shivute said:Great tips on SE Wodan and I think you have debated your ideas eloquently. A pity that the main CE debater wasn't up to the challenge and resorted to derogatory language.
I like and enjoy playing both strategies and I find that depending on terrain, resources, leader etc one or the other is of more benefit.
The more strategies and tactics that a player is aware of, gives him more options when playing, makes him more flexible and responsive to change and therefore makes him a stronger player and allows advancement up the difficulty levels.
For anyone to completely dismiss another's ideas for an option or strategy when it is so well argued is simply absurd and that person will likely be limited in their success whether in gaming or in life in general.
Ah, but you paid more for it. More in terms of food, time, return on investment, and in opportunity cost.yavoon said:I have no problem w/ my infrastructure as concerns whipping. unless ur suggesting u build 2 libraries or 2 banks, then I assure that I have all necessary infrastructure.
Do you have any evidence to back up this bald statement?yavoon said:and u can't build a big enough lead, frankly u wont get an amazing lead. some but not huge. so any attempt to turn 180 degrees and develop a cottage empire will just get u spanked by the cottage player.
Back to logic/proofs 101...yavoon said:I'm not sure what "using food to make slaves mean"
Not what I meant. See above, please.yavoon said:I assume u mean u want a certain food surplus because ur being dragged down by ur specialists, or something.
Yes, in the relatively few cities that (1) don't already have towns, (2) aren't production cities, and (3) aren't my GP farm, yes I am going to stagnate them.yavoon said:so now u will stagnate ur population to work cottages? brilliant idea.
Ha. Thanks.shivute said:Great tips on SE Wodan and I think you have debated your ideas eloquently. A pity that the main CE debater wasn't up to the challenge and resorted to derogatory language.
Totally agreed.shivute said:I like and enjoy playing both strategies and I find that depending on terrain, resources, leader etc one or the other is of more benefit.
The more strategies and tactics that a player is aware of, gives him more options when playing, makes him more flexible and responsive to change and therefore makes him a stronger player and allows advancement up the difficulty levels.
For anyone to completely dismiss another's ideas for an option or strategy when it is so well argued is simply absurd and that person will likely be limited in their success whether in gaming or in life in general.
Wodan said:Ah, but you paid more for it. More in terms of food, time, return on investment, and in opportunity cost.
Do you have any evidence to back up this bald statement?
Back to logic/proofs 101...
--When you whip slaves you lose population.
--Repeated whipping requires population growth to replace those losses.
--Population growth requires food.
--Therefore, it requires food to make slaves.
Not what I meant. See above, please.
Yes, in the relatively few cities that (1) don't already have towns, (2) aren't production cities, and (3) aren't my GP farm, yes I am going to stagnate them.
What use is being non-stagnated? Let's list the ways.
-- whipping
-- city size growth
Umm, that's about it.
At the point in the game we're discussing, you and I both have admitted that either a SE or a CE running Slavery already has its max infrastructure available. You will want Slavery to whip units, if and only if you are at war and going for your conquest victory right then (otherwise you will only want to produce the occasional unit in your HE/warlord city). We both have also admitted that the circumstances in question preclude a war. If going for an immediate conquest victory, then by definition you aren't playing a long-term game and you don't want to switch from SE -> CE.
Thus, losing Slavery doesn't cost you a damn thing.
City growth. At this point, your cities are limited by health and happiness. Why did you want extra food? To whip. But, we just agreed that you are no longer whipping.
Thus, your city no longer growing doesn't cost you a damn thing.
Wodan
YGTBFKM. OMGWTFITS.yavoon said:actually I consider all ppl like wodan to be the fluffers. if the situation was flipped and SE was better they would argue for CE. with just as much a lack of analytical rigor. because its not about actually figuring out which is better, its just about fluff. or, if u will, preference. but not intellectual rigor.
Exactly, neither do I. Why should I be ashamed to give up the food that I was using for whipping and to put that food into specialists?yavoon said:I dont whip units from my towns lategame. sorry.
Neither did I.yavoon said:and I never said anything precluded war. now ur intentionally not going to war in some bizzarre attempt to make ur strat look better?
Wodan said:YGTBFKM. OMGWTFITS.
Let's exercise some analytical vigor on this thread.
This thread alone (one of a half dozen in which yavoon posts using similar "analytical vigor" of his own). This thread being 3 screens only at the present moment.
Posts by yavoon: 11
Bald unsupported statements by yavoon: 8
Facts or supporting evidence presented by yavoon: 0.5
Conclusions based on the above (that is, a conclusion based upon a bald statement rather than upon factual analysis): 12
Derogatory or demeaning statements of others: 16
I'm about done with all this. It's a waste of time.
Wodan
Wodan said:Exactly, neither do I. Why should I be ashamed to give up the food that I was using for whipping and to put that food into specialists?
Neither did I.
Let me restate it in more plain english. If you're going to war, then you won't choose to switch from SE to CE in the first place. You'll stay SE.
Wodan
I think the difference in recovery times between a CE city and a SE one is much more noticeable as the city size grows. Let's expand your example of a city with 2 good food tiles giving a surplus of 5 food together with the city square. Now let's add 8 grassland tiles and assume it can grow to at least size 10. In a CE it will get 8 cottages and no additional food, while the SE will get 8 farms and a maximum of 8 extra food. Now in a University which we'll assume takes 4 pop. Both cities will fall to size 6 and require the following amounts of food to recover:MrCynical said:It may have been aimed at a different person (this thread sprouted about 8 huge replies while I was typing the last one, and I'm getting a little confused), but I made a point earlier that most cities (barring lousy placement) will have at least a couple of high food tiles (corn, wheat, cows etc). These generally make up the bulk of a city's food surplus in a cottage economy, and are a significant chunk of the tiles used when whipping at small sizes like 5. A CE will thus when whipped, take a number of cottages out of use, but grow back very rapidly (bringing them back into use in the process). Now in an SE you've got farmed grassland, so will have more potential surplus food, but when you whip you're taking grassland farms out of use, reducing the surplus. If you whip a city at size five it's not going to have made tiles left in used, probably just the 2 or 3 high food tiles, which would still be high food under the CE. It's slightly faster to use slavery for the SE, but not as much as you might think.
Pop Fd Need Fd Base Food Total Food Total
6 16 0 9 9 9 18
7 17 2 10 12 10 22
8 18 5 11 16 11 27
9 19 9 12 21
I often add farms into the mix of tiles in new CE cities as well, if there are a lot of infrastructure buildings needed. The farms effectively provide hammers that get turned into markets and so on developing the city much faster. I guess mixing farms and cottages together makes it a hybrid economy but if it works who cares what it's called?In practice of course I'm blurring the line between SE and CE a little. I'm starting off with a couple of farms and some whipping before the cottages. I can always cottage over them later. I could even when the city is small have some tiles farmews and some cottaged, and only switch to the farms when I need to use the whip.
Well as my SE never runs the Caste System, the specialists I run are also restricted by the buildings.As to the GPs (which is a different question really from the slavery issue), a CE simply doesn't produce as specific GP types (granted, an SE is much better for this). It can however run a decent number of specialists thanks to the library, forge, temples, a shrine if you're very lucky, markets and so on. It's pot luck what you get (though if you get the great library you'll get at least 50% scientists).
I don't know about "much" more. Definitely "more". Not as much as someone abusing Slavery, though. Slavery when best used is extremely carefully timed and requires moving citizens around all the time to optimize food and production both up to and then again after the whipping, in every city.Tyrant Roger said:SE requires much more micromanagement than CE
Not just that but you don't have the CE bonuses you get from Liberalism, Paper, and Democracy.Tyrant Roger said:SE may yield better results in the early/mid game because of the delay in creating towns in CE
Biology helps SE quite a bit.Tyrant Roger said:CE economies improve greatly in late game [Biology, Printing Press, etc] and SE do not grow as fast in the late game.
Not necessarily. A CE with a good GP farm will make a lot of GP.Tyrant Roger said:SE produce more GP than CE
First off, I think I've said a couple times that it's not every city that needs to transition.Tyrant Roger said:It may be desireable to transition from a SE to a CE in the latter part of the game and it is possible to do so effectively.
This last point puzzles me because the time entailed in growing hamlets to villages to towns [even with US] would seem to be substantial. Is this best accomplished by moving specialists to work cottages or by working cottages with new citizens made possible by higher happiness/health limits in the late game?
Tyrant Roger said:It may be desireable to transition from a SE to a CE in the latter part of the game and it is possible to do so effectively.
This last point puzzles me because the time entailed in growing hamlets to villages to towns [even with US] would seem to be substantial. Is this best accomplished by moving specialists to work cottages or by working cottages with new citizens made possible by higher happiness/health limits in the late game?
curtadams said:I find a hybrid economy is most natural and expect it's most efficient. First, specialists are better early because of the enormous power of GP's early in the game. The tradeoff is basically 3 cottages vs. 2 farms and a specialist early = that's 3 vs. 3, which is a wash, except those early GP points are worth 3 or 4 commerce each, so the specialists come out way ahead. As time goes on, the cottages get better and better, eventually to 6 with Free Speech, while the GP points become less valuable, more like 1.5 to 2 each. At that point it's 18 commerce for the cottages vs. 3 + 3 (with Representation) + say 5 worth of GP for the specialists = 11. Often later in the game the GP points end up wasted and it's 18 vs. 6, which is pretty lopsided. Just on general economics principles, you'd expect it to be worth it to give up some early specialists to work cottages to reap the benefits later - diminishing marginal returns and all that.
On a practical note, I like to have 4 to 6 extra food for city growth so it's reasonably fast, but then what do I do with that extra food when I'm at a pop cap? 2 or 3 specialists is perfect - almost always available by the time I hit a cap, and no requirements for a large number of good tiles available and improved. So, in the end, that's what I end up doing - having some extra food for growth, using it for specialists when I'm at a pop cap, but having all development beyond the first few tiles geared for a cottage economy.
At the start, each cottage produces 1 commerce, so 3 cottages = 3 commerce. Growth takes time, and of course FIN changes the equations (as does PHI in the other direction).yavoon said:in ur 3 vs 3 example, ur saying 1 scientist is the same value as 3 cottages? I dont see how its plausible for a cottage econ to average less than 2 commerce per cottage, so thats 6 commerce now is beat out by 3 science and the promise of a GP 50 turns from now? and if u make the GP a super scientist, ur looking at payoff when? 150-200 turns later?
curtadams said:At the start, each cottage produces 1 commerce, so 3 cottages = 3 commerce. Growth takes time, and of course FIN changes the equations (as does PHI in the other direction).
I was calculating GP value in bulb value. You can bulb a GP for a tech worth several hundred at least (over a thousand if you slingshot) so the second GP produces, say 600 hundred commerce worth of research for 66 of specialist activity. That's a bonus of over 9 commerce per turn of specialist activity. Settling does take 100 turns or so to produce equivalent benefit for a GS, but that's not all so long and he keeps producing and producing afterwards. Plus there's the hammer, which is mighty handy.
CE become equal around villages, and superior with towns. But that does take a while and we all know early has advantages. For FIN drop a category and then, yes, CE is probably better.
yavoon said:thats serious worst case. I mean 10 lousy turns and ur doubled. I think the correct comparison would be done on "average" stage of ur cottage empire. so unless they're all cottages u'll get some number over 1.