shield/beakers ratio

kaskavel

Warlord
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
107
I have found nothing relevant in the forums, so I will open a thread. I wonder how much do you rate shields and beakers compared to each other. It occurs very often to me to wonder if it is favorable to build a courthouse or a factory in some city and I cannot estimate properly when the investment is going to pay off.
As far as food is concerned, I think its value is too much position-based and it is not worth trying to compare it to production/commerce. Gaining an extra +2 (for example by gaining access to a fish square through cultural battle) may mean different things in different situations. Worst case senario is I may have nothing better to do with that +2 food than using a scientist. That is 1.5 beakers per food. Best realistic case senario is to gain access to two rivered hills (adding extra stuff on those hills is not realistic, you would probably be using those tiles already), that I would not otherwise be able to farm for one reason or another. That is....a lot of beakers per food. So, I think the distrubition of value is too wide to bother finding some value balance.
But shields and beakers, the question of balance keeps arising too often and is not that wide. Assuming reasonable circumstances (somewhere on the end of 2nd era, beginning of 3rd, no special need or lack of need for shileds in the cities, reasonable science balance in the game etc), how much do you value one to another? Obviously, we are building or going to build mil units in the city, not wealth. In wealth, calculating is simple. From my experience, I would say that I have reached the conclusion that a single shield is worth somewhere between 2.5 and 3 commerce, but I would not be surprised if my instict has lead me to a completely wrong conclusion....
 
I wonder how much do you rate shields and beakers compared to each other.
Well, the most important thing to consider is that it varies a lot during the game.
From my experience, I would say that I have reached the conclusion that a single shield is worth somewhere between 2.5 and 3 commerce, but I would not be surprised if my instict has lead me to a completely wrong conclusion....
Well, you a far off from my estimate. For the ancient age your estimate may or may not be reasonable. But on average it is problably closer to 1:1. Having crucial techs like republic, construction(aqueducts), military tradition, steam engine or replaceable parts is worth a lot. Railroads and factories change the ratio of production to commerce by a factor or 3 or more.


If as a republic you go for 3 or even 4 workers per city you will have to pay some significant unit support for that. Your net commerce and thus your beaker output will decline in the short run. But reasonably soon your production will increase and accidentally also your net commerce. If we interpret workers as a way to transform gold to shields it is probably better than 4 gold per shield you get via cash rushing production.
 
Well, you a far off from my estimate. For the ancient age your estimate may or may not be reasonable. But on average it is problably closer to 1:1.
Wow. That was...unexpected. I considered shield superiority to be obvious and only wondered about the extend of that superiority. Is there really any chance that you would prefer to use a harbored coast tile (2-0-2) instead of a mined pre-railroad non-river plain grassland tile (2-1-1)? Or a non harbored coast tile (1-0-2) instead of a forest (1-2-0)? Or a commercialized harbored coast tile (2-0-3) instead of a mined railroaded plain non-rivered grassland (2-2-1)? I cannot think of any case I even considered something like that in any of my games in a city that is not set to wealth.
 
Is there really any chance that you would prefer to use a harbored coast tile (2-0-2) instead of a mined pre-railroad non-river plain grassland tile (2-1-1)? Or a non harbored coast tile (1-0-2) instead of a forest (1-2-0)? Or a commercialized harbored coast tile (2-0-3) instead of a mined railroaded plain non-rivered grassland (2-2-1)?
If we are talking about micro decisions, then surely there is a chance if this one commerce gives a tech a turn earlier. But such micro decisions are a bit distracting from what matters. Getting military tradition a few turns earlier can make a somewhat decisive difference.

While your military is small and costs little unit support, you may value shields higher than gold. But if you are short on gold and unit support is either high already or is risking to become high soon, then you might reconsider. As a republic unit support easily matters much, especially if you go for many cheap artillery units such as trebuchets. In fact this is one reason not to follow that path. If we compare shields to gold it usually involves dealing with unit support or possibly buildings maintenance.
I cannot think of any case I even considered something like that in any of my games in a city that is not set to wealth.
Wealth is a rather special case. There exists the main game that is not the early game but also not the late game. This phase matters and takes up quite some turns. In fact most games never enter a phase were producing wealth matters. Except perhaps very early on when production is 1 shield per turn and growth is limiting production of workers and settlers. Wealth then helps to fund the unit support for workers, so your research takes less of a hit. But all that is of course very temporary.
 
I have no idea about a possible optimum ration. I use my governors to 'emphasise shields', which tells you my preference. You can make the AI emphasise shields, food or trade in the same way; so in theory someone could test this by creating 2 identical Civs and making one emphasise shields and the other emphasise trade and see which Civ has the most success on average land.

If you play less aggressively tech trading is so straightforward that the value of trade is arguably reduced (although you can need the money (and most times a tech) in order to secure a trade). Perhaps I would say I prefer production in the ancient era, then trade in Medieval (in default settings you are behind on tech in this era) then back to production thereafter (because I will have caught up on tech because of the way a game gets easier (on average) with each passing turn after mid-medieval. But it is all situational.

One of my favourite games was as Vikings on a frozen archipelago, in a multiplayer with some AI. My only win condition was teching madly via a trade focus on the oceans (following the creation of harbours) to get access to the Berserker, then switching to production to pump out as many of the UUs as I could. If my offensive with the Berserker's failed I would have been doomed.
 
I have found nothing relevant in the forums, so I will open a thread. I wonder how much do you rate shields and beakers compared to each other. It occurs very often to me to wonder if it is favorable to build a courthouse or a factory in some city and I cannot estimate properly when the investment is going to pay off.
As far as food is concerned, I think its value is too much position-based and it is not worth trying to compare it to production/commerce. Gaining an extra +2 (for example by gaining access to a fish square through cultural battle) may mean different things in different situations. Worst case senario is I may have nothing better to do with that +2 food than using a scientist. That is 1.5 beakers per food. Best realistic case senario is to gain access to two rivered hills (adding extra stuff on those hills is not realistic, you would probably be using those tiles already), that I would not otherwise be able to farm for one reason or another. That is....a lot of beakers per food. So, I think the distrubition of value is too wide to bother finding some value balance.
But shields and beakers, the question of balance keeps arising too often and is not that wide. Assuming reasonable circumstances (somewhere on the end of 2nd era, beginning of 3rd, no special need or lack of need for shileds in the cities, reasonable science balance in the game etc), how much do you value one to another? Obviously, we are building or going to build mil units in the city, not wealth. In wealth, calculating is simple. From my experience, I would say that I have reached the conclusion that a single shield is worth somewhere between 2.5 and 3 commerce, but I would not be surprised if my instict has lead me to a completely wrong conclusion....
Depends. If you want to win the highest difficulties on larger maps in an honorable, non-exploitative way (no Great Library elevator, no trade route pillaging, no massive amount of armies the AI can't use well in the stock game), you need pretty much every beaker you can get your hands on. Considering the fact that if you aren't able to win such a game before the Industrial Era, the value of beakers would be raised even higher.

On such higher difficulties, you would be using most of your commerce on teching. However, you can't turn shields into beakers, so what other ways do we have of calculating such ratio?

We use gold of the treasure to fund for beakers, and we can actually turn shields into commerce via wealth, but that should be heavily discouraged if you want to win the game on higher difficulties. You need about every unit you can get your hands on, and use your shields wisely to invest in city improvs that will actually give you a net return within X amount of turns (X being what number you value, and by which you are able to win the game). So this isn't an option. Also, even on Sid difficulty you should have more than enough gold to pay for all units, no matter what gov you play as. If you don't, than you're simply playing wrong/ineffective, which would be a matter of lack of strategy/action, not of putting too little shields into gold via Wealth.

Next to this, we can use our gold to upgrade units, which is a 3:1 ratio without Leonardo's Workshop. Given that on higher difficulties, you usually aren't able to obtain this GW on larger maps until far later in the game, I think using a 3:1 ratio is fair. Yes, this still doesn't turn beakers into shields. But we can however allocate gold from our treasure to such upgrades, rather than them being turned into beakers. So this would give a beaker to shield value ratio of 1:3.

We can also use gold to hurry production if we need money for it. And on higher difficulties, we should be using some of our treasury on it. We do need to be in the right government however. Especially when playing as agricultural civs, I use quite some of my gold to pay for aquaducts. I also use it for settlers now and then. Just like with upgrading units; yes, this doesnt turn beakers into shields. But it does allocate gold from your treasury towards shields, which is pretty much the same. This gives a beaker to shield value ratio of 1:4.

Together, this adds up to 1:3.5. Which is my answer if you don't plan to defeat AI civs on higher difficulties beyond the Medieval Era. If you can't however, I would say beakers would increase more in value, since the shield-to-strength ratio increases significantly from the Industrial Era. In the Industrial Era and Modern Times, I think it's closer to 1:2.5, maybe even lower like 1:2, like very overpowered units come into play (nukes especially, but artillery and bombers as well).

Another way to look at things is to use the strength-to-shield ratio. The difference between Knights and Swordsman against size 7+ fortified pikeman is only about x1.58 times better. And the late Ancient Era/early Medieval Era tech will likely already be nearly half the price by that time, since most AIs will have teched for it.

In total on average, I would give a 1:3 beaker to shield value ratio. If you however can obtain Leonardo's Workshop early, and make good use of it, it will likely be lower to about 1:2.5. And if you use the Leonardo's Workshop exploit, you can lower it even further down to 1:2.

This is the most accurate answer I'm able to give.
 
Last edited:
Well, you a far off from my estimate. For the ancient age your estimate may or may not be reasonable. But on average it is problably closer to 1:1. Having crucial techs like republic, construction(aqueducts), military tradition, steam engine or replaceable parts is worth a lot. Railroads and factories change the ratio of production to commerce by a factor or 3 or more.

If as a republic you go for 3 or even 4 workers per city you will have to pay some significant unit support for that. Your net commerce and thus your beaker output will decline in the short run. But reasonably soon your production will increase and accidentally also your net commerce. If we interpret workers as a way to transform gold to shields it is probably better than 4 gold per shield you get via cash rushing production.
Even at Sid difficulty, people are able to win the game on smaller maps with very few techs, and without using any significant exploits like the GL elevator, trade route pillaging, or making use of huge armies the AI can't effectively use themselves. But more importantly, even if such games only take until the Medieval Era (which is able on smaller maps), the strength-to-shield ratio between Knights and Swordsman against size 7+ fortified pikeman is only about x1.58 times better. And the tech will already likely be half the price by that time since most AIs will have teched for it. Also, many units (as well as unique units), can generally upgrade for a 1:3 gold to shield ratio, which is pretty much equal to a beaker to shield ratio, considering tech is directly paid out of the treasury. And then I'm still not comparing the Knight to certain unique units.

Sure enough, if the game takes to at least the Industrial Era, then I would say the value odds increase in favor for beakers, especially given how many valuable techs this era has. But this all already depends on the fact that we're playing the game at higher difficulties like Demigod+.
 
Even at Sid difficulty, people are able to win the game on smaller maps with very few techs
If the game is meant to be won by military means early on, then you donnot need to tech beyond horseback riding. Just spam horsemen. This works especially well for the Iroquois, arguably the easiest of all tribes if horses are easily available.
 
I wonder how much do you rate shields and beakers compared to each other.

For cultural purposes one ruler says:

Shields are more important beakers.

For cultural purposes another ruler says:

Beakers are more important than shields.

It turns out though, both rulers are correct! The first ruler wants a 100k victory. For that, getting out military production and building buildings has more importance than research. So, shields matter more than beakers. The second ruler wants a 20k victory. O. K... yea... shields remain of the utmost importance in a 20k city. But elsewhere, beakers matter more than shields (usually), because research comes as most useful for getting to new wonders/improvements to build.

It occurs very often to me to wonder if it is favorable to build a courthouse or a factory in some city and I cannot estimate properly when the investment is going to pay off.

I continually remain disappointed by courthouses. I have the same issue. But, I prefer to mostly avoid factories.


Assuming reasonable circumstances (somewhere on the end of 2nd era, beginning of 3rd, no special need or lack of need for shileds in the cities, reasonable science balance in the game etc), how much do you value one to another

It depends on sought after victory condition. If going for space, diplomatic, or 20k, by the late medieval/early industrial era, we have a huge research focus (and we had a hugh research focus before also). So, beakers. I might be building military units, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean mines. I know some of my old spaceship/diplomatic saves even have all tiles irrigated around core cities, once hospitals became available.

If playing for conquest or domination, maybe we want Steam Power, and that can be enough with Military Tradition. Or maybe Nationalism and Replaceable Parts too. But, that's it! No more research wanted. We don't want the AIs to get to Flight and then have bombers. Or worse nukes. Then we'll have to pillage oil or uranium, and wars can gets more complicated. When in doubt, avoid complications like that. So, shields to end all wars. Or in the case of a histographic game, end all wars where an AI is not in their ice resort.

Like I've also though about sometimes rushing to Ecology for the ease of less pollution from Mass Transit centers. A size 12 city without a marketplace could use a whole bunch of scientists instead of having unahappy or a content citizen. That can make sense to some extent. But, if you have Replacable Parts, then building the market and then having those citizens work tiles results in happy citizens instead of content scientists. So, the scoring system, for a histographic game, clearly implies shields (via civil engineers) as better than beakers once you have Replacable Parts.
 
As a republic unit support easily matters much, especially if you go for many cheap artillery units such as trebuchets.

This depends on how much gpt you have coming from AIs. But, like I recently have played some Warlord and had over 240 gpt in unit support on a large map with maybe 10 gpt coming from one AI on a small handful of turns. Unit support matter if you need to do research. If you can run higher taxes, have a larger empire, or have a fair amount of gpt coming from AIs by say selling technologies for gpt, that unit support doesn't strike me as bothersome.
 
If you want to win the highest difficulties on larger maps in an honorable, non-exploitative way (no Great Library elevator, no trade route pillaging, no massive amount of armies the AI can't use well in the stock game), you need pretty much every beaker you can get your hands on.

It's not honorable to prefer the happiness of AI citizens over one's own citizens. One's citizens regard you better if the AIs declare war on you, then if you declare war on the AI. Trade route pillaging can lead to war happiness. When used for war happiness, it ends up honorable to use it since it leads to more respect from one's citizens, since they become happier.

We use gold of the treasure to fund for beakers, and we can actually turn shields into commerce via wealth, but that should be heavily discouraged if you want to win the game on higher difficulties.

The game concerns an empire that stands the test of time (that's what it says in 4000 BC). If an empire is going to stand the test of time, going all the way to the turn limit, I don't see why wealth should be heavily discouraged. A better question concerns when wealth should get encouraged and when it should get discouraged.


And if you use the Leonardo's Workshop exploit, you can lower it even further down to 1:2.

This shows useless talk of an "exploit" is. Leonardo's Workshop is in the game. It's not bugged at all to anyone's knowledge. It's supposed to give the human player upgrades at half cost. Getting cheaper upgrades comes as intentional design. It works as intended.

It's just sometimes convenient to have it (if a close neighbor has it, or if one can build it...). And other times it's quite difficult to have use of it. But neither comes as exploitative. They are just unequal circumstances.
 
no massive amount of armies the AI can't use well in the stock game

The game has the Pentagon. Consequently, it's clearly intentional that the human player have the ability to use and sometimes use at least 3 armies. That the AIs won't make 3 armies does not change the non-exploitative status of a human player having and using 3 armies. Because The Pentagon, and what they wrote about how it should work, signals that the human player having and using 3 armies is within the intended use of the game by the designers. At most, it could be rational to argue that it just makes how armies work in Conquests bugged.
 
The answer, as always, depends on victory condition, as @Spoonwood says. And I have a game going right now (Histographic) where I prefer food and commerce over shields and beakers, where my answer is "neither!". Those 3 beakers from a scientist or 2 shields from an engineer could be 2 gpt from a taxman which I can use to buy stuff in my corrupt cities! Or could be use to entertain my citizens into being happy (+2 points) instead of content (+1 point) or unhappy (0 points). And the shields that are generated mostly are just turned into tax revenue through Wealth. I have 3 beakers total per turn across 319 cities right now.

In my Diplo games I try my darnedest to get exactly the number of beakers I need to research a technology in 4 turns. Every other beaker is wasted and should be tax revenue or luxuries for the people.
 
It depends on sought after victory condition. If going for space, diplomatic, or 20k, by the late medieval/early industrial era, we have a huge research focus (and we had a hugh research focus before also). So, beakers.
Exactly. Let's take a closer look at the space race victory: The space ship parts can be built easily the turn you finish the required tech. You just need to start the pre-build early enough. So production (shields) are not the problem. The bottleneck for a space victory is the speed with which you can get all the techs. --> Beakers are much more important than shields.
But there is a "cap off point": at one point you will reach 4-turn research, and then any additional beakers don't do anything anymore! They are just completely worthless. So even during the same game, at different points, beakers can be most important or completely worthless...
 
But there is a "cap off point": at one point you will reach 4-turn research, and then any additional beakers don't do anything anymore! They are just completely worthless.
So what does one do with all that beaker production, then, to turn it into shields (or just gold)?
 
So what does one do with all that beaker production, then, to turn it into shields (or just gold)?
If you have specialists making beakers (scientists), you can turn those extra beakers into gpt (taxmen) or into shields (engineers) or into happy citizens (entertainers). Haven't found a use for policemen yet...

If you are making beakers through commerce, you can reduce the science rate in favor of luxuries or tax (gpt). Those beakers can't really be turned into shields though.

In my science games, I would always have a buffer between beakers produced & what I need for 4 turn science just in case some goofy AI surprises me and grabs a city or two. So if it were 4,000 beakers for a particular tech, I'd go for say 1,050 beakers per turn as a buffer.
 
Haven't found a use for policemen yet...
The decrease in corruption can help get you over the line when you're building something other than an improvement.
 
Haven't found a use for policemen yet...
Oh...they really rock.... A policeman turns one corrupted shield and one corrupted commerce into uncorrupted ones. Since building multipliers apply after corruption is calculated, this means you get those multipliers as well. For example, if you have libraries, universities, marketplaces, banks, factories, hydro plants but not stocks, labs, nuclear plants and manuf plants (this is is a reasonable average example by the time policemen become available) you get a 100% bonus in both commerce and shields, meaning that one policeman offers 2 shields and 2 beakers. This is by far superior to a scientist (3 beakers) or an engineer (2 shields). Of course, the extra sheilds may not matter in your specific project and a scientist is then a preferable alternative.
Another use is to gain one round in building. If your city has 78 shields/turn, you use one policeman, go to 80 shields/turn and build one cavarly in one round instead of two. This is very strong if you have the patience to go around all your cities every round.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom