Where to build National Epic?

[iamnleth]

I have heard many sides of the story -

• Merchant GP Farm (along with Wallstreet and a possible shrine)
• Scientist GP Farm
• Engineer GP Farm (city probably contains Ironworks as well)

I'm toying with the idea and I'm just looking for some different viewpoints!

 

[Maydrock]

I usually build several of the early wonders in my capital, so the NE does a good job of multiplying all those GPP's. Then depending on the specialists I settle, I build Wall Street or Oxford. Usually in the early to mid game, I get lots of Great Prophets and a few GE's, so that has good synergy with Buearacracy(-1) and CS is usually a priority with me so I can get more farms civ wide up and running.

 

[Tennyson]

If you're choosing between the 3 GP farms, it's important to determine which GPs you want the most. Do you want engineers to rush projects? Merchants for cash? Scientists for Academies or lightbulbs? Do you want to settle these people?

Which fits best into your particular game strategy?

Do you set it into your leading GP farm to give that city a runaway lead in points and make sure no others pop? Or do you set it into your second or third GP farm and try to alternate pops? This is also an important question.

 

[carl corey]

The thing is, I usually build the NE early enough to go in a city that will run scientists, maybe just the two from the library at first, maybe two more from Great Library if I have marble or manage to chop it. Those Great Scientists for Philosophy, Paper and Education lightbulbs are really worth it. The problem is of course that you may end up getting a Great Artist instead.

For Industrious civs the wonder-building city (usually the capital) can be a good alternative to a "normal" GP farm, and thus can house the NE.

In games in which I didn't have marble and wasn't Industrious I sometimes built it in a city with lots of forests and some food resources. It's not a great boost at first as you can run only a few specialists in such a city, but when you add the National Park in there, you'll get insane amounts of Great Persons from it. Then again, you can have the classic GP farm with NE in it, and another one with NP in it.

 

[axident]

Either in your GP or wonderspam farm (the highest GPP city you have), and let that city do 95% of the GP generation, or, if you have another city that might be able to generate significant GPP as well, put the NE in that one and have two cities with roughly the same GPP output work in tandem to create GPs.

But I think your q was more about which GPs are more worthwhile... probably scientists or engineers are the best, but it's hard to do that early on as you can't run more than a couple of either type, with library or forge.

 

[DaveMcW]

Either in your GP or wonderspam farm (the highest GPP city you have), and let that city do 95% of the GP generation

or, if you have another city that might be able to generate significant GPP as well, put the NE in that one and have two cities with roughly the same GPP output work in tandem to create GPs.

The National Epic gives twice as many GPP in the first case.

 

[azzaman333]

Preferrably in a High Food, Higly Forested city, to take advantage of National Park as well.

 

[axident]

The National Epic gives twice as many GPP in the first case.

I was skeptical until I tried the tandem method. It works.

scenario 1: city A generates 30 GPP, city B generates 15 GPP. Build NE in city A, get about 62 GPP/turn, but city B will probably not generate more than 1-2 GP for the rest of the game, due to the pace that city A sets.

scenario 2: same cities, but NE is built in city B. city A generates 30 GPP/turn, city B generates 32 GPP/turn. They take turns generating GPs, minus the 100+ GP point lag for each GP generated. But at least you waste fewer GPP from city B.

 

[volfan37132]

I have heard many sides of the story -

• Merchant GP Farm (along with Wallstreet and a possible shrine)
• Scientist GP Farm
• Engineer GP Farm (city probably contains Ironworks as well)

I'm toying with the idea and I'm just looking for some different viewpoints!

Certainly none of these are "wrong". I don't go for culture victories
and the National Epic does generate great artist points. Artists
are the one I try to avoid. I haven't decided myself the best solution.
Terrain and space permitting I try to have one GP farm and I do mix
scientists, engineers, merchants and prophets. But please no artist!

 

[Tengfred]

I was skeptical until I tried the tandem method. It works.

scenario 1: city A generates 30 GPP, city B generates 15 GPP. Build NE in city A, get about 62 GPP/turn, but city B will probably not generate more than 1-2 GP for the rest of the game, due to the pace that city A sets.

scenario 2: same cities, but NE is built in city B. city A generates 30 GPP/turn, city B generates 32 GPP/turn. They take turns generating GPs, minus the 100+ GP point lag for each GP generated. But at least you waste fewer GPP from city B.

While I acknowledge that Axident is a far better civ-player than I am, from a strictly mathematical standpoint this argument is incorrect. The amount of great people received is given by the total number of GPP you produced so far, minus the amount "stored" in cities. The amount stored is upper bounded by 100(n+1)*c where n is the number of GP so far, and c is the number of cities contributing GP points. Because of this, the only reason to have more than one city contributing GPP is if this increases the total amount of GPP created. The second scenario here creates less GPP overall, and it does not create less waste than the first. The only reason that it may seem as if the second scenario wastes fewer GPP is because it will produce fewer GP overall, thereby making the maximum amount of GPP stored in one city smaller.

So, while the second method "works" in the sense that it also creates GPs, and in a given game may produce enough of them to win, it is always worse than the first method, both in terms of how many GPs are produced, and when they are produced.

The only reason I can see to use the second method is if the two cities produce diffrent types of GP, and you feel that the correct mix is more important than the total amount of GPs.

(Been lurking for some time, first post )

 

[MrFrodo]

Wherever my National Park will go.

 

[Sanchez]

So, while the second method "works" in the sense that it also creates GPs, and in a given game may produce enough of them to win, it is always worse than the first method, both in terms of how many GPs are produced, and when they are produced.

Assuming the second method is "building the NE in a city that is not the top base GPP producter", and your claim is that the second method is strictly worse (as per your definition above), and the NE is completed at an arbitrary game turn, then your claim can be disproved by a simple example:

Next GP requires 1000 GPP
City A produces 100 GPP, GPP bar is at 600/1000
City B produces 50 GPP, GPP bar is at 900/1000

Clearly building the NE in city B will result in a GP next turn, while putting it in City A will require 2 turns, which is not strictly better. Of course, the placement at A is a better long term strategy - but that's a weaker claim than the one you made.

 

[Tennyson]

If you have two tandem cities, you may get less GPP over the course of the game, but aren't you going to get a tighter grouping of great people in the early and middle term? And would that not be better for giving you an exploitable lead?

 

[cheffster]

I almost always build national epic in my capital because I usually have 3-5 wonders built there by the time NE becomes availible, and although this may not be the ideal strategy in the long-term, a general civ rule is: Benefits earlier in the game are MUCH more valuable then later, NE/N.Park is nice.. but you don't get N. Park till after biology (when theres 1/3 of the game left), so ideally you want to take max advantage of ALL the opportunities as early as possible.

 

[Giaur]

Very often it's not worth to build NE at all.

 

[carl corey]

Hmm, I can hardly believe that. At least up to (and including) Emperor Literature is a very good tech which also opens the Great Library and the Heroic Epic. Having Marble makes all the three wonders very attractive, so does being Industrious. Heck even if you miss on the Great Library or don't intend to go for it, the Heroic Epic alone would be enough for me to research Literature. So once I'm there why not build the National Epic? I almost always have a Great Person farm and I don't see why I should refrain from putting the National Epic in it.

 

[MrFrodo]

I almost always build national epic in my capital because I usually have 3-5 wonders built there by the time NE becomes availible, and although this may not be the ideal strategy in the long-term, a general civ rule is: Benefits earlier in the game are MUCH more valuable then later, NE/N.Park is nice.. but you don't get N. Park till after biology (when theres 1/3 of the game left), so ideally you want to take max advantage of ALL the opportunities as early as possible.

True, I'm just a stoned out Hippy that enjoys Sushi and Reading in the Woods

I think it just depends on what happens or what you want to acheive in the game. In my last few games the first civ I conquered had a capital with 3-4 food resources and almost entirely forest for the other tiles. These are ideal late game GPPs with NP+NE and can do a lot of nice things along the way, so NE in there wasn't a terrible loss, and once I needed to race to a Cultural Victory I had an awesome GPP available. Plus it is just a fun thing to have a city surrounded my Forest Preserves...

 

[axident]

While I acknowledge that Axident is a far better civ-player than I am, from a strictly mathematical standpoint this argument is incorrect. The amount of great people received is given by the total number of GPP you produced so far, minus the amount "stored" in cities. The amount stored is upper bounded by 100(n+1)*c where n is the number of GP so far, and c is the number of cities contributing GP points. Because of this, the only reason to have more than one city contributing GPP is if this increases the total amount of GPP created. The second scenario here creates less GPP overall, and it does not create less waste than the first. The only reason that it may seem as if the second scenario wastes fewer GPP is because it will produce fewer GP overall, thereby making the maximum amount of GPP stored in one city smaller.

So, while the second method "works" in the sense that it also creates GPs, and in a given game may produce enough of them to win, it is always worse than the first method, both in terms of how many GPs are produced, and when they are produced.

The only reason I can see to use the second method is if the two cities produce diffrent types of GP, and you feel that the correct mix is more important than the total amount of GPs.

(Been lurking for some time, first post )

Hmm I haven't looked into the math but it seems that you may be right in which case all of my games except the last 2, were doing the 'right' thing by putting the NE in the highest-GPP-producing city. Although, the tandem method isn't necessarily that much worse, especially if you need the national wonder slot open for something other than the NE (Moai, National Park, or whatever).

I'm not one of those 'math' people like VoU on CFC; I play a lot and go on intuition, so thanks for your clarification!

And, welcome to CFC!

 

[cheffster]

True, I'm just a stoned out Hippy that enjoys Sushi and Reading in the Woods

I think it just depends on what happens or what you want to acheive in the game. In my last few games the first civ I conquered had a capital with 3-4 food resources and almost entirely forest for the other tiles. These are ideal late game GPPs with NP+NE and can do a lot of nice things along the way, so NE in there wasn't a terrible loss, and once I needed to race to a Cultural Victory I had an awesome GPP available. Plus it is just a fun thing to have a city surrounded my Forest Preserves...

Yes, I suppose it all depends on your goals and setup. I could see how in this situation NP/NE made a very nice combo for you and helped acheive your goals.

From my own experience, I've never encounted a situation in my games where having NP/NE, has produced more then 5 GP or been more worthwhile then having it in my main wonder-production city, I've tried it several times.

I tend to finish my games between 1875-1925AD, so I could see how playing till a later date you could get more benefit from it. If I had a nice food-city with alot of forests I might opt this approach.

I almost ALWAYS build oracle, pyramids, ToA, Great Library before I'd have any time to capture/develop another city with good food. With these four wonders, I'm getting (+2, +2, +3 +2, +3 +3, = +15 GPP) before any other city has chance at prodcing any, and as the game progessess I tend to keep building more and more wonders in my capital hence raising the value further of having NE there. My capital is also always my first city to have a forge/library to hire more specialists and thus farm the first 5GP very eary and fast in the game, and most often your capital is a good food city anyways (moreso after settling great merchants).

 

[cheffster]

Very often it's not worth to build NE at all.

Hrrm???
You mean if you decide to build no wonders or farm GP.