Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assessing the value of workers time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Assessing the value of workers time

    While we’re discussing the relative values of food, hammers and commerce, I thought it might be useful to apply this theory to the question of worker actions. Here I’ll be looking only at those “basic” improvements that can be made in the early stages because these have far and away the biggest influences on the game. I’ll also be using figures based on Epic speed so you’ll need to make a few small adjustments to convert to Standard or Marathon – although the conclusions should be the same.

    I’ll also be looking at “time value” of specific resources to take into account what will be gained from the worker actions over a long period. In very simple terms this says that 1 food now is worth more than 1 food in x turns.

    In more general terms I can define three sets of values

    F(t) = The value of 1 unit of food in turn t
    H(t) = The value of 1 unit of production in turn t
    C(t) = The value of 1 unit of commerce in turn t

    So something simple like a farm can be expressed in the following way

    F(1) + F(2) + F(3) + …… + F(N)

    N is some arbitrary term limit that I have placed on measurements which is limited to the maximum number of turns in the game. We can also allow for the worker build time remove the first few terms and then value the worker time by dividing this total value by the number of worker turns required.

    Something more complicated like a cottage will be equal to (allow for Epic speed build times and cottage growth times)

    C(6) + C(7) + ….+ C(20) + 2 x [C(21) + C(22) +….+C(50)] + 3 x [C(51)+ ……]

    We can also allow for other factors in the calculations here which reflect tech or civic effects on the different values generated by the improvements.

    Now that I’ve complicated matters, I’ll simplify them a lot to first come up with some numbers. The first term I want to get is a single exchange rate for food, hammers and commerce. In fact here everything will be translated into gold at the following rates

    1 food = 3 gold
    1 hammer = 1.5 gold
    1 commerce = 1 gold

    For reference I will also calculate the figures using Blake’s exchange rates to see how they compare.

    I will ignore any effect of multipliers.

    Finally, I will assume a fixed interest rate of 2% per turn. The 2% is a very arbitrary number so there’s really no basis for it except to say that we should easily be able to generate these sorts of growth rates on our Civ investments at Epic speed. For comparison, the rate used for Marathon speed would be 1% and that used for standard would be 3%.

    So for those interested in the detailed formulae, some examples of the terms above, expressed in turns of gold, would be C(1) = 1/1.02 and F(3) = 3 / [1.02*1.02*1.02]

    I’m probably losing a lot of you here so I’ll cut to the chase and value improvements now. Let’s start with the seeing what would happen if we farmed a river plain right next to our capital.

    F(8) + F(9) + …….

    = 130.6g

    Since it takes 8 turns to complete this, the “value” added by each worker turn is 130.6g/8 = 16.3g.

    Let’s look at that again!!!! We’ve just finished a worker and all it does is put down a pathetic little farm next to our capital. Every turn spent on this mediocre improvement is generating 16.3g for us and this cost us a mere 90 hammer/food combo. If the worker can just manage this for another 100 turns, it will have been worth something in the region of 800 gold!!! With figures like these you can see why many people might play worker first strategies.

    Next it’s the cottage and I will assume that the +1c from Printing Press and +2c from Free Speech does get added after 250 turns and 350 turns respectively. In fact this assumption adds almost no extra value to the cottage build because it is so far distant.

    The cottage still works out to be valued at 118.8g and at 6 turns the worker is adding value at a rate of 19.8g per turn. Our first worker’s value has just shot up to the region of 1000 gold!! Not only do you want to build one quickly but it’s worth declaring war just to steal a worker from your nearest neighbour.

    Third, the mine although here I want to make a small adjustment. Although the worker action generates 2h, this is not a tile that we would normally be working. I’ll be generous and assume that we would otherwise work a 2/0/0 tile so the added value of the mine is actually –1/+3/0 which converts at my rate to 1.5gpt. Also the mine actually takes 7 turns to build since one turn is expended in moving to the hill. The value of the mine comes to 66.6g and the worker generates value at 9.5gpt. Once again I think this confirms what we already know that our worker action to build a mine is going to be some way down our list of priorities.

    Moving through the main resource improvements we might see at this stage the values created for each turn spent working on the improvement are as follows

    Pigs: 67.9gpt
    Wheat/Corm 32.6gpt (49.0gpt if irrigated)
    Rice 15.3gpt (32.6gpt if irrigated)
    Gold (Plains Hill) 34.9gpt
    Gems (Grassland Hill) 38.1gpt
    Cows 45.3gpt
    Horses: 30.2gpt
    Sheep(Plains): 52.8gpt
    Copper(Plains Hill) : 19.0gpt
    Ivory (Plains) : 18.9gpt

    I did say that I would show the values using Blake’s exchange rates but now I think that this would just be throwing more obscure numbers into the mix. Given that the only variation we have is in the rate of conversion to commerce, it obvious that the only changes will be that all expressions of food and hammers will fall when expressed in these terms.

    When it comes to the actually ranking of these improvements most of the resources stay more or less in the same place although grassland hills gems moves just above cows while ivory becomes more worthwhile to improve the copper (if the copper tile produces less food). Probably more noticeable is the relative value of cottages and farms with the latter being around two-thirds as valuable an improvement as the former.

    To close, let’s now try to value that worker or ours and assume we have pigs, gold, horse to improve. After that the worker spends all its time building cottages. Using the numbers from Blake’s figures, this worker is worth, at the time it is built, 2,082 gold. In my book that’s more than you’d probably get from a GP!!

  • #2
    Wow, excellent analysis couerdelion!

    Has anyone ever posted an a discussion on the lost opporutinity of whipping population? It seems to me that once a population point is whipped that you forever lose what productivity it would have created until your pop cap is reached. Yet everyone is a big fan of whipping.

    Comment


    • #3
      So, the act of generating +1 food where you want/need it, is no

      longer called idiotic?

      I knew it, and I also knew that you knew.

      Best regards,

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stickyman
        Wow, excellent analysis couerdelion!

        Has anyone ever posted an a discussion on the lost opporutinity of whipping population? It seems to me that once a population point is whipped that you forever lose what productivity it would have created until your pop cap is reached. Yet everyone is a big fan of whipping.
        You can look at whipping in other ways than this and it does depend on population caps and available tiles. But rather than look at the hammers gained from whipping (or perhaps lost) from whipping, it is perhaps also worth looking at what is actually gained from the whipped building/unit.

        The best example I can think of would be a granary where a 3 food surplus, 3 hammer city could get the granary finished 14 turns earlier (Epic speed) by whipping. Those 14 turns, the food is almost doubled so that the city gets an extra 42 food. The whipped granary city will easily catch up with the one that builds it slowly and it will also have more hammers going towards the next build.

        Actually there is another example. Whipping that first worker pays of so well that a bee-line to Bronze and a whipped worker is a strong opener for any civ with Mining.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow, I love this sort of analysis. Makes me feel like I'm back in the days of SMAC working out the economics again. Thank you oh Lion-hearted one!

          I must ask however, how did you choose your inflation rate? It's a pretty major effect on your equation and being off by a percentage point or two could radically change the results by over or under-valuing future returns.

          I don't have anything I object to mind you. Just a gut hunch that your results are a bit high in the return on a worker and that the inflation rate may be where that's coming from.

          -Absimiliard of the sig-less sig
          Cool sigs are for others. I'm just a llama.

          Comment


          • #6


            My brain is mush from work, but I plan to give this a thorough read-thru when I get home...in the scan I did tho, it sure looks good, and makes a VERY strong case for worker first openings (I'd argue that a rush to Bronze/worker is a strong opener even if you don't start with mining--provided you have something constructive for the worker to do, of course--BW is still the early game tech to beat IMO...just opens so many doors).

            And if you start with Mining and the Wheel (Mansa)...it'd take a whoooooole lot to convince me to go to something other than BW first. In practice, as Mansa, I don't believe I ever have...it's just the right play.

            -=Vel=-
            The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stickyman
              Wow, excellent analysis couerdelion!

              Has anyone ever posted an a discussion on the lost opporutinity of whipping population? It seems to me that once a population point is whipped that you forever lose what productivity it would have created until your pop cap is reached. Yet everyone is a big fan of whipping.
              Humm I've thought about it a lot but never properly posted it.

              In short, you shouldn't whip a city unless one of the following conditions are true:
              1) The build will increase growth (ie granary, or +health in an unhealthy city, or possibly a worker)

              2) The city is already at or above the happy cap - in this case be sure to kill 2 or more population, preferably more if the city grows fast.

              3) The city is training a worker or settler, has a granary, and is small. Generally in this case it's better to turn food into pop then whip the pop than to put food directly towards the worker/settler (better in absolute terms).

              4) The city's workers are on marginal terrain. Here marginal is declared as forest or worse and remember unhealthiness reduces all yields by 1 food - it's worth working a town in an unhealthy city, it's not worth working a forest in an unhealthy city (1-1-0 or 0-2-0 tiles are terrible).

              5) The city has special income from settled Great People, Shrine etc and the building will multiply that income. It may be that the increase in special income will outweigh the income from the tile workers remaining alive for the duration of construction.

              6) You just really need it asap (defensive unit, or wonder).

              Furthermore, one of the following should be true:
              A) There is no existing whip anger.

              B) The whip anger and existing whip anger will fade before the city hits happy caps or the build will increase happy caps (this can be from whipped units conquering new happy resources, or just form whipping temple, forge, marketplace etc).

              C) You just really need it asap.

              Finally, consider this:

              It is not generally worthwhile whipping if it will kill workers on tiles which are 2-2-0, 1-3-0, 0-5-0 or better (remember to consider health). Once you get State Property it is no longer generally worth whipping since a state Property workshop always tends to have at least these yields. Thus whipping does become obsolete.


              You are right that in a city like a fishless-fishing village which grows slowly, that whipping will basically permanently stunt the income from that city. In such a city it is best to whip in the essential infrastructure ASAP then allow it to grow unmolested to happy cap, at which point whipping can resume, or it can be left stagnant with priest/engineer.
              Last edited by Blake; September 14, 2006, 18:53.

              Comment


              • #8

                C) You just really need it asap.


                - I think I've invoked this one quite a lot.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Absiliard, thanks and you're welcome.

                  Regarding inflation, if we put this in economic terms then this is really your risk-free rate of return. So turning that into a Civ context it's what you can basically generate without incurring any risk (or at least adjusted for that risk). As I mentioned, the 2% factor was a crude assumption and it does place a very high value on the worker - it is, of course, resource dependent so if you find you've got the "high-scoring improvements" then worker-first play is going to very strong. But remember that you need the tech and the worker and the resource for the worker to add any value to the tile.

                  There is, of course, another way of calculating the value of any particular build plan and that would be to calculate the internal rate of return - in this case it would be the rate at which the value of the build is zero. If you calculte the internal rate of return on an "alternative" build and then calculated the value of the worker option on that rate of return then the worker will be a better build if it has a positive value - and worse if the value is negative.

                  I made the same calculations with 3% per turn and managed to get a worker value in the region of 400-420gold - this was using a standard 2/1/1 city tile and an available 3/0/1 tile in the immediate vicinity. At 23 turns to build (remember this is Epic speed) this still works out at nearly 20gpt.

                  The only build that I think approaches this in the first move is a scout (for civs with hunting).

                  Vel - Mansa, indeed any civ with Mining always has the alternative approach to research BW, grow, switch to worker and whip it immediately. Mansa just happens to have the advantage of the Wheel tech and Spiritual trait so there's always something for the worker to do and a turn is not lost when switching to slavery. However the time it takes to get to BW can delay the appearance of the worker and this strategy, if there are the right tiles nearby, is basically a rush for the first worker. I started a Mansa game yesterday and had Corn and Gold from the word go. The Agro/Worker start seemed just too obvious. As it was, I popped BW in about the third turn so I could switched to a temporary Warrior build to allow growth and ended up whipping the worker about one turn later than it would have otherwise arrived. That was the easiest slingshot I've ever completed.

                  All- There was a small error in some of my figures originating from a mistake in working out the cottage growth - those give use Standard speed growth. It pushes the figures down a little but does not undermine the worker-first case.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for the confirmation Blake.

                    I've instinctual thought along the same lines, but never set about doing the math.

                    Also, I play on noble, and only very rarely hit the happy cap!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Lionheart: re: Mansa...yep, I agree...there ARE gonna be times and situations where you'll want to run to something else first, but in general, BW is your best friend with this guy.

                      I started ten sample games with Mansa to see how often I'd veer from that path.

                      One game, I had two seafood specials, and was coastal, so I went fishing first.

                      One game, I had both rice and corn, so I went AG.

                      The other eight times, there was no real benefit to waiting, so I went BW first.

                      That pretty well bears out what I intuitively felt about the civ.

                      -=Vel=-
                      The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I looked through Blake's comments yesterday but didn't get time to reply. They are all sensible rules and I think they deserve a thread of their own. There are, of course, a few exceptions to the general rule that was given at the end of the message and these sorts of things were referred to in point 3), 5) and 6)

                        Consider a size 2 city with Cattle 4/2/0 and Copper 2/4/0. It has half-built a granary and should whip this -unless constrained by happiness limits. Although this will lose the use of the copper tile for up to 9 turns (Epic speed), the gain from the granary (around +80% on food surplus) is to huge for this not to be taken now. In general it is a question of what the whipped unit/building will be doing that determines whether or not it is worth whipping. Workers and settlers are also good examples of "high-return" builds.

                        Returning to the workers, the key question to ask is what your worker will be generating. If it has nothing to do then there is no point in building one. Although roads are a useful pastime for workers, these are primarily strategic builds. Even so, if your road link to city 2 is very cheap (say 3-6 worker turns) then the extra 2gpt that is generated gives about the same return as a cottage (in value terms).

                        A note also on cottages. For financial civs, those placed by rivers will be around 50% more efficient from a worker time perspective. So if pottery is obtained quickly, the early worker will be more valuable.

                        Finally, I will need to make some small adjustment to all the figures because I think I have been over-generous is assuming that the "alternative" best tile would be 2/0/0 - I think grassland forest would be more reasonable for early game considerations.

                        A quick comment about early settlers. At first glance, the new city generates the following benefits

                        +2f (city tile)
                        +1h (city tile)
                        +1c (city tile)
                        +2g (if linked)
                        + additional bonuses from worked tiles (including those in the city).
                        - costs of running the city

                        If we have the standard 2/1/0 tile available but assume no bonuses then this city will be giving us additional value of

                        2f + 2h + 1c - 1g = 9gpt

                        It's actually the same we get for improving an irrigated corn tile. But also not much better than the value that we would get if we simply programmed our worker to chop forests (30h/6 turns = 5 hpt = 7.5gpt)

                        But the value can be significantly higher with bonuses. If the city square was a plains hill, the worked tile was a floodplain and the two cities are linked then city 2 will be generating value of

                        3f + 2h + 2c + 2g - 1g = 15gpt

                        So here we get some sort of figure which might enable us to compare the worker vs settler options.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How would the time value of roads to improvements (higher health/happy caps) or to other cities for trade routes be factored in?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Assessing the value of workers time

                            1 food = 3 gold
                            Where do you get that figure? These two resources aren't interconvertible until you have access to specialists.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Re: Assessing the value of workers time

                              Originally posted by uberfish


                              Where do you get that figure? These two resources aren't interconvertible until you have access to specialists.
                              Check out this equating food/production/commerce thread for the detailed discussion.

                              Brael, I think I mentioned something about the first road link being reasonable value if easy to build. In pure economic terms, the benefits of roads are fairly small and these are largely built for strategic reasons.

                              That said, the linking of resources to cities to allow them to grow and work valuable tiles is certainly something that would add value. But I have yet to figure out a way to value this type of benefit. At the moment I'm tempted to ignore the benefits as a value in itself and prefer to see the value in the tiles worked by the extra population we have. In much the same way, I would not value culture at all but rather see the benefit from the extra tiles it allows us to work.

                              I have given a little thought to the rate of return we should be using. There may be some way of determining what sort of return we should be earning simply by looking at how our civ progresses over time.

                              There would be two ways of looking at this: an output-based method and an asset-based method. The asset-based one is superior but a little more complicated. Both methods measure values at different points in time (Turn 1, 51, 101, 201) and simply work out what is the increase achieved per turn over the different periods.

                              Output-based approach

                              Calculate and total for each city(all figures after applying any multipliers:

                              3 x food +1.5 x hammers + beakers + gold

                              If there is no granary in the city use something like 2xfood or even 1.5xfood.

                              Deduct from this total your expenses per turn.

                              This figure is a measure of your total output and the rate at which this increases is one measure of how your civ is growing.

                              Asset-based approach

                              Rather than measure output this looks at the value of what you have at different points in time. Here's a rough and ready approach to quantifying it

                              Cities

                              Calculate the output figure above for each city. Divide this by some sort of target rate of return (eg 2%)

                              Buildings in the city will largely generate their value from what they produce so most get no value for themselves. But some buildings such as barracks, walls, etc which have no effect on city output could be give a simple hammer value and then converted into gold using the h=1.5g factor.

                              Techs

                              The total value of all techs acquired to date including beakers invested in incomplete techs

                              Units

                              Just give these a hammer value equal to the number required to build. Perhaps add some bonus for promotions

                              I am not proposing that any value is placed on less measurable factors such as happiness, resources, culture. These will simply have to be reflected in your total output which gets valued at the city level.

                              As with the output approach, you can see how these are increasing over time to work out a rate of return being generated.


                              Although it may seem that the results can be too influenced by the choice of factors I don't think this is really the case. All these do is weight the relative importance of those items. If you think gold is overvalued then change the factors and you'll get another measure. But I doubt that it will greatly influence the rates of growth being shown.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X