Questions about improvements in prod. city

[Meister]

I will mine all hills in a production city(given that food is not really poor),and build watermills next to river if available.

The question is -- there are some grassland tiles without hills or really away from rivers (cannot be chain irrigated ) and the city does not have many food surplus.So...how do I improve those tiles?

Build cottages on them?But it is not a commerce city...(Although cottages are better than "no improvements" , I don't like it )

Build workshops (before state property)?I may not be able to work them

Any suggestions?

 

[Nick53]

I don't like workshops until late-game anyway so I'd go for cottages. It doesn't have to be all production. (although I wouldn't complain if I had such a city )

 

[Mercenary82]

Just whip the excess citizens off, if you aren't running slavery for some reason, then use cottages until state property.

 

[cabert]

WHy couldn't those tiles be chain irrigated?
Could it be that you put a watermill in the way?

 

[DigitalBoy]

Well, working cottages in a production city isn't all that bad. It is, as you say, better than working an unimproved tile. If you have Guilds, then workshops are essentially forests minus the health bonus (a grassland workshop is like a plains forest, and a plains workshop is like a plains/hills/forest), which isn't bad at all, especially for a city geared towards production.

If you can build watermills, then you can't be all that far away from Civil Service (unless you beelined Machinery) and hence chain irrigation, right?

 

[Meister]

It seems everyone agrees that cottaging those tiles rather than leaving it unimproved

WHy couldn't those tiles be chain irrigated?
Could it be that you put a watermill in the way?

Well, working cottages in a production city isn't all that bad. It is, as you say, better than working an unimproved tile. If you have Guilds, then workshops are essentially forests minus the health bonus (a grassland workshop is like a plains forest, and a plains workshop is like a plains/hills/forest), which isn't bad at all, especially for a city geared towards production.

If you can build watermills, then you can't be all that far away from Civil Service (unless you beelined Machinery) and hence chain irrigation, right?

When your city is surrounded by hills,or the only river nearby (8 tiles away from the city) is controlled by your foes,chain irrigation would be very very difficult...Although it does not always happens anyway.

 

[Galileo44]

Don't be concerned if a production city doesn't have high population. That is totally normal. Advice, irrigate grasslands for food and then work workshops.

 

[UncleJJ]

Don't be concerned if a production city doesn't have high population. That is totally normal. Advice, irrigate grasslands for food and then work workshops.

Or just irrigate the grasslands build a farm and then harvest the food as hammers through Slavery. At a city size of 10 a grassland farm produces as many hammers as a grassland hill averaged over the 10 turn whipping cycle. That is true early in the game and then later in the game soon after Railroad increases the hills output by 33% Biology increases the grassland farm by the same amount. For most of the game farms produce more hammers than workshops.

 

[Galileo44]

whipping is the weakest part of my game. I'm really not good at understanding or using it enough.

 

[slowrider]

Or just irrigate the grasslands build a farm and then harvest the food as hammers through Slavery. At a city size of 10 a grassland farm produces as many hammers as a grassland hill averaged over the 10 turn whipping cycle. That is true early in the game and then later in the game soon after Railroad increases the hills output by 33% Biology increases the grassland farm by the same amount. For most of the game farms produce more hammers than workshops.

Wow ... grassland farm produces as many hammers a grassland hill ... I have got to improve my whipping game. Sounds like the answer is farming, whipping then workshopping with State Property. I don't usually research to RR but SP is the bomb for mega-production cities.

 

[UncleJJ]

Wow ... grassland farm produces as many hammers a grassland hill ... I have got to improve my whipping game. Sounds like the answer is farming, whipping then workshopping with State Property. I don't usually research to RR but SP is the bomb for mega-production cities.

yes food is power in this game.

Look at it this way:
1. We all know that a single pop is worth 30 base hammers when sacrificed (or whipped) under Slavery.
2. It takes 20 food for a size 10 city to grow to size 11 with a granary.
3. Therefore 20 food is worth 30 base hammers = 1.5 hammers / food
4. A grassland farm produces 3 food but the pop to work it needs 2 food so only a net +1 food is available for Slavery. It therefore produces 1.5 hammers
5. A grassland hill produces 1 food and 3 hammers. The pop that works it needs 2 food so it effectively produces -1 food and 3 hammers which again is a net 1.5 hammers.
6. Therefore early in the game a grassland farm has the same productivity as a grassland hill.
7. With the coming of the railroad the hill gains another hammer and then produces a net 2.5 hammers per turn after subtracting the "cost" of the food its pop consumes.
8. When Biology is researched the grassland farm gains an additional food so it now produces a net 3 hammers per turn.
9. It is interesting that after Biology a plains farm is worth 2.5 hammers and equivalent to a grassland hill

Note that you can do the same sort of calculation for other city sizes. Food is obviously more productive for smaller cities and less productive for larger ones.

Although I have compared the productivity of a grassland farm versus a grassland hill in fact it is just as valid to compare a floodplains farm, a pastured pig and a lumbermill or any sources of food or hammers.

 

[DaviddesJ]

1. We all know that a single pop is worth 30 base hammers when sacrificed (or whipped) under Slavery.

This is pretty far off. You have neglected two factors: (1) the unhappiness from whipping reduces the number of tiles you can work by 1, for the next 10 turns, thus costing you 10 tile-turns, and (2) you don't immediately regrow to your maximum size after whipping, so you are losing more than 10 tile-turns.

If you figure a typical whip of 3 pop, and a production loss of 15 tile-turns, and the value of a tile-turn is 1 food, then the whip generates 90 hammers for a cost of (16+18+20+15) food, thus the ratio is only 1.3 hammers per food.

 

[UncleJJ]

This is pretty far off.

I don't think you understand. I am only considering the basic mathematics. You have chosen to bring in some other complicating factors which may or may not affect a city. I didn't mention them as they obscure the underlying mathematics.

You have neglected two factors: (1) the unhappiness from whipping reduces the number of tiles you can work by 1, for the next 10 turns, thus costing you 10 tile-turns, and (2) you don't immediately regrow to your maximum size after whipping, so you are losing more than 10 tile-turns.

1. unhappiness from whipping only affects productivity at the margin, for example a size 10 city with a happiness of 20 would be unaffected.
2. No tile turns are lost in my size 10 city as it can be assumed to only have 10 tiles available to be worked.
Therefore your objections do not apply to my analysis. You seem to be introducing your own assumptions which are not mine.

If you figure a typical whip of 3 pop, and a production loss of 15 tile-turns, and the value of a tile-turn is 1 food, then the whip generates 90 hammers for a cost of (16+18+20+15) food, thus the ratio is only 1.3 hammers per food.

I don't really understand what you are arguing here. The number of pop converted to hammers does affect the conversion ratio but larger whips will increase the efficiency rather than decrease it as you seem to be saying.

 

[DaviddesJ]

You seem to be introducing your own assumptions which are not mine.

Yes, because I'm introducing reasonable assumptions, and your assumptions are unreasonable. Where do you get a city with 20 happiness limit and only 10 tiles to work? That's not reasonable.

 

[UncleJJ]

Yes, because I'm introducing reasonable assumptions, and your assumptions are unreasonable. Where do you get a city with 20 happiness limit and only 10 tiles to work? That's not reasonable.

My assumptions seem reasonable to me and help me explain my ideas clearly.

In the late game it is perfectly possible for a city to have a 20 happiness limit. My capital often has a happiness of 35 with a culture slider set to 40% Although we need only assume that the happiness is higher than 10 so it does not affect the tiles worked for your assumption to be invalid. I hope you can see this now.

Many of my cities will have a lot less than the maximum of 20 tiles available to be worked. In fact I can't remember when I last had a city with 20 tiles being worked. The list of things that reduce the number of workable tiles include mountains, ice, desert, enemy culture and my other cities working the tile.

I hope you feel able to retract your statement about my assumptions being unreasonable.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I hope you feel able to retract your statement about my assumptions being unreasonable.

I am able, but not willing.

 

[UncleJJ]

I am able, but not willing.

fair enough. I'm off to bed. Try thinking about what I wrote, I'm sure it is correct within the limited assumptions I made. Which is all we need for basic analysis.

 

[DaviddesJ]

fair enough. I'm off to bed. Try thinking about what I wrote, I'm sure it is correct within the limited assumptions I made. Which is all we need for basic analysis.

What you wrote is mostly correct within the assumptions you made (the available tiles to work are less than the happiness limit for the city). However, this is a relatively uncommon situation, and inconsistent with the situation being discussed in this thread (i.e., a primary production city that is working its production tiles and still has a bunch of extra grasslands available).

And, even under your assumptions, it's not totally correct because you still don't take into account the reduction in tiles you can work. If you rush a build for 3 pop, then your size drops from 10 to 7. Even if you can regrow to 10 without happiness problems, it still takes you some number of turns to regrow to that size, during which time you are working fewer than 10 tiles, and that is a cost that you left out of your analysis.

 

[Lord Sandwich]

Many of my cities will have a lot less than the maximum of 20 tiles available to be worked. In fact I can't remember when I last had a city with 20 tiles being worked. The list of things that reduce the number of workable tiles include mountains, ice, desert, enemy culture and my other cities working the tile.

I hope you feel able to retract your statement about my assumptions being unreasonable.

You must be one of those overlapping fat cross people. I've never been able to bring myself to place cities that way, the only exception being when the overlap is desert, ocean, mountain, ice, or tundra. I'd rather live with a lower score than have my cities placed in such an aesthetically unpleasing manner. An abstract objextion, I realize, but not unvalid. Anyway, thanks for the analysis; I could use more info on whipping. If I end up in the late game, I always have plenty of cities well into the 20's with full tile usage.

 

[UncleJJ]

What you wrote is mostly correct within the assumptions you made (the available tiles to work are less than the happiness limit for the city). However, this is a relatively uncommon situation, and inconsistent with the situation being discussed in this thread (i.e., a primary production city that is working its production tiles and still has a bunch of extra grasslands available).

I never commented on the OPs original post. His question seems to have already been answered by others. My original post in this thread was in answer to Gallileo44, then I expanded on that in an effort to help slowrider. Now I am locked in a debate with you.

And, even under your assumptions, it's not totally correct because you still don't take into account the reduction in tiles you can work. If you rush a build for 3 pop, then your size drops from 10 to 7. Even if you can regrow to 10 without happiness problems, it still takes you some number of turns to regrow to that size, during which time you are working fewer than 10 tiles, and that is a cost that you left out of your analysis.

Under my assumptions the number of tiles worked doesn't change, because I made simplifying assumptions that completely define the situation I am considering.

1. We all know that a single pop is worth 30 base hammers when sacrificed (or whipped) under Slavery.
2. It takes 20 food for a size 10 city to grow to size 11 with a granary.
3. Therefore 20 food is worth 30 base hammers = 1.5 hammers / food

Note item 2 that states it takes 20 food to grow from size 10 to size 11. The implication here is that once the city reaches size 11 it is whipped for 1 pop and reduced back to size 10. So we never need to work more than 10 tiles and we never work less than 10 tiles. It is a simplifying assumption that allows me to make a very clear statement about the comparison between the productivity of a grassland farm versus grassland hill.

On the otherhand you keep wanting to extend the analysis to more complex circumstances...to make it "realistic" or "reasonable" or whatever. You are telling me things I already know. I am aware that the whole situation is often more complex and you have alluded to some (but not all) of those circumstances. I am aware that it is sometimes more efficient to whip for more than one pop at a time. But in order to help the people I was replying to I kept the explanation simple so they could grasp the fundementals immediately. Once they understand the basic mathematics and realise that working farms and whipping is an efficient way to generate hammers then hopefully they can improve their game and learn how to apply that in more complex circumstances such as the ones you want to discuss.

I hope you can understand my position now.