When do I want to build a workshop?

[TheMeInTeam]

. My points in this discussion were never concerned with Ibian's claim that caste is ALWAYS superior to slavery post-guilds however. Such an assertion as long since been disproved...

Perhaps my presence in this discussion is mostly because I rarely see players running caste/workshops for medieval beatdowns in the series games on this forums, despite that often being the optimal production approach. When I first got worker improvement timing (and of course correct # of workers) down, I was amazed at how easy things like intercontinental invasions became by just building galleons in 1-2 cities while producing units in others. This has been especially true in my isolation games, where a large # of cities wind up coastal (less hills!) but with enough seafood. That seafood can certainly be used for specialists or early whipping, or even cottages. However, it's a great time for caste hammers too. Wooden navies are too neglected IMO (having considerable power in early gunpowder intercontinental assaults), and later on workshop coastal cities own even outside of caste thanks to dry docks. This is especially effective because the AI seldom does it, getting its navy dominated. Good synergy with TRE too.

But ALWAYS? Of course not. Few things are always superior in this game. ALWAYS check the victory screen to make sure you won't lost by culture surprise or something maybe, but actual strategies? I can't think of one that always works other than adaptation, but that's not a strategy unto itself, but merely flexibility of strategies.

 

[vale]

Quick whipping to build an army doesnt really seem meaningful this late in the game. Maybe if you wanna dogpile someone or backstab someone who just ended a war with someone else, i guess. But this can be a dangerous gambit since it stunts your production for a while after you are done whipping, while normal production would send a constant stream of reinforcements.

Of course you ignore quick whipping a granary (almost never a bad idea) or a worker (ditto if needed). That has nothing to do with war and everything to do with getting a city up to snuff.

Heres a situation:
City is size 1. Cap is 10.

It has an improved pigs but no other improved tiles yet.
It has two grassland hills in it and plenty of cottageable farmable or workshoppable grassland in it but no other hills and no forests.
You have one worker available to improve the terrain near it.

Simple challenge. Grow it to its happy cap as fast as possible. Bonus points if you manage to build anything on the way.

Now give yourself 13 of those cities.

Now you have your scenario.

That city above was being very generous to workshops by the way. Give it another food resource and caste looks even sillier. Give it more hills and the same happens. Make the challenge to get to population 10 and also have a barracks and forge built no matter what and it looks terrible.

 

[Ibian]

The problem is that everyone has their own assumptions, but rarely actually mention them.

What is this infrastructure we are whipping, for example?

 

[Ibian]

Of course you ignore quick whipping a granary (almost never a bad idea) or a worker (ditto if needed). That has nothing to do with war and everything to do with getting a city up to snuff.

Growing to size 4 and then whipping a granary is not meaningfully different from building a granary while growing to size 2.

A size 4 whip from a fresh city gives food an average hammer value of about 1.2.

Try the following ingame if you want: The whipping city where your first 3 citizens work a farm and whip a granary at size 4, or the hammer city where you alternate working farms and mines until you get the granary. In both cases you will end up with a size 2 city with a granary in roughly the same amount of time.

From there the discussion about the kind of infrastructure we want can begin.

Heres a situation:
City is size 1. Cap is 10.

It has an improved pigs but no other improved tiles yet.
It has two grassland hills in it and plenty of cottageable farmable or workshoppable grassland in it but no other hills and no forests.
You have one worker available to improve the terrain near it.

Simple challenge. Grow it to its happy cap as fast as possible. Bonus points if you manage to build anything on the way.

Now give yourself 13 of those cities.

Now you have your scenario.

Tell ya what, lets have a contest. We start with the same save with one city and see who can manage growth and production and commerce best. Its the only way to settle this.

I need to set up another comp since my current one dies every time i try to load civ, so if you would do the honors of making the save?

 

[vale]

The problem is that everyone has their own assumptions, but rarely actually mention them.

What is this infrastructure we are whipping, for example?

Just try the above challenge. No infrastructure requirements per se (although a granary requirement is hidden in there).

I guarantee you slavery will be at population 10 before caste system.

Change the above challenge to require a forge and barracks build.

or

Change the above challenge to require that you have 7 cottages worked at population 10.

I guarantee you that slavery will be at population 10 long before caste system with the listed requirements.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I wonder a bit if the challenge has the right priorities... no, too strong, but I think the tests described so far are only inputs to the strategic question.

That is, if we show that Slavery is superior for growing a city from size 1 to size 10 under the test conditions, do we not still need to evaluate whether this improved efficiency compensates for the impact that this choice of civics has on the core cities.

In otherwords, I think the question ought to be "Is Slavery on the rim more valuable than Caste System in the core?"

 

[vale]

I wonder a bit if the challenge has the right priorities...

That is, if we show that Slavery is superior for growing a city from size 1 to size 10 under the test conditions, do we not still need to evaluate whether this improved efficiency compensates for the impact that this choice of civics has on the core cities.

In otherwords, I think the question ought to be "Is Slavery on the rim more valuable than Caste System in the core?"

I think this will be highly empire dependent and mostly dependent on the number of rim cities as opposed to core cities. In the example I cite, there are very few core cities in a huge empire so slavery is a boost. As it develops and some of those rim cities become core cities, the time for change may come.

In a small empire with only core cities, the time for change may be immediate.

But my main point was (as usual) saying things like always or never when talking about efficiency is rarely correct.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I wonder a bit if the challenge has the right priorities... no, too strong, but I think the tests described so far are only inputs to the strategic question.

That is, if we show that Slavery is superior for growing a city from size 1 to size 10 under the test conditions, do we not still need to evaluate whether this improved efficiency compensates for the impact that this choice of civics has on the core cities.

In otherwords, I think the question ought to be "Is Slavery on the rim more valuable than Caste System in the core?"

I was pretty much getting at this question and it was pretty much being ignored. Obviously the answer is situational.

 

[Ibian]

If the rim city is for production you wanna get to max capacity anyway so why slow it down by killing your people?

And if its for commerce then the question again becomes what value a cottage has.

 

[obsolete]

Hmmmmmmmmm???

Hmm !

 

[vale]

If the rim city is for production you wanna get to max capacity anyway so why slow it down by killing your people?

And if its for commerce then the question again becomes what value a cottage has.

If you have a pastured pigs, you get to population 10 much faster by whipping the granary than by slow building the granary with mines/workshops. Thats just a simple fact.

Your argument against slavery is that it slows growth by killing your people?

Ok, well nice job ignoring that mines and workshops slow growth significantly more by removing your food surplus and slowing down the production of the granary, your biggest growth building!

If you think it is debatable which civic helps you develop and grow your rim cities the fastest, you aren't using slavery correctly. That is just a simple fact.

Same thing with a cottage. You essentially need to whip out a granary and a couple more workers to get the cottages down asap. Thats it. Workshops help not a whit in doing this.

 

[zebomba2]

2 cents, I have rarely if ever seen a city without enough hills. 3-5 is decent, 6 is almost overkill. If you want even more, wait for biology or corporations then workshop everything?
During the time between when CS becomes available and chemistry, there are more fringe cities than cores, and CS does little to cores even under SE/GP spamming. During that period, of course. How many specialists/hammer tiles can you run before the caps or food issues kick in? If you manage to get most resources through trade maybe.
Not everyone plays the same way, for example I shun State Property (IRL too) and at late game I need Environmentalism anyway. I'm also lazy and dislike cottages so I go Merc for a while then Free Market, leaving simply no room for SP.

 

[Ibian]

If you have a pastured pigs, you get to population 10 much faster by whipping the granary than by slow building the granary with mines/workshops. Thats just a simple fact.

A pig is probably the best resource in the game until you get a lighthouse up so of course you will be working that. But after that and until the granary is built, working mines instead of farms with the next people works better.

To better illustrate this, lets ignore the pig and stick to just farms and mines. You can work farms and whip at size 4 and end up with a size 2 city with a granary and 10 turns of frownie face, or you can work a single mine right from the start.

With the first method the granary will be built on turn 20 with 6 stored food and 20 hammer overflow.

With the second method you will build the granary on turn 15, switch to farms from there and on turn 18 end up with a size 2 city with 14 stored food plus 3 hammers.

Mines > farms until the granary is built.

And i would appreciate if you would come up with concrete examples of your own in your inevitable rebut.

 

[vale]

And i would appreciate if you would come up with concrete examples of your own in your inevitable rebut.

I already did: a pastured pig. Because (apparently unlike you) I tend to try to grab city spots near food bonuses. If my entire repertoire of tile options is going to be grassland farms and grassland mines, then I'm not settling that city at this time period barring some major extenuating circumstances.

I didn't give me two food bonuses (which isn't uncommon) and something I really prefer in cities if possible (not always available or working with a viable dotmap)

Or a flood plains to go with a food bonus.

Or any other combination of great tiles that tend to precipitate a settler being shipped to an area.

Your rebuttal is but yeah if there are no food bonuses and no specials farms+mines are the bomb.

Yeah. But you know whats much better? Not settling junk cities. This isn't Civ III. Why on earth would I settle the city you are talking about? Because I can't stand seeing one square inch of land not used?

Concrete example:
I will give it to you again.
Pastured pigs, one worker, unlimited grasslands that have access to fresh water, 2 grassland hills.
Goal
Reach population 10 with a barracks and forge built.

If that isn't concrete what is? What I have to worldbuilder a setup for you? This isn't rocket science.

 

[Ibian]

Slowly running out of patience.

My postulation was that working mines rather than farms after the pig gives better results until the granary is done. Then i explained why.

We are not done here. I still need to know if you agree so far, or if you would work a farm instead, and if so why.

 

[vale]

Slowly running out of patience.

My postulation was that working mines rather than farms after the pig gives better results. Then i explained why.

No, because you completely ignored the pigs the entire time. You can't do the analysis without pigs and then say, ok add the pigs back in and it all works the same. It doesn't

We are not done here. I still need to know if you agree so far, or if you would work a farm instead, and if so why.

I disagree wholeheartedly so far because so far you are completely wrong about efficiency.

I would work a farm instead because it is much better.

Let me spell it out for you.

Lets see. So you want to work the pastured pigs for 4 turns which brings us to population 2 with 2 food saved and 4 hammers invested then work 2 grassland mines at stagnation while building the granary for 8 turns to bring us to precisely finishing the granary after 12 turns with 0 overflow and 2 food saved at population 2.

I would prefer to work the pigs for 4 turns until population 2 with 2 food saved and 4 hammers invested. Then the pigs and a farm for 4 turns to bring us to population 3 with 6 food saved and 8 total hammers invested. Then the pigs and 2 farms for 3 turns to bring us to population 4 with 4 food saved and 11 total hammers invest at which point I would whip and work the pigs and a farm for 1 turn to complete the granary and overflow 12 hammers while bringing me to population 2 with 11 food invested after 12 turns.

So which one is better
12 turns to produce a granary, no overflow and 2/24 food at population 2

OR

12 turns to produce a granary, 12 overflow and 11/24 food at population 2.

I know which one I prefer. (Hint: its the bottom one that was produced via whipping)

A method that gains 9 food and 12 hammers over its competitor in 12 turns is completely dominating its competition. This isn't even close.

And if I need to go on to build anything else out of this city slavery while growing to the caps slavery will only look better over time.

 

[Ibian]

By my count it goes like this:

With pigs+farms you end up with the following after 12 turns:
size 2, a granary, 11 food, 12 hammers and a frownie face.

If you work the pig and then mines with the next people you end up with the following after 11 turns:
size 2, 12 food, 5 hammers.

Do yourself a favor and confirm this ingame. I will not be returning if you dismiss this without a very good reason.

 

[vale]

It only takes 3 turns to grow to size 2 with a pastured pig, your count was off right from the start.

By my count it goes like this.

Pig+farms until size 4 you end up with the following after 10 turns:
Size 2, a granary, 18 food, 10 hammers and a frownie face.

If you work the pig and then mines you end up with the following after 10 turns:
Size 3, a granary, 1 food, 11 hammers and a frownie face.

Do both of us a favor and take the few minutes to verify this ingame. I will not be returning if you dismiss this without a very good reason.

Is this a good enough reason?
22 food needed to grow to pop 2.

6 food surplus.

You claim 3 turns is sufficient.

6 x 3 = 18 < 22

Your move.

And for you information I did check this in game before I posted the prior post just to make sure I was remembering the food values necessary. Perhaps you should check it.

You may be losing patience, but it is primarily because your position is wrong and you don't understand slavery.

 

[vale]

Your numbers are way off. Are you sure you aren't doing this with an Expansive leader? (BTW expansive leaders can 1 pop whip the granary so they get it even faster).

You should do your self a favor and check this in game. Because I will verify right now that your numbers are way off (checked both by hand and in game).

 

[Ibian]

See the edit. I misread my numbers.

So you want to work the pastured pigs for 4 turns which brings us to population 2 with 2 food saved and 4 hammers invested then work 2 grassland mines at stagnation

I cant believe that you did not intentionally misread me. Signing off.