The Precise Order of City Builds and Technology Acquisition

[floydmcw]

Tried Googling the answer but can't find it anywhere ... at the end of a player's turn, in what order do cities and the empire do things?

I am 1 turn from completing The Oracle. I am also 1 turn from Bronzeworking. Which will happen first? It would be nice if the tech came first so that I would get more free tech options for completing The Oracle.

Also (much less important) I wonder what the order is for different cities. If Washington is about to finish the Pentagon and New York is about to finish a military unit, which happens first? (If the wonder, New York's unit will have two extra XP.)

 

[civac]

As far as I know, technology comes first and production after that. As for cities, they are traversed according to their order of founding.

 

[Jellybug]

no-chop oracle? when did you finish?

 

[sampsa]

As far as I know, technology comes first and production after that

Yes, say if you have pottery and reach BW on the same turn as completing Oracle, you can choose MC as the free tech.

 

[floydmcw]

no-chop oracle? when did you finish?

T65. Had marble in second city, and capital had a lot of hammers. This is from the Emperor shadow game that CTG posted.

(As I am about to note in that thread, Oracle probably wasn't the best idea.)

 

[coanda]

Gold, research, espionage, then iterate through cities. City order is the order your empire acquired them, whether by settler or military force (or, I suppose, diplomacy), oldest first.

Each city individually will do growth, city culture, plot culture, production, production decay, religious spread, great people in that order.

 

[civac]

Thanks for the info.

As I understand it even though growth comes first you don't get yields from tiles the city grows into?

 

[dankok8]

Without even looking at the map, I can tell you there's about a 99% chance that delaying BW until turn 65 is a huge mistake.

 

[floydmcw]

Without even looking at the map, I can tell you there's about a 99% chance that delaying BW until turn 65 is a huge mistake.

Yes I know. This map did have some of the elements of the 1%:
- Low food /high hammer capital and not a lot of forests
- Second city had no forest and good tiles to work
- AH (needed for food) revealed horses so copper not needed for barb defense
- Enormous unclaimed land so no real pressure to whip settlers to beat AI to city sites

Not that skipping BW was best, but it was mildly suboptimal (felt the pain with 3rd/4th cities which would have benefitted from chopping) as opposed to awful.

 

[dankok8]

Yes I know. This map did have some of the elements of the 1%:
- Low food /high hammer capital and not a lot of forests
- Second city had no forest and good tiles to work
- AH (needed for food) revealed horses so copper not needed for barb defense
- Enormous unclaimed land so no real pressure to whip settlers to beat AI to city sites

Not that skipping BW was best, but it was mildly suboptimal (felt the pain with 3rd/4th cities which would have benefitted from chopping) as opposed to awful.

It's a mistake because even if there is no competition for city cites you still want to settle (and improve) sites that have food as soon as possible. Your growth curve without BW will be dramatically worse than with it.

 

[soundjata]

When your cap finishes The Hanging Gardens, the city governor will automatically (nonsensically) assign the new citizen in each subsequent city to work a new tile or specialist before the "city turn" is processed. I hate to have my GP pool polluted / my food bar desecrated this way

You can try and make use of the "maximize , , , or button" but silly governor is still silly most of the times

 

[Nogbadthebad]

When your cap finishes The Hanging Gardens, the city governor will automatically (nonsensically) assign the new citizen in each subsequent city to work a new tile or specialist before the "city turn" is processed. I hate to have my GP pool polluted / my food bar desecrated this way

You can try and make use of the "maximize , , , or button" but silly governor is still silly most of the times

Is there any chance that if you select avoid growth and then build HG the governor and is replaced by his competent younger brother?

 

[gavenkoa]

Your growth curve without BW will be dramatically worse than with it.

It depends on the count of food surplus and green hill mines. Mines converts 1F=>3H. Whip (with Granary) converts 1F=>+/-3H.

Usually food surplus is larger than green hill mines so whipping is preferred. Like in coastal cities, with flood plains cottages.

Because many game rolls end with cities with only 1-2 green hills it seems that working mines is not an alternative. But as always it is situational.

Will be glad to hear about faults in my thinking that mines are equals to whip (if you have enough of them).

 

[AcaMetis]

Will be glad to hear about faults in my thinking that mines are equals to whip (if you have enough of them).

One major benefit of whipping over working mines is that something that you whip is done now, as opposed to however many turns from now. A settler done a few turns earlier settles a city a few turns earlier, a worker done a few turns earlier starts placing down improvements a few turns earlier, an army pumped out a few turns earlier can DoW before the enemy is able to fortify as much/hook up a newly discovered strategic resource/whatever else, etc.

There's situations where grass mines will get a production job done just fine and sacrificing population in that situation would just be a waste of a good bank of pop, but in most cases the speed of whipping is better than slow building something.

 

[sampsa]

Mines converts 1F=>3H. Whip (with Granary) converts 1F=>+/-3H.

It is not that straightforward and I would say that is your presumption is simply incorrect. We can also claim that working a forested grass simply wins 1pt, thus it must be a great thing to do. Working two 21-tiles is +2, while working two mines transform 1 into 3, thus -2+6. Comparing these, working mines is transforming 2 not into 6, but into 4, thus a 1->2 conversion. Comparing whipping to these is not very simple, so I think I need to build a test game.

The best use of a granary is whipping settlers/workers, because it means you don't need to stagnate with a weak 1->1 conversion. Without a granary, that conversion is not that bad though, so if you plan to build mines, you might consider skipping the granary. Whipping+granary has a huge synergy while mines are anti-synergistic with this combination. Working max food (=preferring grass farms to mines) is going to give you the best bang for buck ( -> -conversion), but will we the limiting factor.

 

[gavenkoa]

Comparing these, working mines is transforming 2 not into 6, but into 4, thus a 1->2 conversion

Why is it the case?

Let's regrow 1->2 and whip with Granary, no good Food tiles

Start: 1Pop, 11F, production speed: 2F + 1H (forest)
Grow 6T: end 2Pop, Granary: 11F + 2F*6T = 23F, next do whip, 1H*6T=6H
Whip: 1Pop, 1T, Granary: 23F - 11WHIP + 2F = 14F, 1H*1T + 30H=31H

So total cycle 1->2->1 is 7T and gives 6+31H=37H. And extra 3F surplus ))

With working 2 green hill mines 7T: 2cells*3H*7T = 42H.

Mines becomes better when you work 4->2 whip because of growing Granary Population growth cost.

My idea is that mines are 1F=>3H, not 1F=>2H.

What am I doing wrong?

**UPDATE** I'm not sure if during whip turn you get production bonus 1H and 2F to Granary.
Also it seems that cycle 1->2->1 requires 7T.

 

[sampsa]

What am I doing wrong?

Not reading what I wrote. I was comparing working 21 tiles to working grass mines (13). Working mines transforms 1->2.

 

[gavenkoa]

I was comparing working 21 tiles to working grass mines (13)

I cannot grasp your logic. Let's see what make it difficult?

Working forest: 2F1H (-2F upkeep) = +1H
Working mine: 1F3H (-2F upkeep) = -1F+3H

Now we need to compare +1H vs -1F+3H a turn. Make something meaningful. Reduce values to common currency to compare.

Without common currency any comparison is a logical fallacy (or assume you know or mean something hidden).

Working mines transforms 1->2.

The better way to do it is to assume operating Granary, so roughly 11F => 30H by whip and set H as a common currency.

It's a realistic early game setup.

In 11T with extra 1F (sorry I have to make this assumption):

Working forest: 11F + 11H = 30H+11H=41H
Working mine: 11F + (-11F + 3H*11T) = 33H

But there is a fallacy here. When you whip you work less tiles. Without whip/regrow you have 2 times more working mines (sorry if you have enough of them).

To make better comparison I made imaginary infinite sustainable cycle 1->2->whip->1:

So total cycle 1->2->1 is 7T and gives 6+31H=37H. And extra 3F surplus ))

With working 2 green hill mines 7T: 2cells*3H*7T = 42H.

Above is a real comparison if I've not mistaken a bit because I am not sure about exact production logic during whip.

I would be glad if any point to mistakes.

 

[sampsa]

You keep talking about whips. I'm still coming to that, just wanted to point out that your presumption of mines generating 3 at the cost of 1 is not correct, for the reason I already explained twice.

 

[sampsa]

OK, here is a test game. It's probably very favorable to mines, but at least you can get some kind of feeling.