Tweet
As far as I understand, rushing with slavery works like this: for every guy you kill you get 30 hammers. I.e if you are rushing an axeman which costs 35 hammers it will expend 2 citizens, but you will not actually lose these shields because they will carry over as production overflow. Rushing something that has not started building seems more expensive than rushing something that has been started, so generally: don't do that!
Okay: so you grow a guy for 22 food(cost of first citizen) and you kill him for 30 hammers. If you make a cycle out of this, you will get an influx of 30 hammers every 11 turns for your 2 food surpluss, which is a standard surpluss. This strategy will yield 2.727 hammers per turn if you do it continually, and eat away your surpluss of 2 food.
What's the alternative cost? well, you could grow that guy and use the 2 food to support a miner for 4 shields per turn. However, there are some additional requirements for this alternative strategy, you need a worker and 4 worker turns for the mine!
Let's say you have a 4 food surpluss and will grow a new guy every 5.5 turns(actually, every 6th and 5th turn then) This will net you (30/5.5)= 5.45 hammers per turn, which is double what you get from the 2 surpluss scenario.
That looks a little better, but is it? Alternatively, you could grow the city twice, and use the 4 food to support 2 miners, for a total of 8 hammers per turn.
Let's say you have a granary, which will reduce the food required to 11. This will effectively halve the time to get a new citizen.
A 2 food surpluss with granary will give growth every 5.5 turns, i.e (30/5.5)=5.45 hammers per turn. This is better than working a mine for 4 hammers per turn, if you can live with the happiness hit! Another advantage is that this can keep your city under health/happiness limits more effectively perhaps.
A 4 food surpluss with granary will give growth every 2.75 turns, which means 10.91 hammers per turn in a continuous strategy, which is double that of the 2food-granary scenario. This is again better than working 2 mines for 8.
So, as we can see, pop-rushing without a granary does not make sense as part of a long term production strategy. It does make a lot of sense with a granary however, beating the output of a mine. We must also remember the turn advantage effect, getting 30 hammers every x turns is a lot better than getting a stream of shields from a mine, because those 30 instant shields can be added to a building immediately increasing your output.
There is also the 'option' value in slavery: if you see some badguys at your borders, you can pop rush an archer or something to defend yourself. This option also has value, potentially huge value if your city is undefended.
Conclusion:
slavery pop rushing with granary is a good long term production strategy if you can handle the unhappiness, and has potentially huge option value. General rule: allways switch to slavery when it becomes available, if just for the option value. losing a few citizens to make an archer is better than losing the whole city!
Okay: so you grow a guy for 22 food(cost of first citizen) and you kill him for 30 hammers. If you make a cycle out of this, you will get an influx of 30 hammers every 11 turns for your 2 food surpluss, which is a standard surpluss. This strategy will yield 2.727 hammers per turn if you do it continually, and eat away your surpluss of 2 food.
What's the alternative cost? well, you could grow that guy and use the 2 food to support a miner for 4 shields per turn. However, there are some additional requirements for this alternative strategy, you need a worker and 4 worker turns for the mine!
Let's say you have a 4 food surpluss and will grow a new guy every 5.5 turns(actually, every 6th and 5th turn then) This will net you (30/5.5)= 5.45 hammers per turn, which is double what you get from the 2 surpluss scenario.
That looks a little better, but is it? Alternatively, you could grow the city twice, and use the 4 food to support 2 miners, for a total of 8 hammers per turn.
Let's say you have a granary, which will reduce the food required to 11. This will effectively halve the time to get a new citizen.
A 2 food surpluss with granary will give growth every 5.5 turns, i.e (30/5.5)=5.45 hammers per turn. This is better than working a mine for 4 hammers per turn, if you can live with the happiness hit! Another advantage is that this can keep your city under health/happiness limits more effectively perhaps.
A 4 food surpluss with granary will give growth every 2.75 turns, which means 10.91 hammers per turn in a continuous strategy, which is double that of the 2food-granary scenario. This is again better than working 2 mines for 8.
So, as we can see, pop-rushing without a granary does not make sense as part of a long term production strategy. It does make a lot of sense with a granary however, beating the output of a mine. We must also remember the turn advantage effect, getting 30 hammers every x turns is a lot better than getting a stream of shields from a mine, because those 30 instant shields can be added to a building immediately increasing your output.
There is also the 'option' value in slavery: if you see some badguys at your borders, you can pop rush an archer or something to defend yourself. This option also has value, potentially huge value if your city is undefended.
Conclusion:
slavery pop rushing with granary is a good long term production strategy if you can handle the unhappiness, and has potentially huge option value. General rule: allways switch to slavery when it becomes available, if just for the option value. losing a few citizens to make an archer is better than losing the whole city!
Comment