Slavery....convince me

[Calavente]

it is really interesting..

but how much is one more pop worth ??
maybe before the 10th turn you would have a happy face .. so you are at 6 (26/32) pop with mining and only at just 6 (15/32) with whipping... not all that good : how much value do you put into those 11 more food ?
you are making easy assumption to help your case. such as +1F only and 16 F to grow before 10t. etc.
in your mining exemple you 'loose' 1F production wothout profit until the dead line, while your whipping exemple has been tailord to make profit of all yield until your deadline.

For me I would have put a cottage on a plain getting food to 0 instead of a loosy 1 and got 5 less commerce but 10 more hammers than whipping, Work a plain mine instead of a grass mine. or something else: using some turns to work another mine loosing some food until I come back to 15/32 but earning some more hammer. that would have been a adequate model.
I think the two ways are mostly equivalent... unless you can rise your pop limit during the time limit. in that case, mining wins.

 

[yavoon]

it is really interesting..

but how much is one more pop worth ??
maybe before the 10th turn you would have a happy face .. so you are at 6 (26/32) pop with mining and only at just 6 (15/32) with whipping... not all that good : how much value do you put into those 11 more food ?
you are making easy assumption to help your case. such as +1F only and 16 F to grow before 10t. etc.
in your mining exemple you 'loose' 1F production wothout profit until the dead line, while your whipping exemple has been tailord to make profit of all yield until your deadline.

For me I would have put a cottage on a plain getting food to 0 instead of a loosy 1 and got 5 less commerce but 10 more hammers than whipping, Work a plain mine instead of a grass mine. or something else: using some turns to work another mine loosing some food until I come back to 15/32 but earning some more hammer. that would have been a adequate model.
I think the two ways are mostly equivalent... unless you can rise your pop limit during the time limit. in that case, mining wins.

except they aren't equivalent, and its been proven they arent equivalent in very rigorous detail.

 

[malekithe]

it is really interesting..

but how much is one more pop worth ??
maybe before the 10th turn you would have a happy face .. so you are at 6 (26/32) pop with mining and only at just 6 (15/32) with whipping... not all that good : how much value do you put into those 11 more food ?
you are making easy assumption to help your case. such as +1F only and 16 F to grow before 10t. etc.
in your mining exemple you 'loose' 1F production wothout profit until the dead line, while your whipping exemple has been tailord to make profit of all yield until your deadline.

For me I would have put a cottage on a plain getting food to 0 instead of a loosy 1 and got 5 less commerce but 10 more hammers than whipping, Work a plain mine instead of a grass mine. or something else: using some turns to work another mine loosing some food until I come back to 15/32 but earning some more hammer. that would have been a adequate model.
I think the two ways are mostly equivalent... unless you can rise your pop limit during the time limit. in that case, mining wins.

I think you're misunderstanding the example. The mined scenario is not running at +1 food surplus. One floodplain plus the city tile is exactly enough to feed the three mines. The two scenarios are anything but equivalent. The whipped case was about 16% better in commercial output.

I would challenge anyone to use the same set of tiles available in my example (1 floodplain cottage, 3 grassland mines, 1 4-food tile, unlimited grassland cottages), produce 90 (+/-5) hammers over 10 turns, and spend more than 35 turns working cottages without the use of slavery. You could even make use of plains mines and plains cottages if you so desire, though I will readily point out that these are strictly inferior to the other tiles available. Also, keep the starting population and food bar the same, otherwise the slavery example would be different.

 

[a4phantom]

Playing at Noble got a lot easier for me when I started using slavery, and that's without using it in any terribly strategic way either. Now I dominate the early game instead of just trying to keep up until mideval times when I always did pretty well.

 

[ZB2]

i played the 1000ad scenario again, (my warlords conversion) but played as asoka, and those slavery +spiritual civic is so great i could rush units out with slavery, then change civics to the vassalge so that they then get +2 Xps, without any anarchy. this worked so well that the 6 starting war elephants paved their way to jeruselem and mecca, though its more of a great military achievement, the use of slavery churned out so many trebuchets and catapults that it kept me advancing.

the moral is that spiritual + slavery is the greatness.

 

[Pantastic]

i played the 1000ad scenario again, (my warlords conversion) but played as asoka, and those slavery +spiritual civic is so great i could rush units out with slavery, then change civics to the vassalge so that they then get +2 Xps, without any anarchy.

Why not just run slavery plus vassalage and/or theocracy at the same time? I like spritual, but being able to switch to benefit from two civics close together isn't much of an advantage when you can just run those civics at the same time normally.

 

[MrCynical]

I would challenge anyone to use the same set of tiles available in my example (1 floodplain cottage, 3 grassland mines, 1 4-food tile, unlimited grassland cottages), produce 90 (+/-5) hammers over 10 turns, and spend more than 35 turns working cottages without the use of slavery. You could even make use of plains mines and plains cottages if you so desire, though I will readily point out that these are strictly inferior to the other tiles available. Also, keep the starting population and food bar the same, otherwise the slavery example would be different.

While true that in this incredibly heavily tuned circumstance, and over this very short timespan slavery is (slightly - 3 turns more working cottages, not 5) better, I'm dubious as to its more widespread application. The lack of margin of error for the slavery being better makes me feel that someone put considerable time into setting these start conditions up. How about over the next ten turns? and the next ten? The non-slavery city is growing, whereas the the slavery one is remaining stagnant to maintain production. I would be more impressed by working over a longer time span, so the population growth issue cannot be overlooked like it can here. I would also be more impressed with a number of random setups taken from real games than the heavily tuned setup above.

Consider the above scenario over 20 turns though. After 10 turns, with proper management, the setup is as follows:

Slavery: City is at size 6 (and the food bar is empty now). It's produced 90 hammers and 35 turns working cottages. You're the slavery expert. What's the most you can get out of the above tiles in another 10 turns, given you're starting from an empty food bar? Or to be fair, work over the whole 20 turns rather than looking to peak at 10. Aiming for 180 hammers output, what's the best you can do on the cottages?

Non-slavery: City is now at size 7, with 4 food in the box (4/34). (City uses 3 hills, two g/cot, one fp/cot for the first 8 turns, adds another g/cot for the last two). TO date is has produced 90 hammers and 32 turns working cottages.

Now I just let this run using the tiles above. After another 10 turns, I've produced another 90 hammers, and 40 turns working cottages. It hasn't grown again, but it's up to 24/34 food and would grow again during the next ten turn slot. Grand total over 20 turns: 180 hammers, 72 turns working cottages.

I challenge you to produce 180 hammers (+/-5) over 20 turns and get more than 72 turns working cottages using slavery.

N.B. I was later reminded I'd forgotten granaries. See later post, but my point still stands.

 

[JoeHollywood]

I think the anti slavery proponents miss one thing in their equations...they cite that production/commerce/city size is equal or greater at the end of the simulation, therefore it is better...here is the missed factor in all these detailed mathematical examples.

Over a 20 turn period, even if numbers work out the same or slightly better in favor of the non-slavery build, you have to look at WHEN you get whatever it is you're rushing...forge, library, military unit...

Depending on game situation, whereas base numbers may be equal or higher, having that forge 20 extra turns, library 20 extra turns, settling a city 20 turns earlier, or having that macemen 20 turns earlier, can be enough to allow the bonuses to more than make up and surpass the difference, secure a vital piece of land, or be able to launch an overbalanced assault aggainst an opponent.

We love to crack the numbers to improve our game, but please do think of civ4 as empire building in a vacuum...so much is going on around us that an extra 20 turns use of a unit/building, is often worth the losses...

Joe

 

[Wodan]

Seems to me there's no right answer. No matter whether you use Slavery or not, you get some sort of benefit. You can maximize that benefit by your play style.

It's exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to compare between two different play styles. You get one person pointing out a benefit and another person pointing out a totally different benefit. Yeah, it's nice having a Forge earlier (or whatever), but it's also nice having extra commerce coming in and one more developed Town (or whatever). Which is better? Both. Neither.

Wodan

 

[MrCynical]

I think the anti slavery proponents miss one thing in their equations...they cite that production/commerce/city size is equal or greater at the end of the simulation, therefore it is better...here is the missed factor in all these detailed mathematical examples.

Over a 20 turn period, even if numbers work out the same or slightly better in favor of the non-slavery build, you have to look at WHEN you get whatever it is you're rushing...forge, library, military unit...

I'm well aware that there are advantages to completing some things (e.g. early settlers) earlier, and indeed this is where slavery shines, and I make use of it. What I'm arguing against is the persistent view that slavery is always better than conventional production with hammers, which is often argued, and supported with the kind of short term examples as above. Slavery is good where the time delay between starting and finishing a project significantly decreases its usefulness, but as a primary production source you're doing yourself concealed long term damage through the lack of population growth.

 

[yavoon]

I'm well aware that there are advantages to completing some things (e.g. early settlers) earlier, and indeed this is where slavery shines, and I make use of it. What I'm arguing against is the persistent view that slavery is always better than conventional production with hammers, which is often argued, and supported with the kind of short term examples as above. Slavery is good where the time delay between starting and finishing a project significantly decreases its usefulness, but as a primary production source you're doing yourself concealed long term damage through the lack of population growth.

no, you aren't. there are of course lots of examples and ways to consider this. but I try to keep it as simple as possible, and let the smart ppl in the room work the logic out from there.

lets say u decide to either get ur production from grassland farms or plains hills(easy because one is all food, the other is all hammers). a grassland farm in a city w/ a granary using the whip is worth about 2.9 hammers/food at size 4ish, and this slows down to 1.5 or so hammers/food at size 11. so a size 11 city whipping 11-10 a grassland farm is worth effectively 4.5 hammers/turn, which is STILL at size 11! more than a plains hill. and at size 4 its not even close, a grassland farm makes nearly 9 hammers/turn or more than double the plains hill. effectively no matter how many plains hills u want to work u could replace them w/ grassland farms and get more production(and grassland farms aren't even that good).

food is just the best, most efficient way to generate production. and the fact that u get to work cottages(a hugely important thing) while generating ur food "production" just puts it way over the top.

 

[MrCynical]

Yavoon, I have no idea where you are pulling some of the numbers from, so your example is not helpful. To take for example whipping a single pop point at about size 4; this costs on the order of 26 food, and gets you 30 hammers. It's nowhere near the 2.9 hammers per food you're quoting. Your example is messy, and badly explained (and when I crunch the numbers myself, seriously innacurate).

I direct you to my earlier challenge, where I have expressed my view that, even in an example where the numbers seem to have been tuned to benefit slavery, in the long run, on pure hammer and commerce output, you are doing yourself more harm than good. Please demonstrate using this example, and clearly presented maths how slavery is better.

 

[yavoon]

Yavoon, I have no idea where you are pulling some of the numbers from, so your example is not helpful. To take for example whipping a single pop point at about size 4; this costs on the order of 26 food, and gets you 30 hammers. It's nowhere near the 2.9 hammers per food you're quoting. Your example is messy, and badly explained (and when I crunch the numbers myself, seriously innacurate).

I direct you to my earlier challenge, where I have expressed my view that, even in an example where the numbers seem to have been tuned to benefit slavery, in the long run, on pure hammer and commerce output, you are doing yourself more harm than good. Please demonstrate using this example, and clearly presented maths how slavery is better.

yes, and ur wrong. and I think part of the reason ur wrong is u can't even use the correct numbers. growing from size 3-4 costs 13 food(remember our cities have granaries). and u get 30 hammers when u whip away that population point.

my example is not messy, its actually simple. it strips away all the stupid extraneous things ppl are talking about and clearly shows that food is far more efficient than hammers at production.

 

[DaviddesJ]

To take for example whipping a single pop point at about size 4; this costs on the order of 26 food, and gets you 30 hammers.

Assuming you have a granary (which is, of course, critical for pop rushing), this is not even close. If you're at size 4 (normal speed), at 27/28 food in the box, you rush 1 pop which puts you at 27/26. If you generate surplus of X food, next turn you're at (14+X)/28. Regrowing to 27/28 takes (27-14-X) more food. So the total food needed to replace your lost pop is 13.

 

[MrCynical]

Since when has 30/13 equalled 2.9? Thanks DaviddesJ for bringing some mathematical rigour, but yavoon still seems to be pulling numbers out of thin air. Still it's nice he reminded me about granaries. I've actually been unfair to both the non-slavery and the slavery example by not including it.

On the slavery side you'd have 15 food in the box after 10 turns, it wouldn't be empty, sorry about that slip up. Still, even if you repeat what you did in the first ten turns (which doesn't quite work due t having 15, not 16 food in the box), you're behind on cottage turns worked.

On the non-slavery line the city would have had 16 food in the box from the granary after it grew to size 7, so after 10 turns it would be at 20/34. After another 7 turns at 2 food surplus it would grow to size 8, bringing another cottage into use for three more turns before reaching 20. Thus the non slavery example now requires you to beat 75 turns of working cottages and produce 90 hammers rather than 72, and the city will now finish at size 8 with a food box at 24/38.

 

[yavoon]

Since when has 30/13 equalled 2.9? Thanks DaviddesJ for bringing some mathematical rigour, but yavoon still seems to be pulling numbers out of thin air. Still it's nice he reminded me about granaries. I've actually been unfair to both the non-slavery and the slavery example by not including it.

On the slavery side you'd have 15 food in the box after 10 turns, it wouldn't be empty, sorry about that slip up. Still, even if you repeat what you did in the first ten turns (which doesn't quite work due t having 15, not 16 food in the box), you're behind on cottage turns worked.

On the non-slavery line the city would have had 16 food in the box from the granary after it grew to size 7, so after 10 turns it would be at 20/34. After another 7 turns at 2 food surplus it would grow to size 8, bringing another cottage into use for three more turns before reaching 20. Thus the non slavery example now requires you to beat 75 turns of working cottages and produce 90 hammers rather than 72, and the city will now finish at size 8 with a food box at 24/38.

2.9 is just some number a little below 3. its actually 60 hammers for 25 food. if thats ur big complaint, then I'd point out that the food still comes out massively ahead.

like I said, on complex examples it has been proven very rigorously that slavery annhilates non slavery. I just gave a simple example that the more intelligent ppl in the room can expand on themselves to figure it out on their own terms.

 

[MrCynical]

2.9 is just some number a little below 3. its actually 60 hammers for 25 food. if thats ur big complaint, then I'd point out that the food still comes out massively ahead.

So we're actually talking 2.3 or 2.4? Then please use those numbers rather than random guesswork.

like I said, on complex examples it has been proven very rigorously that slavery annhilates non slavery. I just gave a simple example that the more intelligent ppl in the room can expand on themselves to figure it out on their own terms.

Leaving aside thinly veiled insults, can you present, or direct me to, the aforementioned rigourous proof? I've offered you an example, chosen by one who favours the slavery approach, to use to demonstrate that slavery is better and so far you are either unwilling, or incapable of doing so.

 

[UncleJJ]

Seems to me there's no right answer. No matter whether you use Slavery or not, you get some sort of benefit. You can maximize that benefit by your play style.

It's exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to compare between two different play styles. You get one person pointing out a benefit and another person pointing out a totally different benefit. Yeah, it's nice having a Forge earlier (or whatever), but it's also nice having extra commerce coming in and one more developed Town (or whatever). Which is better? Both. Neither.

Wodan

I think it is often easy to compare two play styles as long as they start from the same condition and do the same things in game in terms of wars and capturing cities. Look at the comparative game I played with Sisiutil's ALC 7 Here: see Post 432 . There I compared running Slavery (my way from 720AD to 1530) with Sisiutil running Slavery (720 to 1140) and Caste System (from 1140 until 1530). Over that period I was using the whip aggressively and Sisiutil was less aggressive and then with Caste System lost the ability to whip in favour of free choice of specialists. In that comparative game I tried very hard to accomplish the same military achievements (take the same cities) and was successful and at the same time I researched the same techs (at least). That allowed my version of the SE to be compared with Sisiutil's (who was advised by many other players). It was relatively easy (and not difficult as you assert) to compare the overall effects of running the economy in these two different ways and to draw valid conclusions from that comparison.

My version of the game showed 2 things clearly :
a) Slavery is superior to the Caste System in an economy that has many cities with high food (e.g. a SE)
b) A SE need not run its Research Slider at 0% and in fact is significantly stronger when it can run at 100% for long periods (contrary to the advice of many SE players who suggest always running at 0%).

 

[yavoon]

So we're actually talking 2.3 or 2.4? Then please use those numbers rather than random guesswork.



Leaving aside thinly veiled insults, can you present, or direct me to, the aforementioned rigourous proof? I've offered you an example, chosen by one who favours the slavery approach, to use to demonstrate that slavery is better and so far you are either unwilling, or incapable of doing so.

there have been huge slavery abuse threads before. u can look for them if u like, I think its easy to go from my example to the conclusion. but it takes some abstract thought ability. I dont think ur ready to make that transition yet though, because ur still quibling over numbers that no matter the interpretation are severely not in ur favor.

 

[MrCynical]

I've read the previous slavery threads. Aside from a bug involving modifiers from forges and so on, that was removed in Warlords, I couldn't find the rigourous proof you claim (and again are unwilling or incapable of presenting). They still suffered from the issue that they examined small time spans, and neglected the population stagnating effect of using slavery as a primary production source.

As to your comment about quibbling over numbers, proper analysis of the maths involved is important to examining these cases and you using numbers which are; a) guesses and b) significantly wrong, is not helping. I am open to a rigourous proof of whether slavery or non-slavery is better as a primary production source. I have expressed, and backed up, my view that the earlier discussion in this thread is flawed by operating over too short a timespan. If someone has a rigourous demonstration that slavery is superior, allowing for that query I've made, I would be pleased to see it.