What da heck are we gonna do first in da Middle Ages

[Rik Meleet]

lurker's comment: This is the first time I see a team (or player) consider Feudalism in a PBEM. Usually it is shunned like hell since the corruption is problematic and the way units are supported (only small towns gives proper unit support numbers) that you are basically forced to have only towns all game long. That usually is seen as a disadvantage. And the +1 bonus commerce of Republic can nearly always counter any problems, wartime or peacetime.

Your choice is interesting, to say the least.

 

[classical_hero]

lurker's comment: This is the first time I see a team (or player) consider Feudalism in a PBEM. Usually it is shunned like hell since the corruption is problematic and the way units are supported (only small towns gives proper unit support numbers) that you are basically forced to have only towns all game long. That usually is seen as a disadvantage. And the +1 bonus commerce of Republic can nearly always counter any problems, wartime or peacetime.

Your choice is interesting, to say the least.

In one of my PBEM's I will actually be going down this path and if you remember the ISDG, we should have chosen Feudalism. I will be doing this in the PBEM against Stapel, so here is a bit of spoiler info that I know that he cannot get into.

 

[Chamnix]

you are basically forced to have only towns all game long

Despite the grave risk to my spiritual well-being, I have to reiterate that this is just not true. We only need enough small towns to keep our unit support 0 - we will almost certainly have plenty of corrupt towns to do that, and we will be able to grow our core towns.

However, the corruption is an issue, and I am surprised at how close the income is short-term (it is no secret that in most games Republic income is better long-term), so let's review the differences Feudalism vs. Republic again.

1. Rushing - Feudalism is pop-rush, Republic is cash-rush. Generally, I find cash-rush better, but it is not that big a difference with all our luxuries.

2. Corruption - Republic has lower corruption, Feudalism has no compensating factor.

3. Money - everything else is about money - the Republic tile bonus, the Feudalism MPs, and the unit support. This was the item that swayed things into Feudalism before. I'm going to take a closer look at General_W's numbers before I cast a vote.

EDIT - well, actually, General_W didn't post much in the way of information. Can we get screenshots of those analyses? I don't care about the Forbidden Palace one, since that is a long way off. However, I think we need to look at 0% luxuries with Feudalism and 10% luxuries with Republic to give a fair comparison.

EDIT 2 -

When I get home from work today, I can produce some examples if people want to see them – but just from looking back at the what I've already posted…

To keep the economy cruising at around +15 gold per turn….
Republic only yields 22 beakers per turn. (20% science)
Feudalism would produce 43 beakers per turn (50% science)

If you could also point me in the direction of where this came from... that is a pretty dramatic shift from what you posted in this thread, and I'd like to see what changed...

 

[peter grimes]

Originally posted by god...

So does this mean you've cast your lot in with the Meleetniks? Sad to say, I had a sincere mathematical appreciation of you - shows how well we really knew you, I suppose

 

[General_W]

Here's the full scoop from save 92 (pre-play)

I didn't re-do the analysis with the FP, but I DID do it with Golden Age - since that's much closer in the future.

I've tried to control for economy, if you think it would be more helpful to do control for something else, let me know.

Republic

Feudalism:

Republic with Golden Age

Feudalism with Golden Age:

The reason for the wide discrepancy from my first post, is that those numbers came from different saves and not controlled as closely for economy. I knew it was a little sloppy at the time I did it - but I didn't expect it to be that off!

Anyway – all the numbers above come from the same turn (save 92), and you can see all the specifics in the screenshots!

EDIT: In all cases, you can see that Feudalism is about 10bpt better than republic and modestly better on gold per turn also.
Is that worth it? Hmmmmm.....

 

[peter grimes]

Looking only at the research comparison:

Rep:45 bpt
Feu: 54 bpt

RepGA: 81 bpt
FeuGA: 93 bpt

One way to interpret this difference is that, under Feudalism, we nearly offset the Monopoly cost of the tech relative to Republic. In other words:

To get to Gunpowder:
Engineering (1080) = 24 turns under Rep, 20 under Feu
Invention (1320) = 29.9 under Rep, 24.2 under Feu
Gunpowder (1440) = 32 under Rep, 26.7 under Feu

Total unadjusted for GA or growth under Rep: 86 turns
Total unadjusted for GA or growth under Feu: 71 turns

Everyone who wants Gunpowder 15 turns sooner raise your hands!!

 

[gbno1fan]

[raises hand]

Sounds good to me, but then again, I was already convinced.

 

[Chamnix]

I knew the other numbers were from a previous save, but I was wondering how much of the difference was “sloppiness” and how much was just from having more citizens now.

So the difference looks very small financially right now – it looks like 11 gold total (9 science and 2 economy – since we have no libraries or marketplaces, it doesn’t really matter what you control for). The actual difference would be even smaller – once we are out of anarchy those 6 taxmen will be put back to work and will each create one more gold in Republic than in Feudalism.

Looking 10+ turns out, which is going to be better? If ainwood were any good, CivAssist III would figure out exactly what tiles we would work, what we would build, and be able to tell us which government would be better at that point, but I guess we will have to do it ourselves for now. Republic improves relative to Feudalism every time we gain an extra citizen, every time a town grows to a city, every time we found a new town, and every time we lose a unit in the war. Republic gets worse every time we build a unit and every time we lose a citizen through building a worker or a settler.

The danger in Republic is that we are likely to need more units than KISS. Their UU is expensive but multidimensional. We can build 2 hoplites for every Gallic Sword they build and hold our own in a war easily, but we have to pay for them. By going to Republic, I think we will have to emphasize MDIs more and limit our use of our UU which would be a shame.

I think overall, I am starting to lean toward the Republic side of the fence. I’m still open to either, but if Republic is that close now and really should get better as we grow (even with our units), then it seems to be a better choice. Unfortunately, we really need to make a decision soon – I would love to change those taxmen to scientists and start on our next project, but we need to know our government first.

Anyone have stronger feelings than I do for one side or the other?

 

[classical_hero]

Looking only at the research comparison:

Rep:45 bpt
Feu: 54 bpt

RepGA: 81 bpt
FeuGA: 93 bpt

One way to interpret this difference is that, under Feudalism, we nearly offset the Monopoly cost of the tech relative to Republic. In other words:

To get to Gunpowder:
Engineering (1080) = 24 turns under Rep, 20 under Feu
Invention (1320) = 29.9 under Rep, 24.2 under Feu
Gunpowder (1440) = 32 under Rep, 26.7 under Feu

Total unadjusted for GA or growth under Rep: 86 turns
Total unadjusted for GA or growth under Feu: 71 turns

Everyone who wants Gunpowder 15 turns sooner raise your hands!!

The best way for us to get Republic wroking for us is to improve the core. We can get these cities. We can get these cities into greater production and we can get our cities to be happier when we build marketplaces, which is also great for increase of gold which will make it much more worthwhile. Also it will allow us to expand much greater because the corruption will be much less than Feudalism. We must also think of the big picture because we will not be very flexible if we choose Feudalism because it will mean war and only war, whereas Republic gives us both options, because we can become a great commercial and scientific power that we should become. One problem with Republic is that we have already shown our hand to KISS, with our military expansion and our overestimation of them, because now they will get into a battle of trying to be stronger than us. I also think that we have too many units as it is, because we are not at war and it seems unlikely that we will be, but because we have shown our hand, we may never be able to take back that position that we once had. This is why we are even contemplating a decision that will be, I think, a very bad decision, because we almost have left ourselves with no other choice as a result.

 

[Chamnix]

One problem with Republic is that we have already shown our hand to KISS, with our military expansion and our overestimation of them, because now they will get into a battle of trying to be stronger than us. I also think that we have too many units as it is, because we are not at war and it seems unlikely that we will be, but because we have shown our hand, we may never be able to take back that position that we once had.

I really don't understand this. Are you saying we should not have built units and just hope KISS didn't attack us? I think a war was a near certainty if we didn't get our military up to theirs - are you reading the same KISS chats the rest of us are?

I think the only war to avoid war is to build units - where was General_W's quote again? I think regardless of government, we need to continue to build units. Periodically we can cycle off to build infrastructure in one or two towns at a time, but I don't think not building units was ever a choice.

 

[classical_hero]

I really don't understand this. Are you saying we should not have built units and just hope KISS didn't attack us? I think a war was a near certainty if we didn't get our military up to theirs - are you reading the same KISS chats the rest of us are?

I think the only war to avoid war is to build units - where was General_W's quote again? I think regardless of government, we need to continue to build units. Periodically we can cycle off to build infrastructure in one or two towns at a time, but I don't think not building units was ever a choice.

Well now we must, but we could have played this much cooler than we have. We now have a better military than they have and this will mean that they will start to build more units. We could have made them think that we were much weaker than what we really are. We could have gotten them into a false sense of security and make them do some foolish thing, that they should never had done had they known that we are actually able to stand up to them. We could have surprised them with what we were actually capable of, now we do not have that with us any more.

 

[peter grimes]

...we will not be very flexible if we choose Feudalism because it will mean war and only war...

I read the numbers as meaning that if we choose Feudalism we will be able to afford to go to war, without sacrificing research, whereas in a Republic research would have to give way to unit support during a war. Feudalsim will still allow quite robust research.

This is why we are even contemplating a decision that will be, I think, a very bad decision, because we almost have left ourselves with no other choice as a result.

So is this an argument for being in Feudalism, since war seems to be inevitable?

So the difference looks very small financially right now...

I see the difference as being fairly significant right now, in the short term especially. I can see that over a longer term, with a lot more citizens than we now have, Republic will win over. Just look at what happens during the Rep and Feu Golden Ages - Rep doesn't trail Feudalism by much. In fact, the difference in turns to Gunpowder is pretty small: 47.8 vs. 41.3. I think this is indicative of Republic's increase in commerce.

When it comes right down to it, I really think that either Republic or Feudalism will be good systems under which we can grow, fight, and advance in the game. The biggest differences concern 'How will we look economically 100 turns from now?' and 'What happens if KISS overwhelms our Luxury towns?'

In either case, it will have more to do with how we manage diplomacy than which specific government type we choose.

 

[gbno1fan]

I don't believe we have overestimated KISS. Let's review what has happened:

1. KISS refused to extend the peace agreement.
2. A respected Civ war strategist joined their team.
3. We are clearly closing the gap on them in VPs. If I were them, I would be trying to find a way to limit what MIA can do, whether that comes from making deals with other teams, or from holding a strategic war, something has to happen.

Bottom line: KISS is not going to sit there and let us catch up without a fight. They have a lead and I have no doubt they intend to keep it. I don't think it is a coincidence that scoutsout has joined their team at this point in the game.

 

[General_W]

Well now we must, but we could have played this much cooler than we have. We now have a better military than they have and this will mean that they will start to build more units. We could have made them think that we were much weaker than what we really are. We could have gotten them into a false sense of security and make them do some foolish thing, that they should never had done had they known that we are actually able to stand up to them. We could have surprised them with what we were actually capable of, now we do not have that with us any more.

So – you're saying we shouldn't have upgraded that handful of warriors to fight the barbarians? We should have just let them take our city and kill our workers to conceal our potential?

I really don't understand this. Are you saying we should not have built units and just hope KISS didn't attack us? I think a war was a near certainty if we didn't get our military up to theirs - are you reading the same KISS chats the rest of us are?

Here! Here!
KISS is an incredible threat, they have thankfully given us warning of their violent intentions, and we have only just begun to prepare for them.

Anyway…

I'm very torn again. I do feel myself starting to lean towards Republic.

Peter has a great point – I'd certainly like to get Gunpowder 15 turns sooner… but that's 71 turns away!!
If it actually takes that long – we're in bad, bad shape!!
The reason it won't take that long, is because we'll be growing… and if we're growing, then Republic is getting better and better compared to Feudalism.

Also – consensus seems to be building towards taking no more than 2 KISS cities, and then just holding the jungle against them… in this defensive scenario, the ability to field a massive supply of units is less critical. Instead of massive, we'll just need a huge number! (and – if we can trade with Dnuts or TNT for some Luxes… then we maybe be able to lower our Lux expenses in Republic and get ahead even sooner. Remember our deal with TNT doesn’t prevent lux trading with anyone)

Republic will certainly require us to be more creative with our unit choices… but if can get TNT to grab Chivalry… then Knights could really help us consolidate our forces, and Knights will be a powerful weapon against those blasted Gallic Swords.

So again – I'm starting to lean to republic?
Someone want to try to talk me out of it… again?

 

[Chamnix]

@classical_hero - whatever happened to we must build military not now, but yesterday?

@peter grimes - where do you see the short-term significance? I see 11 gpt right now which will drop to 5 gpt immediately when we lose the taxmen. Granted, a lot will happen after that with some growth and some units and it's uncertain which will win out, but the turn 92 figures of 5 gpt don't strike me as significant.

 

[gbno1fan]

This has been a great discussion guys. I'm finding myself going back and forth between the two, depending on what I read last. I'm beginning to lean towards Republic, and am quite ashamed to admit that I voted early and may need to have another poll...or have a note posted that says my vote has changed.

 

[fe3333au]

This is becoming a librian scenario (scales ... astrology )

I have leanings towards Republic ... I think defense is our best military strategy (with perhaps attack on Lux towns)

If no war ... then better Republic is, as we will definitely be trading with TNT and hopefully with Nuts for additional luxes.

Aside ... I believe that Nuts are the bigger threat ... their war is going well and they are growing fast.

Great to see our very own Rabid Pitbull resurface just when the talk is of war

 

[peter grimes]

I voted early and may need to have another poll...or have a note posted that says my vote has changed.

Don't worry - this decision will not be made by a strict count of the votes. It's way too nuanced an issue. General_W has to make the choice. So really, this whole discussion simply serves to let him know our feelings.

I see 11 gpt right now which will drop to 5 gpt immediately when we lose the taxmen.

Good point. I haven't been taking any of that into consideration, so that will clearly introduce some pretty big inaccuracies. If I were more comfortable with the whole economic engine of the game, I could correct for that, but as it is I'm struggling to keep up with these discussions

Republic will certainly require us to be more creative with our unit choices… but if can get TNT to grab Chivalry… then Knights could really help us consolidate our forces, and Knights will be a powerful weapon against those blasted Gallic Swords.

I disagree. As you said just a few lines earlier, we are only talking about securing our jungle as a national park for the benefits of Greeks. Therefore, the movement of Knight would be neutralized. We can't let ourselves get drawn up to their plains. We'll get slaughtered up there, and the only reason we should ever ventrue out of the jungle is to harry their resupply network. In any case, MDI has the same attack value as Knights, and we can build them now. (except for that whole anarchy thing). I dont' see us building more than a couple knights (but we could certainly upgrade Horses), and that would be after we have several MDI and a host of Hoplites.

Peter has a great point – I'd certainly like to get Gunpowder 15 turns sooner… but that's 71 turns away!!
If it actually takes that long – we're in bad, bad shape!!

I wonder if there's a way to figure out how much growth we'd need under Republic to match the 71 turn research rate.... Maybe if I have some time later on today I can slog through it... and wind up missing something crucial again (taxmen )

 

[General_W]

I disagree. As you said just a few lines earlier, we are only talking about securing our jungle as a national park for the benefits of Greeks. Therefore, the movement of Knight would be neutralized. We can't let ourselves get drawn up to their plains. We'll get slaughtered up there, and the only reason we should ever ventrue out of the jungle is to harry their resupply network.

I apologize… I should have been more clear in my statement about Knights.

The reason they are great Gallic Sword killers is because a GS can't retreat from a unit that also has 2 movement. You're absolutely right – in the jungle the 2 move is useless… but a Knight combines the defense of a Hoplite, the attack of a MedInf, and also prevents Gallic Swords from running away and healing (a big deal since the GS is so expensive to build).
We essentially get 2 units for the maintenance cost of 1 and a better chance to kill Gallic Swords.

That's what makes a Knight beautiful – not the 2 moves, necessarily. (although, the 2 moves do help us bring them to the frontlines much more quickly! (6 moves across our roads instead of 3!)

 

[fe3333au]

With the two movement points, it would be good to have them stationed behind the front lines in a city with a barrack ... and then upgrade to surprise and rapid responce to bolster defences ...

I suspect that TNT may want a unit to counter the Nutters UU as well

So Chivilry sounds very good