
6       6(20)
                  5             20
7       6(25)
                  5             20
8       6(30)
                  2             24   Don't work the food resource, but rather a hamlet.
9       6(32)
                  2             24   Again no food resource, and 2 food is still wasted
10     6(32) back where we started, people are happy again.

I get 90/96 hammers depending on the bug and 44x4=176 commerce. [Edit: Plus 10 hammers for the city center: total of 100/106 hammers]

Good catch on the reduced pop maintenance! Here, you're down 19 pop-turns over the 10 turns. Your figure (I don't have a better one) of 1 commerce per 2.5 pop-turns gives you 8. I agree.

For the no-whip case, let me see if I can get to 90 hammers. I'm going to use a difference presentation...let me know if its better.

Over 10 turns, I have 70 tiles I can work (7 at a tile for 10 turns). I need to net zero food, just like the whip case. I get 20 food and 10 hammers from the city center, so I need to come up with 80 hammers and -20 food from my tiles. I can spend 26 turns on -1F +3H grass hills at get -26F and 78H. I can then spend 2 turns working the +3F food resource.

So, for the no-whip case, I spend 2 turns on the food resource, 26 turns on the grass hills, and the rest on hamlets or whatever: 28 total lost turns

For the whip case, I lose 10 turns due to unhappiness, 9 because of lost population that could be happy and 8 because of working the food resource when its useful: 27 lost turns.

Also, this assumed that your marginal tile was a grassland hill mine. With a food resource, a plains hill mine is better. Using this example, give me some plains hills mines instead of just grassland mines. Now, I can get my 80H (+10 from city center) from 20 x -2F4H. -40F, +20F from city center, +21F from 7 turns on the food resource.

I just remembered something that will benefit the whip argument! The city center generates hammers in that case too!

So now, what's the difference over 10 turns?

No-whip with grass hill mines: 28 lost turns on hamlets, no food loss, 88H
No-whip with plains hill mines: 27 lost turns on hamlets, +1F, 90H
No-whip with 2 0F5H metal resources: 27 lost turns on hamlets, +1F, 100H [Edit: you need 2 to get these results. I know, I know...this is never going to happen in your commerce city unless things pop for you, but the math is right.]
Whip: 27 lost turns on hamlets, no food loss, 100(fair)/106(bug) hammers generated, 8 commerce earned for civic cost

Is the whip better? Yes. Is it ungodly better? You be the judge. If you can get a three-person whip, you can get about 1H1C/turn more. That's ~10% on the hammers and ~5% on the commerce. I think my previous analysis shows that for a 1-person whip, you get less of a benefit, even including my recent realization about the city-center hammers applying to both cases.

One last thing:

Let's say the building we pop-rushed was a library. In that case, the whipped city actually outputs more total commerce because of the library bonus.

I'm already on board for the potential value of hammers earlier rather than later, so I totally agree with this. In fact, a lot of the buildings you'd rush would give you things you want sooner rather than later: temples, libraries, banks, etc. I'm not against whipping--far from it. I'm just trying to figure out how to evaluate it fairly.

Bottom line: it's about 5-10% better to whip versus working good marginal tiles when you can get a 3-pop whip. If you don't have good tile to work, whip. If you do, think about it.

 

[Compromise]

I've already discussed many things with Zombie. We mostly agree, but he can get rather pissed if someone fails to see his point. His patience is limited, especially if he feels that there is nothing to discuss and everything is clear (not everyone is good at mathematics, Zombie ). Luckily, I usually have the same opinion as he has.

He has thought about this a long time and thus is probably correct in his writings. However, a bit of discussion can add to the understanding of anyone reading this.

Thanks. I agree with just about everything that you and Zombie and others have said. I'm just trying to make sure we're correct.

@Z too: I really am thick, and can take the abuse if I seem to deserve it

As far as I can see, you have nothing to worry about. You haven't written really stupid things in this thread. You just look at it from a different perspective. That's why I've written my post. I thought you didn't consider the possibility of the multi pop whip.

Thanks for the not-yet-stupid rating . I hope the post I made while you made this shows that I'm capable of evaluating the multi-pop whip too.

I will calculate the amount of food needed to grow from size 6 to size 7 assuming a granary is present (normal speed). I need this to see how much excess food is needed to grow within 10 turns from size 6 to size 7. You need 20+ 6*2= 32 food to fill the size 6 foodbox and thus carry over 16 food to the next size. So you need 16 food to grow from size 6 to 7. To produce this amount in 10 turns, you need less than 2 food per turn.

So if you have a city that has an excess food production of only 1 per turn, then you'd want to wait until you have 10 food less than needed to grow from size 6 to 7 (you have 22/34 food in the size 7 food box and whip to get 22/32 food in the size 6 food box). After 10 turns the city again grows to size 7.

However, if the excess of food is larger than this, then you can whip multiple citizens at once. Say, we have an excess of 2 food per turn, still not a lot but more than enough for this example.

We wait until 34/34 food in the size 7 box and then whip 2 citizens (for lots of production, more than the 1 citizen if timed correctly). Then we are at 34/30 in the size 5 foodbox. Next turn we are at 19/32 in the size 6 food box (34/2 (food from the granary) + 2 (food excess)= 19). Within the 9 remaining turns of unhappiness, the remaining 13 food can easily be produced. I think it is better to let the city grow to size 7 if it will still grow on because the food produced can be used for another whipping soon. If it will not grow any further because of the unhappy citizen eating food, then you can halt its growth at size 6 until the unhappiness ends.

I think that this is the reason why more food is good for whipping. But you have to whip multiple citizens otherwise the excess food is wasted.

I didn't evaluate the 2-pop whip, but I did the 3-pop case. It's probably suboptimal because I used the case where you whip right before you grow rather than after, but I suspect that's a turn or 2 of working hamlets difference. I'm running out of time to devote to this.

I really do think that they key thing to think about with respect to whipping is: what would your lost or unhappy citizens be doing if you hadn't whipped them? If they're working unimproved tiles, whip 'em. If not, maybe it's a close call. In addition, on the plus side for whipping, there's the earlier hammer recovery. On the minus side, there's more micromanaging to whip than to let the city ride.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Thanks for the not-yet-stupid rating . I hope the post I made while you made this shows that I'm capable of evaluating the multi-pop whip too.

You are surely not stupid. Most people don't understand Zombie's article or cannot find the patience to understand it or think it is stupid (because they do not understand it). You have a large degree of understanding and dare to discuss the things that are a bit vague to you. You dare to challenge Zombie's point of view which makes you susceptible to criticism but you chose to do it anyway and accept any criticism. I think all of that is positive as long as you read and try to understand the arguments given by others.

Sorry, but I have to leave now for an oppointment. I'll take a look at these last writings later.

 

[Compromise]

...I think all of that is positive as long as you read and try to understand the arguments given by others.

I want to give no less and expect no more than this.

 

[Zombie69]

The first is that you whip when your population is 6 and your granary is full (if you've toggled avoid growth) or one food short. If you whip now, you will be at size 5 until the next turn when you will grow to size 6. You can work 5 tiles this turn and 6 tiles for the next 9. You have worked 59 tiles. If 59<60, then this is suboptimal.

No, this is actually optimal and explained in my article. Moreover, as is also explained there, this becomes more important to do the more pop you rush at a time. Since i'm tired of repeating myself, i refer you to the article to understand why it's better to whip before growth. The short answer is that you then save 1 food per pop whipped, per level lower that you whip at. Thus, whipping 4 pop at level 6 saves 4 food compared to whipping 4 pop at level 7.

The second whip-just-before-grow is if you whip at 7 just before growing to 8. You whip and are at size 6. You can work 6x10 = 60 tiles. However, for the steady-state calculation, you have to get back to a full granary at size 7. No matter how you slice it and what your food bonus is, that means you have to spend some time (say 3 turns) at size 7 when that 7th citizen is unhappy. You have to pay support for him happy or not. So, even though you work all 60 tiles, just like the case where you whip just after you grow, you have to pay support for an unhappy citizen for more than zero turns. If there is any cost to that support, this method is suboptimal.

Again, you're not seeing the big picture. First, you shouldn't even be able to go up to pop 7 with a full granary, because you should always have +1 unhappiness from whipping. But let's assume that you played badly and forgot to whip for a few turns. Whipping at the end of pop 7 is good. Just make sure you whip more than one pop at a time. This is so obvious it's a wonder that i actually have to spell it out for you. Always whip as many pop as you can regrow in 10 turns. This is like "Civ 101", it's so basic it should be taught in the elementary school of civ playing.

 

[Zombie69]

I think i'll change my stance on this. It may actually be that if your food excess on the turn before growing is larger than the amount of food saved by whipping one level lower, it may be better to let yourself grow before whipping. I'll think about it some more, and change the article accordingly if that happens to be the case. Either way, the avoid growth function of the governor should still be used to fill the granary to the max. In one case, the turn before whipping, and in the other case, 2 turns before.

My gut feeling is that in certain circumstances it may be better to whip just before growth, and in other circumstances it may be better to whip after growth. And what would determine which applies would be how many turns you need to regrow each pop level for either option, and what FPC the extra tiles can give you when regrowing quicker. If that's the case, it's becoming a little too complicated and i don't think even i would want to calculate the best option for every new situation (as every situation would be different).