obviously slavery is pretty darn good at small city sizes but as you get monarchy what is the correct way to whip, since you basically have infinite happiness, is it even good to whip? Also how do you most effecinet produce axemen/spearmen(normal speed) with happiness cap 4/5 using slavery(for example with the above example).
Whipping cycles
- Thread starter Quechua
- Start date
EDIT: oops meant to post this in the other thread.
Moderator Action: Moved.
I wanted to just ignore this before, since it has nothing to do with whipping itself, but let me explain why this isn't a useful way to think about it... It seems to make sense, a grassland mine costs 1 food to run and gives you 3 hammers, a 1:3 ratio. Plains hill mines and plains forests have 1:2 ratios.
What about food neutral tiles? Uh-oh, a grassland forest gives you 1 hammer for no food. Actually the division by zero sort of makes sense, in the absence of population caps, you can run as many grassland forests as you want, for infinite production.
This underscores that this way of thinking is most useful when we ignore population caps, ignore food neutral tiles, and our surplus is fixed.
What if you have excess surplus food and a small population cap, do you want to run grassland or plains mines?
What if we have grassland lumbermills? With a 6 food surplus, we can run 6 grassland mines, or run 3 plains mines and 3 grassland lumbermills, for the same production per population.
Here's how I (and presumably Krikkitone and Vale) think about it:
A citizen working a forest gives you 1 hammer, a mine gives you 2 hammers, both regardless of terrain. The terrain can convert your food surplus to hammers in a 1:1 ratio.
Now if we have a fixed food surplus, no lumbermills, and a high enough cap to run everything, grassland mines do seem to be better than plains hill mines. How do I explain this?
We can run more grassland hills than plains hills before the food surplus is spent. Once the food surplus is spent we must use food neutral tiles, which only give 1 hammer per pop at this point in the game. This is not an intrinsic advantage of grassland mines, it is simply budgeting your surplus to run as many 2 hammer tiles as you can.
Moderator Action: Moved.
I wanted to just ignore this before, since it has nothing to do with whipping itself, but let me explain why this isn't a useful way to think about it... It seems to make sense, a grassland mine costs 1 food to run and gives you 3 hammers, a 1:3 ratio. Plains hill mines and plains forests have 1:2 ratios.
What about food neutral tiles? Uh-oh, a grassland forest gives you 1 hammer for no food. Actually the division by zero sort of makes sense, in the absence of population caps, you can run as many grassland forests as you want, for infinite production.
This underscores that this way of thinking is most useful when we ignore population caps, ignore food neutral tiles, and our surplus is fixed.
What if you have excess surplus food and a small population cap, do you want to run grassland or plains mines?
What if we have grassland lumbermills? With a 6 food surplus, we can run 6 grassland mines, or run 3 plains mines and 3 grassland lumbermills, for the same production per population.
Here's how I (and presumably Krikkitone and Vale) think about it:
A citizen working a forest gives you 1 hammer, a mine gives you 2 hammers, both regardless of terrain. The terrain can convert your food surplus to hammers in a 1:1 ratio.
Now if we have a fixed food surplus, no lumbermills, and a high enough cap to run everything, grassland mines do seem to be better than plains hill mines. How do I explain this?
We can run more grassland hills than plains hills before the food surplus is spent. Once the food surplus is spent we must use food neutral tiles, which only give 1 hammer per pop at this point in the game. This is not an intrinsic advantage of grassland mines, it is simply budgeting your surplus to run as many 2 hammer tiles as you can.
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
How about this:
whipping requires (10+city size) food and yields 30 hammers, and it costs you 10 turns of 1 less tile. Assuming that your food surplus isn't so high that you can't get lower than 2/turn up at size n-1, that's 20 hammers for a 1 pop whip and costing (9+city size) food, 50 for a 2 pop whip and costing (17+2*city size) food and a bit of extra production.
So at happy cap 5, you should be a little less than 50 production for 27 food.
I think the problem with the example is that you have too much food to whip, and you're expecting that extra food to convert by whip to hammers.
whipping requires (10+city size) food and yields 30 hammers, and it costs you 10 turns of 1 less tile. Assuming that your food surplus isn't so high that you can't get lower than 2/turn up at size n-1, that's 20 hammers for a 1 pop whip and costing (9+city size) food, 50 for a 2 pop whip and costing (17+2*city size) food and a bit of extra production.
So at happy cap 5, you should be a little less than 50 production for 27 food.
I think the problem with the example is that you have too much food to whip, and you're expecting that extra food to convert by whip to hammers.
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
Basically, you're averaging normal 1:1 conversion with the slavery conversion and coming up with something in between. Here are a few extreme examples to show the flaws in this:
Extreme example 1: You have a 100 food resource, typical size 5 city. You should have something on the order of 2000 extra production with slavery, while in reality, you still have something like 60.
Extreme example 2: You have a 6 food resource and 4 grassland farms, for a surplus of 10 food, 1 production. At 2:1, and with various forested tiles, you should ideally get 21 production/turn.
Base example: size 5 city. We're only going to have our granary food from growing from size 4, so that's 14 food. Whip for 2, 26 food needed to grow, so 12 more.
T S G F F.N YieldF YieldP Aggregate P
0 5 0 14 30
0 3 0 14 26 8 1 61
1 3 8 22 26 4 5 66
2 4 0 12 28 2 8 72
3 4 2 14 28 2 8 80
4 4 4 16 28 2 8 88
5 4 6 18 28 2 8 96
6 4 8 20 28 2 8 104
7 4 10 22 28 2 8 112
8 4 12 24 28 2 8 120
9 4 14 26 28 2 8 128
10 5 0 14 30
Note your original post has an extra turn of production
Bonus over size 5 city: 18, or 60-10-2-27 ~ 21, 4 food lost to granary inefficiencies.
Size 4 city. I have no corn, only 2 grassland farms and the rest forests.
T S G F N YF YP Aggregate P
0 4 0 13 28
0 2 0 13 24 4 1 61
1 2 4 17 24 4 1 62
2 2 8 21 24 4 1 63
3 3 0 13 26 2 4 67
4 3 2 15 26 2 4 71
5 3 4 17 26 2 4 75
6 3 6 19 26 2 4 79
7 3 8 21 26 2 4 83
8 3 10 23 26 2 4 87
9 3 12 25 26 1 5 92
10 4 0
Whereas a size 4 city working 2 grassland forests and 2 plains forests yields 70 production. We gain 22 production from a 2 food bonus, while size 5 with a 6 food source only gains us 18?
In fact, I guarantee that with only 3 grassland farms, you have an almost identical max production. Why? Because you can only convert 27 food, which over 10 turns is < 3 food/turn.
Does this mean food is overrated? Not quite, it means it is restricted by how much many pop you can whip and later on, if you have more happiness than tiles.
Extreme example 1: You have a 100 food resource, typical size 5 city. You should have something on the order of 2000 extra production with slavery, while in reality, you still have something like 60.
Extreme example 2: You have a 6 food resource and 4 grassland farms, for a surplus of 10 food, 1 production. At 2:1, and with various forested tiles, you should ideally get 21 production/turn.
Base example: size 5 city. We're only going to have our granary food from growing from size 4, so that's 14 food. Whip for 2, 26 food needed to grow, so 12 more.
T S G F F.N YieldF YieldP Aggregate P
0 5 0 14 30
0 3 0 14 26 8 1 61
1 3 8 22 26 4 5 66
2 4 0 12 28 2 8 72
3 4 2 14 28 2 8 80
4 4 4 16 28 2 8 88
5 4 6 18 28 2 8 96
6 4 8 20 28 2 8 104
7 4 10 22 28 2 8 112
8 4 12 24 28 2 8 120
9 4 14 26 28 2 8 128
10 5 0 14 30
Note your original post has an extra turn of production
Bonus over size 5 city: 18, or 60-10-2-27 ~ 21, 4 food lost to granary inefficiencies.
Size 4 city. I have no corn, only 2 grassland farms and the rest forests.
T S G F N YF YP Aggregate P
0 4 0 13 28
0 2 0 13 24 4 1 61
1 2 4 17 24 4 1 62
2 2 8 21 24 4 1 63
3 3 0 13 26 2 4 67
4 3 2 15 26 2 4 71
5 3 4 17 26 2 4 75
6 3 6 19 26 2 4 79
7 3 8 21 26 2 4 83
8 3 10 23 26 2 4 87
9 3 12 25 26 1 5 92
10 4 0
Whereas a size 4 city working 2 grassland forests and 2 plains forests yields 70 production. We gain 22 production from a 2 food bonus, while size 5 with a 6 food source only gains us 18?
In fact, I guarantee that with only 3 grassland farms, you have an almost identical max production. Why? Because you can only convert 27 food, which over 10 turns is < 3 food/turn.
Does this mean food is overrated? Not quite, it means it is restricted by how much many pop you can whip and later on, if you have more happiness than tiles.
@vicawoo
This is a very long thread and I understand that you didn't read it all. I made this same point at least 3 different times. The necessity of stagnating to avoid growing to unhappiness is the main problem with naively evaluating the production value of surplus food using the food per pop ratio. FWIW, I didn't originally see the point you are making when I made my first post, but realized it soon after.
This is a very long thread and I understand that you didn't read it all. I made this same point at least 3 different times. The necessity of stagnating to avoid growing to unhappiness is the main problem with naively evaluating the production value of surplus food using the food per pop ratio. FWIW, I didn't originally see the point you are making when I made my first post, but realized it soon after.
I guess all analysis are bound to be flawed.
IMHO you should not see slavery as the main way to convert food to hammers.
It makes no sense to do so for one very easy to understand reason :
you can only grow 1 pop/turn, thus capping your hammer output at 30, which isn't very high in the mid/end game.
OTOH, 30 hammers/turn in the early game is rather high. But it's unsustainable : it would require to either stack unhappiness to ungodly numbers or whip for 10 pop points every 10 turns, which is certainly not going to happen, first because there aren't any 300 hammers things to whip, and secondly because it would require size 20 cities, which you won't have.
Conclusion : slavery should not be the main production source.
If it's not the main production source, what is it good for :
- getting things done faster, even if it's not as efficient
- getting some production in cities otherwise light on hammers (the infamous happy whipping of units under HR comes to my mind, with overflow going into the globe theater, to set your units free in the end)
- being able to use only good/improved tiles all the time (What's the point of growing to size 10, when you only have 8 worthwhile tiles to work?)
IMHO you should not see slavery as the main way to convert food to hammers.
It makes no sense to do so for one very easy to understand reason :
you can only grow 1 pop/turn, thus capping your hammer output at 30, which isn't very high in the mid/end game.
OTOH, 30 hammers/turn in the early game is rather high. But it's unsustainable : it would require to either stack unhappiness to ungodly numbers or whip for 10 pop points every 10 turns, which is certainly not going to happen, first because there aren't any 300 hammers things to whip, and secondly because it would require size 20 cities, which you won't have.
Conclusion : slavery should not be the main production source.
If it's not the main production source, what is it good for :
- getting things done faster, even if it's not as efficient
- getting some production in cities otherwise light on hammers (the infamous happy whipping of units under HR comes to my mind, with overflow going into the globe theater, to set your units free in the end)
- being able to use only good/improved tiles all the time (What's the point of growing to size 10, when you only have 8 worthwhile tiles to work?)
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
Not quite, because you're saying that the slavery conversion is worse than it seems. With my lower food example, you're limiting stagnation and therefore improving the "efficiency". By your calculations, that's city center + 2 farms + 2 grassland forests, so +4 food, 3 production, 30 production nothing to do with the farms, so you're getting 62 production for 4 food, for a conversion of >1.5. I could do only one grassland farm, lose some production, yet probably increase my efficiency to something a little less than 60 for 3 food, for something even closer to the 2.0 conversion rate.
You're stating that it's closer to 1 to 1, but that is only true at high food sources because of diminishing returns.
There's three separate points: one that working under the happy cap loses hammers, unhappiness (over the cap) loses food (original two points), and purposefully stagnating loses hammers. My point is purposefully stagnating is causing a fundamentally different problem than the first two, and it has nothing to do with slavery conversion, but you (or maybe everyone) are mixing them together to get different numbers.
And if you add in farms, are you +6 food? +9 food? Maybe it would be more accurate to say you had a +4 food source, or even more accurately, a +3 food (since farms are 3) source.
And for over 130 with a 6 food and 3 grassland farms and various forested tiles (improving on the other size 6 guy):
Turn, Size, Granary, Food, Food needed, Yield food, Yield Production, Aggregate production
T S G F F.N Y.F Y.P A.P
0 6 0 7 32
0 3 0 7 26 8 91 91
1 3 8 15 26 8 1 92
2 3 13 23 26 8 1 93
3 4 0 18 28 9 1 94
4 4 9 27 28 1 9 103
5 4 10 28 28 0 10 113
6 4 10 28 28 0 10 123
7 4 10 28 28 0 10 133
8 4 10 28 28 9 1 134
9 5 0 23 30 7 1 135
10 6 0 7 32
You lose 10 production from happy cap, 3 more from 3 turns at size 3, 2 from 1 turn at size 5. With lots of food, best case scenario is 14 loss from a 3 pop whip.
You're stating that it's closer to 1 to 1, but that is only true at high food sources because of diminishing returns.
There's three separate points: one that working under the happy cap loses hammers, unhappiness (over the cap) loses food (original two points), and purposefully stagnating loses hammers. My point is purposefully stagnating is causing a fundamentally different problem than the first two, and it has nothing to do with slavery conversion, but you (or maybe everyone) are mixing them together to get different numbers.
And if you add in farms, are you +6 food? +9 food? Maybe it would be more accurate to say you had a +4 food source, or even more accurately, a +3 food (since farms are 3) source.
And for over 130 with a 6 food and 3 grassland farms and various forested tiles (improving on the other size 6 guy):
Turn, Size, Granary, Food, Food needed, Yield food, Yield Production, Aggregate production
T S G F F.N Y.F Y.P A.P
0 6 0 7 32
0 3 0 7 26 8 91 91
1 3 8 15 26 8 1 92
2 3 13 23 26 8 1 93
3 4 0 18 28 9 1 94
4 4 9 27 28 1 9 103
5 4 10 28 28 0 10 113
6 4 10 28 28 0 10 123
7 4 10 28 28 0 10 133
8 4 10 28 28 9 1 134
9 5 0 23 30 7 1 135
10 6 0 7 32
You lose 10 production from happy cap, 3 more from 3 turns at size 3, 2 from 1 turn at size 5. With lots of food, best case scenario is 14 loss from a 3 pop whip.
I fully understand that with a lower food surplus (just enough to grow back the pop during 10 turns) the factor of the whipping production averaging with the 1:1 normal food surplus production is minimized.
The question I was asking was how do you evaluate a food surplus for production? I had a 6 food surplus. Naively, I'd expect I'd get something like 12 hammers from that. Now neither you nor I actually believe that, and I was trying to show why it was wrong. In my example, the naive production value of the surplus is decreased mostly because I am forced to only 2-pop whip and then slow my growth rate using the surplus for normal production. I originally didn't recognize that this was more important than the other two factors for my example, but I soon did understand this, and I even emphasized it.
Edit- I never said or implied that having less surplus food was 'better' because you don't have to stagnate, so please stop making me get defensive
vale
Mathematician
I can prove 11.9 is not possible if that helps(but only if I try to make unhappy citizens eat 3 food - oopsie).
First let us dispel the notion that a whip of size 2 or 1 would be sufficient to generate the 119 hammers we need. If we whip for 2, thats 60 hammers, so the remainder of the (max 4) population will need to produce 59 hammers over the course of the 10 turns. As there are no tiles that produce 2 hammers in the BFC, they cannot produce more than 50 hammers. Obviously this also eliminates a population 1 whip from consideration.
It also cannot be a 4 pop whip. To regrow from that we would need at least 60 food over 10 turns all while supporting up to 3 unhappy citizens. Impossible with these tiles.
So its a 3 pop whip if anything. We are starting and ending on the same food value or the term whip cycle is meaningless. To minimize our turns spent in unhappiness, lets make it population 6 with 15/32 in the granary (i.e. we just barely grew to population 6 on the prior turn). So turn 0 (the turn we whip), we have 15/32 food and we should have 15/32 food at the start of turn 10.
Working backwards from turn 10, it is apparent that we should minimize the time spent at population 5 (with an unhappy citizen). So turns 7, 8, and 9 were spent working nothing but farms for a net gain of 4 food(doh! it is 5 food) and 1 hammer each turn bringing us from a start of 18/30 food at the start of turn 7 to 15/32 food at the start of turn 10. These 3 turns generated 3 hammers.
Turn 6 is the last turn we spent working without unhappiness, and to reach the 18/30 food on the following turn it had to start the turn with at least 25/28 food. But now it is apparent that it is best from here out to optimize the time spent at population 4. So, it is safe to assume that they started the turn at 27/28 food and worked the good farm, one other farm, and 2 forests to get the required food and an additional 3 hammers.
Now the problem becomes simple: we have 6 turns to get from 15/26 food (post-whip) to exactly 27/28 food (need exactly 25 food for that). One possibility which is to maximize use of the good farm over everything else leads to this: our good farm and the center tile give us a base of +4 food a turn so that alone can account for 24 of the 25 food necessary, so our turn 0 will be spent working one bad farm, while every other population turn in this time period not spent on the good farm will be on a forest. Just running through the numbers that gives us +2 hammers from turn 0, +3 hammers from turns 1 and 2, and +4 hammers from turns 3, 4, and 5. Thats a total of +20 hammers from these turns to go with the 3 hammers from turn 6 and the 3 total hammers from turns 7, 8, and 9. These 26 hammers combined with the 90 hammers from the whip give us a total of 116, 3 short of the 119 mentioned.
The other possibility is to get to the best population of 4 as soon as possible while ignoring the ramifications of not being able to work our best tile for a turn or two. This leads to the same 116 (won't do the math, but we gain an extra turn on a tile, but it costs us a turn on the good farm instead of a forest so we break even).
Starting at 16/32 or 17/32 food (the only other start values that permit the same minimum number of turns in unhappy states) does not help (can get 116 but no higher with either of them). Starting at even higher food values does not help since you then must spend more time in an inefficient unhappy state.
Edited to add: based on the number you provided, and the numbers I generated, I suspect that you are storing too much food from the granary. It only stores half the food from the prior population (so going from population 3 to 4 it only stores 13 food). If you were storing one extra food for each growth in your calculations, that could explain the 3 extra hammers.
First let us dispel the notion that a whip of size 2 or 1 would be sufficient to generate the 119 hammers we need. If we whip for 2, thats 60 hammers, so the remainder of the (max 4) population will need to produce 59 hammers over the course of the 10 turns. As there are no tiles that produce 2 hammers in the BFC, they cannot produce more than 50 hammers. Obviously this also eliminates a population 1 whip from consideration.
It also cannot be a 4 pop whip. To regrow from that we would need at least 60 food over 10 turns all while supporting up to 3 unhappy citizens. Impossible with these tiles.
So its a 3 pop whip if anything. We are starting and ending on the same food value or the term whip cycle is meaningless. To minimize our turns spent in unhappiness, lets make it population 6 with 15/32 in the granary (i.e. we just barely grew to population 6 on the prior turn). So turn 0 (the turn we whip), we have 15/32 food and we should have 15/32 food at the start of turn 10.
Working backwards from turn 10, it is apparent that we should minimize the time spent at population 5 (with an unhappy citizen). So turns 7, 8, and 9 were spent working nothing but farms for a net gain of 4 food(doh! it is 5 food) and 1 hammer each turn bringing us from a start of 18/30 food at the start of turn 7 to 15/32 food at the start of turn 10. These 3 turns generated 3 hammers.
Turn 6 is the last turn we spent working without unhappiness, and to reach the 18/30 food on the following turn it had to start the turn with at least 25/28 food. But now it is apparent that it is best from here out to optimize the time spent at population 4. So, it is safe to assume that they started the turn at 27/28 food and worked the good farm, one other farm, and 2 forests to get the required food and an additional 3 hammers.
Now the problem becomes simple: we have 6 turns to get from 15/26 food (post-whip) to exactly 27/28 food (need exactly 25 food for that). One possibility which is to maximize use of the good farm over everything else leads to this: our good farm and the center tile give us a base of +4 food a turn so that alone can account for 24 of the 25 food necessary, so our turn 0 will be spent working one bad farm, while every other population turn in this time period not spent on the good farm will be on a forest. Just running through the numbers that gives us +2 hammers from turn 0, +3 hammers from turns 1 and 2, and +4 hammers from turns 3, 4, and 5. Thats a total of +20 hammers from these turns to go with the 3 hammers from turn 6 and the 3 total hammers from turns 7, 8, and 9. These 26 hammers combined with the 90 hammers from the whip give us a total of 116, 3 short of the 119 mentioned.
The other possibility is to get to the best population of 4 as soon as possible while ignoring the ramifications of not being able to work our best tile for a turn or two. This leads to the same 116 (won't do the math, but we gain an extra turn on a tile, but it costs us a turn on the good farm instead of a forest so we break even).
Starting at 16/32 or 17/32 food (the only other start values that permit the same minimum number of turns in unhappy states) does not help (can get 116 but no higher with either of them). Starting at even higher food values does not help since you then must spend more time in an inefficient unhappy state.
Edited to add: based on the number you provided, and the numbers I generated, I suspect that you are storing too much food from the granary. It only stores half the food from the prior population (so going from population 3 to 4 it only stores 13 food). If you were storing one extra food for each growth in your calculations, that could explain the 3 extra hammers.
I had 5 food 1 hammer, that's why it fell short 3 hammers
This is the way I thought it out before I actually tried it...
In our 'good' setup at pop 5 we work the flood plain and 4 grassland forests for 40 food and 50 hammers after 10 turns.
-It takes 42 food to regrow the lost pop, so we need to switch a couple forests to farms costing us 2
.-Being stuck at 4 costs us 10
.-We will spend at least 2 turns at 3, costing us 2
-To slow growth we must either trade the floodplain farm for a forest, or spend additional turn at 3, costing us 1
-We spend 3 unhappy turns for 6
90 + 50 - 2 -10 - 2 - 1 - 6 = 119
vale
Mathematician
It is 5 food 1 hammer my bad. Don't know what was going on but somehow very early on I told myself the best you could do there was 4/1. Yes your calculations are correct. Thinking about it in terms of production (food + hammers):
Whip gives you 90-42.
Center tile gives you 10(3) = 30
Good farm gives you 10(2) = 20 if you can arrange to work it for the entire cycle
2 other tiles give you 10(1) since you will never be below population 3
one other tile gives you Y(1) where Y is the number of turns at population 4 or above.
unhappy citizen gives you X(-2) where X is the number of turns spent at population 5.
Total is 118 + Y - 2X and since it can be arranged to make Y=7, X=3, the total is 119. (Not quite, what can really be done is make it Y=8, X=3 and lose a turn off the good farm)
Daedal
Prince
If I remember correctly, mined grassland hills give 1
3. So if we mine the three hills north of the city and work those as well as one forest plot we can either sustain population or grow very slowly while getting 11/turn. This requires no precise timing or planning. Are the extra 0.9/turn really worth it?
3. So if we mine the three hills north of the city and work those as well as one forest plot we can either sustain population or grow very slowly while getting 11/turn. This requires no precise timing or planning. Are the extra 0.9/turn really worth it?
vale
Mathematician
First of all, what hills? Second of all, yes it would be worth it for several reasons.
1. 0.9 hammers per turn over the course of a game adds up
2. The whipping hammers come front-loaded so you get your stuff out faster.
3. If these hills actually existed, they would increase the output of whipping as well so the actual gain would be more than just 0.9 hammers. By that I mean, any time our cycle included 2 turns of a forest, we could replace that with one turn of a farm, and one turn of a mine and gain one hammer.
Yes, using slavery optimally is time consuming, but sometimes it is important to squeeze every last drop out of your empire.
1. 0.9 hammers per turn over the course of a game adds up
2. The whipping hammers come front-loaded so you get your stuff out faster.
3. If these hills actually existed, they would increase the output of whipping as well so the actual gain would be more than just 0.9 hammers. By that I mean, any time our cycle included 2 turns of a forest, we could replace that with one turn of a farm, and one turn of a mine and gain one hammer.
Yes, using slavery optimally is time consuming, but sometimes it is important to squeeze every last drop out of your empire.
Daedal
Prince
Hrm I thought I saw three hills up there where the shadows are...eyes must be playing tricks on me. Anyway it seems that whipping is only optimal when it's timed just right. If you're going to whip 3 pop you need to be building something that's going to cost 3 pop to whip. And it's even trickier to use the whip to accelerate wonders effectively.
starting at size 4 27/28 food. whip 2 pop. 27/24 3+12 from granary +4 from floodplain +1 from farm give 20/26 then work 3 farms for +6 getting you to 13/28 then you need 14 more food over 8 turns working 3*hill+floodplain gives +1 food and +9 hammers 2 hills floodplain + farm gives +3 food +6 hammers which means 3 turns of 2 farms and 5 turns of 3 hills and floodplain.
60 base + 10 from city center + 5*9+3*6 = 133
This is only with two pop whip and never actually growing to size 5 though. still 13.3 > 13 though.
That is also starting one pop lower so would be 127 from working only mines... 13.3>12.7. where does it lose hammers
2 pop from first turn 2 pop from second turn and 1 pop next 8 turns with 2 hammer/food per is 12*2=24 3+1+2 farms worked is another 6. 12+13 is the food used
60-12-13-6-24=5
so it is actually one less than the 6 hammers difference since the mine only example spend one food growing too. net result: 5 hammers from doing 2 pop whips instead of working only mines.
notice that in this example you can actually work all farms one turn instead of 2 mines+1farm 3 turns(allways work the floodplain of course) which makes it very good for making an army of spears and axes as you will allways be able to whip two pop.
60 base + 10 from city center + 5*9+3*6 = 133
This is only with two pop whip and never actually growing to size 5 though. still 13.3 > 13 though.
That is also starting one pop lower so would be 127 from working only mines... 13.3>12.7. where does it lose hammers
2 pop from first turn 2 pop from second turn and 1 pop next 8 turns with 2 hammer/food per is 12*2=24 3+1+2 farms worked is another 6. 12+13 is the food used
60-12-13-6-24=5
so it is actually one less than the 6 hammers difference since the mine only example spend one food growing too. net result: 5 hammers from doing 2 pop whips instead of working only mines.
notice that in this example you can actually work all farms one turn instead of 2 mines+1farm 3 turns(allways work the floodplain of course) which makes it very good for making an army of spears and axes as you will allways be able to whip two pop.
I'm a pretty smart guy, but all these numbers and whipping theories are giving me a headache. I would like to know more about if I should whip in the early game. Usually when I have a city with 2 or 3 food bonuses and a 5 or 6 happy cap, I think about using all the extra food for production via whipping. Should I pretty much never whip if I don't fully understand the numbers and benefits of it?
Similar threads
