Inspired by the discussion at:
I would have assumed this has been discussed before on this forum, but couldn't find any clear thread on the topic through the search tool, so here we go. The thread linked above focused on this idea that many buildings (among other things) are devalued by the dominant strategy of (to simplify) reaching some breakout tech followed by whip-powered mass unit production and conquest. So I wanted to focus on a narrower point: how would we value things differently in-game under a challenge where slavery is banned (for the human player, the AI would still use it presumably). Also I'd be interested to see how my intuition in this initial post is corrected by more seasoned veterans.
Basic assumptions:
- Game generally lasts longer.
- Production is a scarcer resource and "natural" hammers become more important.
- Most of the game will be under caste system.
- Raising the happiness cap becomes even more important, and perhaps eventually the health cap.
- Upgrading units becomes more attractive as you can't "rush" produce new ones as soon as you have the tech, at least not until quite late in the game.
Effect on buildings:
- General: the effective and opportunity cost of any building goes up... sure, the game lasts longer and thus buildings have more time to "break even", but they also can't be rushed, so their yields start later. Also, the opportunity cost goes up since any production turns or forests sunk into a building could have gone into something else, especially in the early game when natural hammers are scarce.
- Granary: No whipping obviously removes a key benefit. On the other hand, in a game with more focus on "food sinks" like specialists (caste system) or mines, boosting growth rate might still be useful (granary doesn't change the max workable population for given food resources, but gets you to that max sooner). More minor points: regrowing after starving the city to max out specialists during a golden age, and cheap source of +health when needed in the late game.
- Monument: Worth less (unless CHA) because of earlier caste system.
- Library: Also worth less because of earlier caste system. Still good in high-commerce city with natural hammers to spare.
- Lighthouse: Harder to build in coastal cities as they naturally have less hammers.
- Courthouse: May be useful if the game lasts longer, but also less useful if we don't get as many cities as a typical game with slavery.
- Forge: Main winner under these conditions, boosts production and often happiness, still quite expensive if not IND.
- University: Maybe more useful, especially with PHI, if the game lasts longer.
- Can't think of a big effect on most other buildings (including military ones).
Bottom line: yes, granary becomes less valuable, but so do many of the early buildings, and late buildings come with a large hammer requirement that fewer cities can meet, unless you have the trait giving a discount.
Traits:
- Still as good: FIN
- Valued better: PHI (longer time in caste, more use for cheap universities), IND (cheap forge, greater benefit of Pyramids if caste is the main labor civic, perhaps also other wonders), CHA (+happy, promotions are more valuable if you upgrade rather than whip new units), IMP (produce more settlers with our precious early production turns + forests, unit upgrades being more valued also makes great generals more valued).
- Unclear: ORG (basically the same reasons noted for the Courthouse), EXP (granaries less useful, but small worker boost and +health)
- Valued worse: CRE (libraries and border pops less needed with early caste), SPI (presumably less civic switches, also even cheap temples are less interesting as +happy buildings compared to IND forges or CHA monuments).
- Still as bad: AGG, PRO
Perhaps good leaders in this format would have a combination of some of the "valued better" traits and/or FIN, strong starting techs or early UUs to compensate for the slower expansion in a no-slavery challenge. I would think of leaders like Suleiman (IMP/PHI, great techs), Cyrus (CHA/IMP, good techs and UU), DeGaulle (CHA/IND, great techs), Lincoln (CHA/PHI, at least has Agri), and to a lesser extent Hannibal, Victoria, Liz or Augustus (all have good traits but worse early game). Also of course the Inca, as usual.
The "Expanded OCC" and it's negative effect on measuring the effectiveness of buildings and corporations
I think it would be fair to say that the developers of Civ4 gave us plenty of options on how to play this game. Over the years, as we, the players, learned the game and it's mechanics, combined with the fact that the development on this game ceased a long time ago, meant that certain strategies...
forums.civfanatics.com
I would have assumed this has been discussed before on this forum, but couldn't find any clear thread on the topic through the search tool, so here we go. The thread linked above focused on this idea that many buildings (among other things) are devalued by the dominant strategy of (to simplify) reaching some breakout tech followed by whip-powered mass unit production and conquest. So I wanted to focus on a narrower point: how would we value things differently in-game under a challenge where slavery is banned (for the human player, the AI would still use it presumably). Also I'd be interested to see how my intuition in this initial post is corrected by more seasoned veterans.
Basic assumptions:
- Game generally lasts longer.
- Production is a scarcer resource and "natural" hammers become more important.
- Most of the game will be under caste system.
- Raising the happiness cap becomes even more important, and perhaps eventually the health cap.
- Upgrading units becomes more attractive as you can't "rush" produce new ones as soon as you have the tech, at least not until quite late in the game.
Effect on buildings:
- General: the effective and opportunity cost of any building goes up... sure, the game lasts longer and thus buildings have more time to "break even", but they also can't be rushed, so their yields start later. Also, the opportunity cost goes up since any production turns or forests sunk into a building could have gone into something else, especially in the early game when natural hammers are scarce.
- Granary: No whipping obviously removes a key benefit. On the other hand, in a game with more focus on "food sinks" like specialists (caste system) or mines, boosting growth rate might still be useful (granary doesn't change the max workable population for given food resources, but gets you to that max sooner). More minor points: regrowing after starving the city to max out specialists during a golden age, and cheap source of +health when needed in the late game.
- Monument: Worth less (unless CHA) because of earlier caste system.
- Library: Also worth less because of earlier caste system. Still good in high-commerce city with natural hammers to spare.
- Lighthouse: Harder to build in coastal cities as they naturally have less hammers.
- Courthouse: May be useful if the game lasts longer, but also less useful if we don't get as many cities as a typical game with slavery.
- Forge: Main winner under these conditions, boosts production and often happiness, still quite expensive if not IND.
- University: Maybe more useful, especially with PHI, if the game lasts longer.
- Can't think of a big effect on most other buildings (including military ones).
Bottom line: yes, granary becomes less valuable, but so do many of the early buildings, and late buildings come with a large hammer requirement that fewer cities can meet, unless you have the trait giving a discount.
Traits:
- Still as good: FIN
- Valued better: PHI (longer time in caste, more use for cheap universities), IND (cheap forge, greater benefit of Pyramids if caste is the main labor civic, perhaps also other wonders), CHA (+happy, promotions are more valuable if you upgrade rather than whip new units), IMP (produce more settlers with our precious early production turns + forests, unit upgrades being more valued also makes great generals more valued).
- Unclear: ORG (basically the same reasons noted for the Courthouse), EXP (granaries less useful, but small worker boost and +health)
- Valued worse: CRE (libraries and border pops less needed with early caste), SPI (presumably less civic switches, also even cheap temples are less interesting as +happy buildings compared to IND forges or CHA monuments).
- Still as bad: AGG, PRO
Perhaps good leaders in this format would have a combination of some of the "valued better" traits and/or FIN, strong starting techs or early UUs to compensate for the slower expansion in a no-slavery challenge. I would think of leaders like Suleiman (IMP/PHI, great techs), Cyrus (CHA/IMP, good techs and UU), DeGaulle (CHA/IND, great techs), Lincoln (CHA/PHI, at least has Agri), and to a lesser extent Hannibal, Victoria, Liz or Augustus (all have good traits but worse early game). Also of course the Inca, as usual.
Last edited:
instead of 30 would be great.
