Universal Suffrage v Representation

[couerdelion]

I’ve got a game running at the moment and I am on the verge of acquiring Democracy. Now I had always intended to run Emancipation and Universal Suffrage but I’ve never really been wholly bought over by the idea of taking the 3-5 turn hit for anarchy just to get rapid growth of cottages, a little extra production and the strategic ability to rush buy buildings – perhaps the fact that Kremlin is just a few turns away has clouded my judgment because it seems now a bit of a waste to have built it.

The rush buy ability is something that seems to have its primary use in getting newly captured cities up and running but if I can run slavery, I can use that also.

The alternative would be Representation and Farms. I not only get a healthy science boost but also a few extra GPs. By contrast, a late-game cottage spam would need to wait 35 turns (53 on Epic speed) before the full benefit of the cottage was acquired. Up to that time, a village gives a mere 4gpt and for 15 of those turns your getting 2gpt or less. Let’s assume the scientist is appointed after 10 turns so the difference in value is (I’ll equate commerce/beakers to gold

Turns 1-5: Cottage +1gpt -> 5g
Turns 6-10 Hamlet +2gpt -> 10g
Turns 11-15 Hamlet-Scientist -4gpt -> -20g
Turns 16-35 Village-Scientist -2gpt -> -40g
Turns 35+ Town – Scientist +1gpt.

If we also value GPP at 1g each and hammers as 1.5g. So here’s the additional scientist benefit if better than the USuff town. If we value GPP at a mere 0.5g each (ie allowing for “wasted” GPP), then the value of the GPP is the same as that of the hammers. All we need now is to add the additional GPP up to the time of the cottage growing to a town = 25 x 3GPP = 37.5g

So by turn 35, the town strategy is in deficit by 82.5g and recovers this by 1gpt. Another 83 turns are needed to make the town pay off more in aggregate, or 118 turns in total. Even this ignores the discounting effect which argues that earlier benefits are greater than later ones.

There are two other factors that I can think of which I have not taking into account here

1) If your cities are “too” large, they may lose food to unhealthiness
2) Towns gain +1h from a golden age (and +1g if they are not next to a river)

If health is not a problem and golden ages are rare, I would be inclined towards the Slavery/Rep route/Biology farms route

[Krill]

well...you aren't taking into account the extra shields you get from towns you already have, nor the happiness hit from slaving constantly (I'm pretty sure you'll have alot of unhappiness if you slave every five or so turns).

The other way of looking at it is you could grow you're population and slave at first, so your enw towns are quite large, then swap to emancipation and keep representation while you cottage everything and start working the cottages. After a fair portion of your cottagaes are towns you can change to uni suff and maybe swap out of emancipation if you have a reason to. Split the stages into growth/ slave adn then gold/buy. "Micro" management on this scale is probably more effecient than just adopting one of the strategies for the entire game; GPP increases do hurt the representaion strat in the late game.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Krill
well...you aren't taking into account the extra shields you get from towns you already have, nor the happiness hit from slaving constantly

I see no reason why anyone would whip continuously. It’s usually not possible because you need population in order to whip our buildings. Often it’s just an initial burst to set the ball rolling is usually enough.

As for the extra hammers per town, I also didn’t take into account the extra GPP from existing specialists/settled GPs so there are points excluded on both sides. In general, I suspect that I undervalued GPP = 0.5g so the evidence is skewed against Rep. One other I also did not considered was the use of Pacifism as a civic option (or the existence of {Parthenon or Sistine Chapel)

The other thing to note is that, at this stage in the game, Biology Farms, State Property Worhshops, Watermills and Windmill provided very respectable production and normally need just one farm to support them. So with production not a serious problem, there seems little need for much rush-building.

[couerdelion]

I took the trouble to do a few calculations to see how the two options compared with each other. Treating the hammer from the town as +1.5g and placing no value on GPPs.

The scenario was a size 15 city with +4 food surplus and just about to grow. The five remaining grassland tiles are either farms (with biology) or cottages. On growth City 1 will be working a new cottage and have +4 food surplus while City 2 will be working another farm and have +6 food surplus. Both cities will finish working all their tiles and then assign scientists until they stop growing.

For ease of comparison, I’ll assume 100% science slider (or at least identical values of beakers and gold). Free Speech has also been adopted but City 1 also has Emancipation and Universal Suffrage. City 2 has Representation and some other Labour civic.

The result is a stream of comparative gold amounts where City 1 starts comfortably ahead. It is not until turn 18 that the specialist city starts generating some science, at which stage, the cottage city is working its third cottage and already has a hamlet and a village.

But the food in specialist city starts turning the tide A mere SIX turns later, the specialists are now working hard and the position is reversed. By turn 33, the specialists are producing 15gpt more than the cottages. The trend continues until the first towns appear and then the cottage city starts recovering its ground to finish with a small gpt advantage over the specialist city.

The difference represents an awkward serious of cashflows (positive-negative-positive). Although the total of all the positive values is greater (ie cottage city has done better), the timing of these cashflows are later (with some being earlier). We can discount the cashflows at different rates to get some sort of idea of the present value and this gives us some interesting results.

Between per turn rates of 2.7% and 6.7%, the specialist cities scores highest while at very low rates the town city is much the stronger option. Personally, I find 2-3% rates more believable so I think this result suggests the cottage-city wins.

But if I put a small value on the GPP. Let’s assume the average cost of a GP will be 2000 GPP, that each GPP is worth 2000gold and that roughly 40% of GPP will never be used. This would mean that 10 GPP generate = 6 GPP used = 6 gold or GPP = 0.6g.

Now the comparison is not even close because the town has such a small advantage over the Rep Scientists but the Rep Scientist beats the USuff Scientist hands down. Only some absurd rate of interest would support that cottage-city option and this would imply that the cottage gain of 51g over turns 1-17 would be more valuable than the scientists gain of 147g over turns 18-30.

Throw in Pacifism and it looks like USuff needs some other scenario for it to be preferable.

[SebP]

I like it. Some points:
- Parthenon effects end with chemistry (Warlords only?)
- Upkeep costs for higher population under the rec scheme
(-0.5G per specialist?)

A minor point in case of really good food:
Not running caste system means only a mix of 10 specialists. which is ok, there's always workshops to be worked

Strategic:
- Farms are more easily replaced in case of raiding than cottages

EDIT: Note this was written before your last post

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by SebP
I like it. Some points:
- Parthenon effects end with chemistry (Warlords only?)
- Upkeep costs for higher population under the rec scheme
(-0.5G per specialist?)

A minor point in case of really good food:
Not running caste system means only a mix of 10 specialists. which is ok, there's always workshops to be worked

Strategic:
- Farms are more easily replaced in case of raiding than cottages

EDIT: Note this was written before your last post

Point taken on Parthenon.

Is the Upkeep question civic costs? Running State Property, I now see the city maintenance costs as being independent of the size of the city.

As for choice of specialists, you can always fill up gaps with merchants, priests and engineers. The 1h=1.5g makes these more or less equivalent and the priests will gain a bonus with Angkor Wat (until ???????). Depends both on what you want and on the cities comparative gold/science multipliers.

[SebP]

No it wasn't about civic upkeep. I erred, I have been running state property all this time and was still under the impression that there was 3 components to consider: Pop, Number of cities, distance to capital and that they were all independent and SP eliminates only one.

-3.00 Upkeep in every city should really have ticked me off that that is not the case

[Diadem]

Your first great person costs you 100 GPP.

What is a great person worth? Well this depends on what you do with him, of course. The least effective way of spending a GP late game is having him help on a tech. Early age this can be effective in grabbing religions, but late age it's rather pointless.

Still, spending your GP in this way yields you a bit over 1000 science points. Or about 500 beakers / commerce, assuming an average 100% bonus. So your first GP points are worth about 5 commerce points each at least.

Later GPP are worth less of course. Still, we are here talking about the least effective way of using a GP. So even late age they are worth quite a bit.

I'd rate them at at least 1 commerce per GPP.

BUT only in cities where they get used, of course. Usually your capital and perhaps 1-2 other cities, but certainly not your small border cities.

[Krill]

Since when has a single GP been worth 2000 gold?

If you use it for a tech, you don't get a choice of what tech and a GPP is worth a lot less than 2000 gold. If you use a GP for a FA, you need atleast 1 more GP, and probably even more. Add it to a city, and you have to count it as gpt from the turn it is settled, so you have to keep track of when the 2000 GPP are generated. The other options are situational; a culture bombs could win you a war, a trade mission could be worth alot more than 2000 gold. and academy could net +50 beakers per turn.


What I am trying to say on this part of the problem is that if you take into account the GPP in the new cities you have to take into account all of the previous GP generated; if someone ran a specialist economy early on in the game GPP are worth a lot less than if someone is only just starting to generate the 4th or 5th at this point in the game.

I should apologise about my previous post; I thought you were talking about new cities, not the growth of old ones

The other thing is you ought to include multipliers like libraries and markets; if you are running emancipation then you can't be running caste system.

Another problem is that you are not valuing cottages you already have, they gain from unisuff as well; if someone has cottage spammed and already has 8 cities, and has 40 or so towns, that is an extra 1060 "gold" in 17 turns.

Just some more points for you to mull over

[MasterDave]

For me the best reason to go Universal Suffrage is the ability to rush build buildings with cash rather than whipping your population for them. The production and town growth benefits that come from Universal Suffrage and Emancipation are sort of side show benefits. It is not always the best choice, however. If I am running an empire that is low on luxuries, and needs the happiness from Representation OR an empire that is behind on tech but has lots of surplus food to allow specialists I might just stay with representation. One example would be a game where the AI does not like me and I am running Mercantilism and have the Statue of Liberty.

However, in 85-90% of my games at some point my economy is strong, I have a tech lead or at least parity, and I have lots of surplus happiness by trading luxuries. Once this happens, I will always go universal suffrage because there is nothing that saves as many turns with no consequences as rush buying one's buildings and units with gold.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Krill
Since when has a single GP been worth 2000 gold?

A great Merchant can earn you more than that if you conduct a trade mission that is far away from your territory. A great merchant that goes into a city with a bank, grocer, and market will earn 2000 gold in 167 turns (all profit after that) plus a bonus food. A great priest earns 2000 gold in 200 turns, plus two bonus hammers.

If you run representation you can also get three light bulbs from each, or two culture per turn with the Sistene Chapel on top of your 2000+ gold as long as you place them before 1800 or so.

[Blake]

Here's my logic:

1) Run Rep if you can.
2) Run US if you have to (ie Emancipation has nuked slavery and you need some wage-slaves to replace them).
3) Police State is awesome.
4) Communists ARE cool.

I believe that couerdelion is pretty much right, that when it comes to bringing new terrain into producitivty later in the game (conquests? terra?) you are better off with farms + rep specialists, IF it's commerce you are worried about.

However more often I find myself going the easy route of State Property workshops and watermills plus biology farms (if there's not enough food) and windmills, allowing my core to do the heavy-lifting research while the new cities keep cranking out the units. You pick up siginificant exta commerce just in trade routes alone and such, even in the state property cities. In this case it makes a lot more sense to go with US (or PS) because you just don't have many specialists.

In Warlords you can even take advantage of SP workshops + coal plants to run extra wealth, altough you only get a crappy 6gpt (or bpt) per workshop (while a rep specialist will be about 12gpt if you have lib+obs+uni+lab) the wealth has the benefit of being VERY cheap to set up and VERY flexible, all you need are the workshops, forge, factory and coalplant (plus health or whatever) and the city is ready to either pump out a massive amount of hpt or a lesser amount of gpt - but it can switch between them at any time.
Note that funnily enough SP workshops are better than non-rep specialists, and possibly even rep-specialists, since the grassland workshop produces 6gpt and feeds itself, while a specialist (with much more infrastructure) only produces 6gpt and doesn't feed itself, or the rep specialists is 12gpt and doesn't feed itself.
For example two SP workshops feed themselves and generate 12gpt - compare with the biology farm + specialist which does the same. Granted you get twice the population density with specialists (so ultimately the city generates twice as much commerce) but you do need to do that growth, and you need high enough caps. SP is less growth needed and more flexible.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Is this really all Civ-Size dependent, or rather Civ-Size at point of late game city-capturing dependent?

Let me try to ask that again.. doesn't it solely depend upon the amount of towns you already have prior to conquest, the amount of towns you are capturing as part of the cities, and how long you have left until ultimate victory?

Running representation might be beneficial to getting returns on your newly acquired cities, but depending on the health/size of your pre-existing empire, switching from US to representation could result in a large enough net loss that your ultimately suffer for it.

This is actually one of the decisions I have to struggle with almost every game, because manually counting the number of towns is rather annoying.

I end up just using a general rule of thumb that depends upon how many towns I already have up and running to see if I want to switch civics. If I've got a great deal of towns already, I run US. If I'm generating commerce mainly through some other means, I'll run REP and assign specialists in the newly acquired cities as soon as I can.

(I usually just build a LIB and set a scientist and then leave them alone... depending on their site)

[couerdelion]

I would be very disappointed not to get at least 2000g worth of return from a GP. The worst value generators, IMO, are GAs, followed closely by GEs but it can be very circumstantial.

Do be careful now to simply add up the income from things like settled GPs since this will be misleading. Obviously, by settling a GS early in the game, you’ll be getting 6beakers, and over 500 turns this will be at least 3000b. By contrast, you might be able to lightbulb Philosophy which, although worth less in total, might be a better bet for the immediate unlocking of religion, civic and wonder. Large gains now may be worth more than small gains over a long term. The settled GS actually can be quite a poor investment.

As it is, my choice for using GPs now are fairly simple. They will be used to start Golden Age which values them each at somewhere in excess of 4000g. (Epic speed). I will consider building a second shrine for Christianity since I can use and spread this religion and with 30+ cities having the religion already, it’s worth 60gpt. The only question is whether 60gpt is worth more than 4000g?

Different people might reach different conclusions here

[Diadem]

Your golden ages are worth 4000 gold? Hmm, I can't believe that. Golden ages have always seemed rather useless to me.

What do they do? Some extra commerce and hammers for 20 turns. You're talking 200 gold a turn here. You need a pretty huge empire for so much gold a turn. So big, that you will already have won anyway.