TGL + Settlerspam vs. Everything else (watery map)

[Seraiel]

Hey .

I'm currently playing a watery sort of map. No Archipelagio but a lot of possibilities to found coastal cities. I would have had the chance for very late Pyramids, like 200AD or something like that. I calculated, that I had x cities and that each city could probably run a Specialist, netting me +3 = x*3 at the cost of x*-2 . I found this was worth it because of the extra , so decided on building them.
Then however, I checked how much a city actually generates when having the GLH, and I couldn't believe it myself, but a freshly founded size 1 city would generate a netto surplus of +9 . So 9 at the cost of 100 for the Settler. 9 is three times as much, so to compare towards the Mids, we'd need to compare 3* Mids (= 3*3-6) so 9 would have come at the loss of 6 ! With whipping mechanics, it's easy to build a Settler for 60 , so neglecting the , already 10T after a city would have been founded, the Settler would have payed back and the city would surpass the Mids-city by 6 / turn at the same . Imo., the best way to compare this is to imagine, that Settler-spam with GLH actually is like every city having an extra Wet-Corn or extra-Pigs, and the further advantage is, the GLH-city creates 9 at size 1, the Mids-city would need to be at least size 4 and have Wet-Corn or Grassland-Pigs to even be able to run 3 Specialists, AND: The calculation is even more in favour of the GLH, because I calculated with 9 netto, so I already subtracted maintenance, which I didn't in the calculation with the Mids.

Maybe my explanation is slightly too complicated, but at least the picture with every city being productive from the start and having an extra source of food should be understandable. Think about this: On a map, where one can found coastal cities, is there actually any early to midgame Wonder (except maybe Oracle or HGs) that one could justify building it? Currently, I can't think of anyone. Even the GL costs 350 , 175 with Marble, that's three Settlers via the whip, get 27 / turn and 3 increasingly productive cities or get 6 + 8 / turn fix?

 

[yyeah]

This, somekind match with my recent question about Harbors.
I meen this witch you gain from founding coastal or islands cities can be multiplied by Harbor.
After bulding Harbor you gain instantly +4 instand of ...2? 1? 0?.
You cant multiply bonus from other wonders i think, maybe exepct The Great Library.
TGL on watery maps outclass all other wonders in terms of .

But there are allso other aspects.

Btw interesting comparison Seraiel.

Edit.
Well yea, we can say that Oracle bonus can be allso "multiplied" becouse of trades.

 

[Seraiel]

This is slightly different to your post, because you didn't consider building a Settler instead of the harbour. I assume this was, because there was no place left on the map.

And I'd like to know what you mean by "other aspects" . Personally, I see every option as cost against opportunity cost. It somehow seems, that the gain through a Settler having the GLH just cannot be outmatched by anything. Even the GL is ridiculously weak compared to the 3 cities one could get instead, and those cities also inrease production and don't go obsolete with any tech.

 

[elmurcis]

So true.. It pays for everything.. and its commerce so it gives teching and pays maintence... and it works until Corporations (only time when teching Corp is net loss so I get it only after I got mining corp engineer ready for example or I need Infantries).
Longterm investment even for shortterm game is the key here.. You can whip units like crazy and pay maintence back - you don't need to build libraries or run Caste. Elepult rush with this is much more reliable choise... same as mid-late Mace-Treb. Atleast thats the story of my 3 Deity wons I got in last 3 months. And I'm crappy Emperor on any Pangae type map

And you can get it if want... less than 20% loss chance usually

 

[yyeah]

It is deferent, its diferent point of view thats why i wrote that this "somekind match" with my recent quiestion. But lets just say that this hook on my question

Yes there was no more place on map.

1st of all i agree with evertything what you wrote. Other aspects ... i was thinking about like, and allso elmurcis mentioned about it.

If you prioritize islands cities or even a lot costal cities. It could be hard to make war... transporting troops is with Galleys can rly slow down. Allso can speed up war if you are attacking costal cities.
Another thing if you bulid a lot of costal cities your empire wont be like i dont know how to say it concentrate in one place, beocuse of that harder to defend.
You can that way have borders with more ais too, and more ais can be threating to you.

Or

Settle city so ai cant settle that spot.
Settle city with a lot of forest beocuse of you know potencial.

Other aspects moustly i will call it something like "strategical plays" witch sometimes are importand

Overall this waht i was thinking of is map depended, i supose, same like what vic condition and strategy you choose.

But yea on diety moust importand thing is .

 

[Ringo Kid]

Actually better to build both Mids and Great lighthouse. And the Great Lighthouse expires, while the Mids do not. Sothere is time value to consider ( more turns played with Mids than with Great Lighthouse) . Or am I wrong?

 

[dutchfire]

The Pyramids expire when you discover all government civic techs

On a watery map, you need galleys to get your settlers where you want them, that costs some hammers too.

In my experience, a disadvantage is that you will get a large, spread-out, low production empire, and that keeping your military intact is difficult, so you have to mind your diplomacy. (Of course, you should do that anyway)

 

[Seraiel]

Actually better to build both Mids and Great lighthouse. And the Great Lighthouse expires, while the Mids do not. Sothere is time value to consider ( more turns played with Mids than with Great Lighthouse) . Or am I wrong?

This was the point that I tried to make. Better don't build the Mids, built Settlers instead, if you have the GLH and play map where founding coastal cities is easy (doesn't necessarily need to be Archipelagio, Pangaea, Continents or Terra also often allow to found several coastal cities) .

The Pyramids expire when you discover all government civic techs

On a watery map, you need galleys to get your settlers where you want them, that costs some hammers too.

In my experience, a disadvantage is that you will get a large, spread-out, low production empire, and that keeping your military intact is difficult, so you have to mind your diplomacy. (Of course, you should do that anyway)

One needs only very few Galleys, that's why I didn't list them in my equasion. If wanting to be really very accurate, ok, 2 Galleys for 6 Settlers, that's 17 extra on every Settler. That's an increase of 17%, now a Settler needs 2T more to pay back, doesn't change, that the GLH is in a completely different league of power.

And regarding production: Yes, watery maps all have those problems with low production from the point where Slavery isn't justifyable anymore. However, when is that point, probably past the point where the game is decided. And the opportunity cost of landlocking cities for more production in the end-game is, to have less in the early and mid-game.

 

[futurehermit]

Good thread. A couple thoughts:

1) Where do you get 9 commerce from? GLH adds 2 trade routes. If they are offshore, that's 2 commerce each = 4? What am I missing?

2) You are not taking into account the additional happiness from representation, which can be a factor as well.

 

[Seraiel]

Good thread. A couple thoughts:

1) Where do you get 9 commerce from? GLH adds 2 trade routes. If they are offshore, that's 2 commerce each = 4? What am I missing?

2) You are not taking into account the additional happiness from representation, which can be a factor as well.

I calculated with foreign TRs, and those can easily be 4 .

Also, I don't find the extra from REP to be needed or helpful at that time. HR gives +1 through the garrison, so it's a gain of +2 in 5 cities while lose 1 in any city past those 5. As one builds mostly Settlers though, controlling is very easy, and it's usually np to have a size 10 capital at 1 AD, if trading for 1-2 resources and building a Market (and a Market really pays off quick in a Buro capital) .

REP really only would be for the extra from the Specialists, but that one can simply not outweigh the gain a Settler could give through the TRs.

 

[futurehermit]

Sure, but you should clarify then. Could be a difference in difficulty level, but when I build GLH on emperor, I can't guarantee 4c foreign TRs right away, whereas the +3b from rep kicks in right away.

Also, the whole point of from rep being good is that, if you're in rep, you obviously can't have the from HR at the same time. I know you know that, but my point is you have to still take the from rep into account, as it is still an advantage *while in rep*. Yes, you can clearly get from HR but, speaking of opportunity cost, then you aren't in rep, don't get the +3b, etc.

Anyway, my point is, yeah, if you inflate the value of GLH based on foreign TRs and deflate the value of rep by discounting the , then, yeah, that is going to make GLH look a lot better than pyramids...

People always talk about conquering pyramids, but how many games does your nearest neighbour build pyramids for you? Good chance it ends up on the other side of the world as well.

Especially if you're spiritual, the opportunity of switching into police state on occasion can also be nice.

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of GLH, don't get me wrong. I've come to appreciate coastal starts more by prioritizing it. And, I've come to see pyramids as more situational over time than I used to; however, if you have stone handy and/or are industrious, pyramids are still great.

If you can only have one or the other, it depends, as always, I just want it to be a fair comparison.

 

[dutchfire]

At some point, you run out of foreign cities to trade with.

 

[Seraiel]

If you can only have one or the other, it depends, as always, I just want it to be a fair comparison.

It was no fair comparison from the start, because I wrote "on a watery map" , and on watery maps, GLH + Settlerspam will simply always beat the Mids.
Also: Keeping cities happier is easier with HR than with REP, ask Gosha and his #1 cultural victories with size 15 cities in the BCs that as I heard gave Jesusin a very hard time.

But just to be fair, because you wanted it: REP-Specialists are something very rare in an empire that builds the Mids. First, the Mids are insanely expensive, so that empire will have few cities. In those 3 cities that the empire will have at most 'til it needs to focus with everything on the Mids, maybe the capital and one other city can run 2 Scientists, this is already very much favouring the Mids. Than those 4 Specialists with REP are a gain or 12 and 12 . Assuming the same 3 cities, the GLH will make 2 extra TRs with, lets say, a value of 3 , than that's 18 , so more but less .
The thing that kills the Mids in that situation is simply, that the REP-Specialists cost 8 while the GLH-TRs don't cost anything. For 8 , the GLH-empire can build an extra Settler every 5 turns (assuming the Settler gets whipped) , and that Settler again will make 6 extra . At one point, the Mids empire will have few cities with no food, while the GLH-empire will be huge and have huge production. The GPs the Mids-empire gets, get more and more expensive, and good bulb-options are rare, raw and raw and always have their value.

Seriously, assuming coastal cities, Mids will never beat GLH + Settler-Spam. Mids can still be good, and I won't start a discussion on them now, if not all cities are coastal. This was what I wanted to point out. With all cities being coastal, which can very well be the case on some maps, it makes no sense anymore to build anything but the GLH and Settlers, because nothin can compare. I'm astonished myself that one world-wonder can have such a power under certain circumstances, which is why I made this thread.

 

[futurehermit]

I'm not disagreeing with you on your central thesis -- GLH >>> Pyramids when you have a watery map or a lot of coast. Just clarifying some of your supporting arguments

 

[Bjarkov]

I dare say 9 commerce net gain for each newly founded city is optimistic up to and including Medieval age. Astronomy makes it possible but that is not a thing until later in the game, and shouldn't be part of the comparison

However, I do not disagree that GLH beats mids when most of your cities are coastal

 

[Pangaea]

GLH obviously is a great wonder, and this extra little detail won't negate that, but when settling many cities, the total costs increase as well. There's not just the maintenance cost of the new city to factor in, but because you have another city, the costs for all other cities increase a little too, and sometimes also civics costs.

On a water-heavy map, however, the GLH should be a prime target, even above the Oracle, and you tend to need to choose, especially on the higher levels. Even with normal foreign trades of 2 each, the cities usually pay for themselves.

 

[Seraiel]

I dare say 9 commerce net gain for each newly founded city is optimistic up to and including Medieval age. Astronomy makes it possible but that is not a thing until later in the game, and shouldn't be part of the comparison

However, I do not disagree that GLH beats mids when most of your cities are coastal

I agree with you, and honestly need to say, that I made an error and took the Currency traderoute into my example, so I assumed 3 TRs at 3 , and forgot, that without the GLH, only 6 would have been additional and not 9. Assuming 3 TRs is realistic, because there are more mapscripts where there are different continents but that can be reached with Galleys (or Workboats) and not only maps that demand Astro.
I btw. think that I compared 1 GLH-city towards 2 REP-specialists in the following, so part of my comparison should still fit. 6 = 6 only that the Scientists cost masses of which could be incredibly much production, while giving , but GP-generation has diminishing returns, and I think I don't really have to argue, that 4 are more valuable than 6 .

I hope this is correct now.