"We don't do nation-building"

[snoopy369]

How are you going to make a cottage without a worker??? The point is that you get the worker out several turns early, and the same for the settler, meaning you get more commerce or whatever you set the worker to be building faster.

That said, it's generally a poor strategy to build cottages first - you need the more pop more than you need the commerce (again, the relative return of 1 commerce < relative return of one food/hammer in most cases early on, because of the 8c the palace gives you). I don't want to go to the extent of proving that, except to say that in my empirical testing - and I've played both ways - I do much, much better if I don't start cottage-first.

The 11 vs 10 number is simple:

Size 2 city, working the average 2f/1h/1c tile unimproved (actually hard to find that specific tile, but it's a good average), yields: 8c(palace) + 1c (city tile) + 2c (worked tiles) for 11c. Slave one of them away and you get 8+1+1 or 10. Relative cost, 9% of your commerce.

I think you're taking this argument out way too late in the game. Neither I nor anyone else will argue that there is a considerable tradeoff food/hammer vs commerce later in the game (even 100 turns into the game), and it is not necessarily better one versus the other. I think generally 100 turns into the game the tradeoff is to the direction of (more food/hammers), but not 100%; and once you get to the Medieval or even Ren period, I won't slave except in slave cities (tons of food not much else, not even good commerce - ie the 3 sugars 2 banana type city; you can use the 2f/Xc grassland all you want, you will always have tons of extra food with no other purpose) and in tiny new cities (like the OP's example) where, again, the f/h v c tradeoff is not much of one since the c being provided are minimal.

However, in the first sixty to one hundred turns, I think it would be very hard to argue that a slaved economy is inferior to a non-slaved one - even by the measure of commerce. Cities and improvements out faster is the whole of the point - if you can get more cities out, you can get more commerce, plain and simple; at that early stage in the game, f/h -> c directly, because 3 cities will always give more commerce than 2 (due to the happy cap). I'm not trading off any commerce - I'm at most trading commerce-now for commerce-in-a-few-turns. The new-city bonus (+2f1h1c) alone gives a significant offset to that, not counting the fact that the new city is essentially an extension of C to the happy cap (where C is the happy cap), meaning more commerce is possible at higher growth.

True worker first is of course an option, but you lose the flexibility of exploring with your first warrior - which is generally a very bad thing when it comes to AI diplomacy, and knowing where to settle that first settler. You also still are losing the 22f->30h exchange, although the slightly earlier worker might offset that (though the extra few turns of commerce you're losing hurts your commerce argument ) depending on the tiles you are working/improving.

[wodan11]

Don't have a lot of time but I'll respond quickly.

Originally posted by snoopy369
The point is that you get the worker out several turns early, and the same for the settler, meaning you get more commerce or whatever you set the worker to be building faster.

So you're saying that if you research BW first and then Pottery, and whip away 3 pop and make a second city, at that point you have more commerce than if you simply researched Pottery and then build a worker without whipping?

That said, it's generally a poor strategy to build cottages first - you need the more pop more than you need the commerce

How do you have more pop when you've whipped it away?

(again, the relative return of 1 commerce < relative return of one food/hammer in most cases early on, because of the 8c the palace gives you). I don't want to go to the extent of proving that, except to say that in my empirical testing - and I've played both ways - I do much, much better if I don't start cottage-first.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy... For example, perhaps you always warmonger, and thus need a lot of units. Obviously, any strategy that relies upon working early cottages is going to have low hammer production, thus it's going to be difficult to both work cottages at the same time you either build or whip a lot of units.

The 11 vs 10 number is simple:

Size 2 city, working the average 2f/1h/1c tile unimproved (actually hard to find that specific tile, but it's a good average), yields: 8c(palace) + 1c (city tile) + 2c (worked tiles) for 11c. Slave one of them away and you get 8+1+1 or 10. Relative cost, 9% of your commerce.

How many turns does it take to get BW at that rate? How many turns would it take to get Pottery at the same rate?

I think you're taking this argument out way too late in the game. Neither I nor anyone else will argue that there is a considerable tradeoff food/hammer vs commerce later in the game (even 100 turns into the game), and it is not necessarily better one versus the other. I think generally 100 turns into the game the tradeoff is to the direction of (more food/hammers), but not 100%; and once you get to the Medieval or even Ren period, I won't slave except in slave cities (tons of food not much else, not even good commerce - ie the 3 sugars 2 banana type city; you can use the 2f/Xc grassland all you want, you will always have tons of extra food with no other purpose) and in tiny new cities (like the OP's example) where, again, the f/h v c tradeoff is not much of one since the c being provided are minimal.

I tend to think exactly the opposite... as you get more and larger cities, it's easier to whip away a citizen here and there, because you have more overflow food, and you have access to banana, sugar, etc.

Whipping is generally most efficient either when the city is very small especially if it has a lot of food income, or when the city is at the cap and has at least 1 unhappy citizen anyway.

Cities and improvements out faster is the whole of the point

That's a benefit, sure. However, there are multiple ways to get there, such as conquering cities rather than building them. Plus, it's not necessarily the best idea to REX if you're not under huge pressure. A more reasoned expansion is often optimal. If you're constantly whipping down to 1 pop, your research is in the tank.

if you can get more cities out, you can get more commerce, plain and simple

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

It's easily demonstrable that a smaller number of more efficient and populous cities will generate more commerce than a larger number of tiny cities.

at that early stage in the game, f/h -> c directly, because 3 cities will always give more commerce than 2 (due to the happy cap)

But the 3 cities aren't at the happy cap because they are constantly whipped down to 1 size, while the 2 cities ARE at the happy cap and thus can work 5-8 cottages or whatever.

So, the 2 cities generate 30+ commerce, while the 3 city example generates 12+ commerce.

I'm not trading off any commerce - I'm at most trading commerce-now for commerce-in-a-few-turns. The new-city bonus (+2f1h1c) alone gives a significant offset to that

1c is a "significant offset"?

True worker first is of course an option

I generally think true worker first is suboptimal.

Wodan

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by wodan11
Don't have a lot of time but I'll respond quickly.


So you're saying that if you research BW first and then Pottery, and whip away 3 pop and make a second city, at that point you have more commerce than if you simply researched Pottery and then build a worker without whipping?

Well, you have 2 cities and a worker as opposed to 1 city and a worker. You might not be making more right at that point, but your likely making roughly the same, and your potential is superior.

How do you have more pop when you've whipped it away?

"3 pop" to whip a settler is quite deceiving. It only really "costs" those pop for as many turns as it takes you to build that new city. And really ends up costing more or less nothing.

Huh?

Whipping should ideally be done when your city is going to grow anyway. Thus, you whip 3 pop at size 6, your city becomes size 4, not 3 because it grows on end turn. So, effectively, you've reduced your tiles worked by 2.

However, as soon as you build that size 1 city, it works 2 tiles automatically. (city tile +1)

Again, this is for EARLY game prior to those tiles being upgraded. After upgrades, then it becomes a cost-benefit analysis.

So, yes, you technically might have "less" pop, (5 as opposed to 6), but you'ld be working 6 tiles just the same, and growing faster from this point on than by manually building things.

[Krill]

Also, this is one of the reasons why in the first scenario I posted above I said to get the second worker. Getting the second worker from slaving (and chopping) while you get the techs you need to improve the resources means that when you do have the required techs you can get them improved in double time and the workers can move on to improving the second city sooner, making the new city more profitable.

[Krill]

[q=wodan]But the 3 cities aren't at the happy cap because they are constantly whipped down to 1 size, while the 2 cities ARE at the happy cap and thus can work 5-8 cottages or whatever.

So, the 2 cities generate 30+ commerce, while the 3 city example generates 12+ commerce.[/q]

You're thinking too far ahead. the Happiness limit is size 5 for a capital without happiness so there is no way a city is going to be working 8 cottages in the early game is there? And if you mention Monarchy, that is what, 600 beakers into the tech tree, never mind the techs to get such as agri, AH and/or fishing for food, archery to defend yourself from, well, anything, BW or even IW if you need metal...Religion? OK, that's +1, getting a temple is basically akin to a settler, but a settler lets you have a pop 4 city, whereas a temple only gives you +1 happiness.

[Krill]

[q=wodan]How do you arrive at this conclusion?

It's easily demonstrable that a smaller number of more efficient and populous cities will generate more commerce than a larger number of tiny cities[/q]

Happiness is limiting, so you aren't going to have large populous cities in the early game (unless you are charismatic and even then workers have to be built...). I have seen starts were the civ had gems and gold and ivory in the capital, but they aren't exactly ten a penny, are they?

Also, you seem to forget that "tiny" cities with an army of workers (I don't think anyone here as advocated spamming settlers and nothing else...) tend to work the food resources and grow quite quickly. However, you are wrong in that by slaving cities they are all going to be "tiny", they are all going to be (re)growing, look at the flood plains example above.

[snoopy369]

Indeed, wodan we are most certainly not talking about 'slaving cities down to 1' permanently. You slave them down to one at the start - your size 2 -> 1 to get your first worker, and either 2/3->1/2 or 4->2 to get your first settler. Beyond that you typically are working above the happy cap - ie, a size 7 city with 5 productive and 2 unhappy -> a size 4 city with 4 productive and a 2 turn settler is costing you literally nothing (still 5 productive citizens either way counting the new city's 1 pop, PLUS the new city center) and your settler then settles some better area with more good tiles (although your capital does have some advantage here, overall tile #1 or #2 for a new city > tile #4 or #5 from another city, assuming you have the workers to improve these tiles - which you should.)

[snoopy369]

Also, it is easily demonstrable that in most cases, a larger number of cities is more able to generate commerce than a small number (assuming you make smart choices about your technologies).

3 cities, happy cap 5 (6 for cap), total pop 16, even assuming you worked all cottages - which means you're being invaded by every other civ on the map - say an average of 2c per tile (either cottage+river or hamlet), so 16*2 or 32 + 8 + 3 (city center) for 43 total commerce. Maintenance will be around 5 total give or take depending on your locations. 38 net commerce.

6 cities, happy cap still 5+1, so 31 total pop. Again, 2c/pop, plus other stuff, is 62+6+8 or 76 total income. Maintenance will be around 3/city again given locations, so 18, or 58 net commerce.

I see a difference of 20 commerce/turn here (or +50%)... dunno about you.

You're going to say 'but I said LARGER cities', but as Krill notes, you can't have larger cities at this point in the game - and anything you do to encourage larger cities will simply allow six larger cities instead of three. Every new city gives you another addition to your happy cap; your total pop cap is (happy cap) * (number of cities), and on most maps it is trivial to raise a city to its happy cap nearly immediately (5 turns per citizen is 25 turns from 1 to 6, which is the highest it usually is in the early years) - and to do so again within ten turns of slaving.

So, by turn 100, the slaving plan gives 3 or 4 cities (depending on other choices), each heading up to their happy cap quickly (if not already there), each producing as much commerce as you wish them to (in exchange for food or hammers); while without slaving you have 2 cities generally, and not as improved cities without the additional workers. By turn 150 you usually have 6 to 8 cities depending on the situation, and are running low science but are still managing a pretty reasonable science rate - and if you chose commerce more over production, you would tech quite well in this stage.

Typically you still want to generally choose hammers/food until you are finished expanding, with the understanding that you always need to choose commerce sometimes, at least enough to tech; once you are finished expanding, push over to commerce in most cities and hammers in some, and make sure to have enough flexibility that you can swap from one to the other in some/most cities as needs arise.

If you're trying to face an AI with three or four cities, even large ones, you'd better hope you're playing on a low level... because Deity Monte or Tokugawa would hand you your head on a stick with a stack three times the size of yours, especially with Aggressive AI, and Emperor would probably be pretty competitive also in that way...

[wodan11]

You both still don't understand my question. I guess this is where I should use Krill's smiley.

If one example allows whipping to make 6 cities and then to grow to the cap, how much total commerce has that player earned so far in the game? I don't care how much commerce that player is earning / turn, I want to know how much he's earned so far in the game.

And, the other example should allow working cottages and making settlers "the long way". At the same point in the game as the first example, how much total commerce has this one earned so far in the game? I don't even care how many cities he has... how much commerce has he earned?

Wodan

[snoopy369]

You clearly will get less commerce at the earliest point, but you are not exchanging commerce for hammers; you are exchanging commerce now for commerce later (and more of it). There will be a point whereby you will have earned more commerce in 6-city-slaving than in 3-city-noslaving, and it will not be very far off after the 6 grow to happycap - if not actually by that point. You don't really give up that much commerce to do it, is the thing - 10 or 20 (or even 30) turns of using a cottage to get a city that much faster out will easily give you a significant boost (and when you consider that you are able to use cottages for those turns you would have had to use food/hammers to grow the cities, even better).

Certainly there is a cutoff where you could say "Not slaving with 3 cities gives more commerce as of turn 123", but there is a further down point - not very much further - that you can say "Slaving six cities gives as much TOTAL commerce as not slaving with 3 cities"; and as well versus "not slaving building up to 6 cities". The lead time you get by slaving them out will always in the end give you a net benefit in commerce. I can't tell you a bright line at which point you always will have gained net commerce, but it will exist in EVERY game, or as close to it as is practical.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You clearly will get less commerce at the earliest point, but you are not exchanging commerce for hammers; you are exchanging commerce now for commerce later (and more of it).

Even if true, commerce now is more valuable than commerce later. So, unless it's a LOT more, then this is a break-even, at best.

There will be a point whereby you will have earned more commerce in 6-city-slaving than in 3-city-noslaving, and it will not be very far off after the 6 grow to happycap - if not actually by that point.

How do you conclude this?

Certainly there is a cutoff where you could say "Not slaving with 3 cities gives more commerce as of turn 123", but there is a further down point - not very much further - that you can say "Slaving six cities gives as much TOTAL commerce as not slaving with 3 cities"; and as well versus "not slaving building up to 6 cities". The lead time you get by slaving them out will always in the end give you a net benefit in commerce.

Again, how do you conclude this?

I can't tell you a bright line at which point you always will have gained net commerce, but it will exist in EVERY game, or as close to it as is practical.

Why will it exist in every game? What are the factors that make it so obviously better?

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Commerce now is NOT more valuable than commerce later. Commerce later, in general, is worth more - because you get a bonus towards researching techs that are already discovered. This does not so severely penalize you so that there is a significant difference in when you get any given techs - you'll see maybe a few turn delay at most.

I conclude that the point exists, because 58cpt > 38cpt. With a 20cpt difference, you will certainly overtake total commerce at some point, probably not that far out given it's a 50% increase. It's simple math.

It exists in every game because it's simple math; build cities faster and get more commerce (or more hammers, if you prefer; it's your choice). I've yet to see a game where the 'occ gambit' as some have described actually is superior to massively building cities; usually it's just a matter of improperly managing your commerce, because a lot of people can't handle a 6 or 7 city empire early in the game.

It is always true because more is better, and the penalties to expanding your empire they added just aren't enough to actually make it a bad thing. They're enough to make it possible to survive while not doing so, certainly; plenty of people play at Emperor with a small (5-6 city max home cities) empire. However, that does not mean it is optimal to play that way; simply that it's possible.

I suppose it's possible to imagine a map where you have several cities with one food resource and all gold mines around them, where it would be worse to slave (i'm talking 3-4 cities), and several 5-size cities could survive with just the food resource and the gold mines, but not really be able to slave; but you can't actually support a size 5 city on one food resource, and even with only one food you still are probably better getting at least that first settler out via slaving (though perhaps you'd stop at one). In any event, in a normal game (ie not assuming an impossible map) this is clearly not the case.

This is, still, ignoring the larger benefit of slaving, of course - the extra hammers = extra military... but even for commerce, it is better in the medium run.

[Ming]

Snoopy... I think the best way to prove it is to play Wodan in a head to head MP game. Let him use his strategy, and you use yours.

I know which way I would bet

[wodan11]

Ming, are you supposing anything goes? In other words, to put emphasis on production rather than commerce?

Wodan

[Ming]

Snoopy can do both with the methods he lists... God knows I've seen him do it. That is what he is saying.
You can have the best of both worlds. You aren't giving up commerce for production in the long run. You can slave a civ, while still maintaining excellent commerce while growing at the same time. And put an army on the field as well.

I "had" believed in your approach in the past due to SP play. Not anymore. When I take the approach he does (and I don't do it as well as he does... yet) in mp, and then use it in SP, the results are even more effective.
The man knows what he is talking about.