"We don't do nation-building"

[snoopy369]

The unhappiness is constant, it does not increase based on population. I think it's constant 30 turns, but I don't play marathon. I do know that the turns do not change based on build, though (though the number of pop you need does).

I'm not going to argue this any further, other than to say that you're simply ignoring everything we're saying. The fact that I can use this strategy and by the medieval era substantially out-tech everyone who is not using slavery tells me that it's not something i'm making up. Either agree, or disagree, but clearly you don't understand how to use slavery to increase commerce, or don't accept that it's possible, and this isn't going to change.

Regardless of THAT element, though, slavery as nation-building is cleary superior when production and commerce are both considered - suggesting we should only look at commerce is irrelevant. You can build a larger empire faster using early slavery than you can not using it on any standard map.

(I don't know how it affects marathon games, tbh, as I can't stand that pace - I don't recall if it gives more hammers per citizen, and if that scales appropriately with the other things; if you kept the #pop/building constant (so a 1 hammer finished library needs 3 still), but increased to 30 turns the anger, slavery could be worse off, depending on how the # of turns of anger scaled with the # of turns to build the item normally.

[wodan11]

I guess it's just a difference of viewpoint. You see it as "ignoring" an example, I see it as yes I agree with that so there's no need for discussion.

As in, no need for discussion on that, but we haven't addressed this. And then I go on to ask about the "this".

I don't disagree and have been very clear that I fully agree whipping, especially early, gives hammers and a fast start that is often beneficial.

The thing is that I keep asking and nobody is willing to discuss is that slavery, especially repeated whipping, really is damaging to your economy and your commerce income. The closest you have come is an admission that:
[q=Snoopy369]I've never seen a game where the food/hammer versus commerce decision was a relevant one in the very early game.[/q]

(emphasis yours). I'd almost be willing to grant that point, though IMO unless we're talking more than just a couple of workers and 1-2 settlers, then it's too much. And, you can get a couple of workers and settlers by chopping. So Slavery is not irreplacable as a means.

So is it beneficial? Yes, in the very early game, and to a very small extent when cities have reached the cap but despite having switched over to cottages or specialists still have extra food. But it's the 99% of the rest of the game I'm interested in... how much does it hurt my commerce and is it really worth it. Nobody is willing to discuss that.

Thanks for your time. Sorry we weren't able to come to any resolution on the issue.

Wodan

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
When i said i tested the strat, i meant i testet it for the very early game, especialy the commerce question. The unhappiness in marathon is 30 turns and more, depends on what you were building, ca go up to 80 turns for a wonder.
IMO slavery may be a "saver" in some situations, but using it, even moderately just slows down the cottage growth. Or maybe, it's just not good for marathon games ^^.

I only play normal speed, don't know about snoopy or Krill, so I really have no idea how game speed might impact slavery. Might be most powerful on normal, I can see that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by wodan11
I'd almost be willing to grant that point, though IMO unless we're talking more than just a couple of workers and 1-2 settlers, then it's too much. And, you can get a couple of workers and settlers by chopping. So Slavery is not irreplacable as a means.

But you can get them quicker by doing both, and early in the game, quicker is better.

So is it beneficial? Yes, in the very early game, and to a very small extent when cities have reached the cap but despite having switched over to cottages or specialists still have extra food. But it's the 99% of the rest of the game I'm interested in... how much does it hurt my commerce and is it really worth it. Nobody is willing to discuss that.

It goes far beyond the 1% of the game. Early in the game, if you can whip up an army from those extra cities that you got down quickly because you whipped and chopped in the first place, and then use those armies to take an opponents capital, you will be way ahead of the game in terms of total commerce, and everything else.

You say nobody is willing to discuss it, but people have repeatedly addressed the issue by saying that you lay in such a good base so much quicker, that you win in the long run as well.

[Krill]

No, it doesn't. More leaders start with at least one of those techs than start with Mining.

In addition, who cares how many techs it is. This is the kind of nonsensical argument that has been blithely tossed out in this thread all too much. It makes sense on the face of it, but as soon as it is examined, it falls apart. What matters is # of beakers for those techs. Pottery + one of the req'ts is cheaper than BW alone, let alone BW + Mining.

Monarch Difficulty, standard size map, normal speed;

• Wheel + Agri + Pottery = 297 beakers
• Fishing + Wheel + Pottery = 269
• Agri or Wheel + Pottery = 208
• Fishing + Pottery = 168
  
• Bronze Working = 179 Beakers

The only combination of techs that are cheaper than BW alone (and no where in the thread have I said going Mining+BW first, only ever BW first) is Fishing + pottery.

How are we working cottages when we're making our first worker?

Getting pottery, even with one starting tech (on the above settings) should take around 20 turns, so you should be getting a worker out (unless you have seafood or are warrior rushing/rushed) shortly after getting Pttery, maybe when getting the third tech. If you aren't going to get a worker to start cottaging, then the only benfit of getting pottery (not necessarily the other techs) is being able to build a granary. And getting a granary when the happy caps are so low without slaving...

I think I said something about awful strategy? That's why.

I don't have a problem with researching BW or of chopping workers. Both are very strong plays.

Whipping slows down research. It's easily demonstrable and is undeniable.

The only question is when one gains back that which was lost. Or, if it can be gained back at all.

Then prove it. Frankly Wodan I'm getting pretty sick of you saying "prove it" without providing any proof of your own assertions. I'm happy to play out a competitive start on normal speed for the first hundred turns on a continents or pangaea map to show why slaving is so useful and doesn't screw over tech.

Why not?

Several reasons; it's the setting at which the game is balanced at, and it is the default setting, so that any figures people quote without settings can be put into relevance. If you want to talk about Epic, or Marathon, or Quick, state that is what you are refering to. All it in all it just makes the forums easier to understand.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Ming
But you can get them quicker by doing both, and early in the game, quicker is better.

Quick is good but we can't really say quicker is always better until we know what it's being compared to and what the costs are.

It goes far beyond the 1% of the game. Early in the game, if you can whip up an army from those extra cities that you got down quickly because you whipped and chopped in the first place, and then use those armies to take an opponents capital, you will be way ahead of the game in terms of total commerce, and everything else.

Taking an opponent's capitol costs considerably
and the payoff is a primo site (in terms of resources, not commerce) plus a lack of opposition. So, I definitely don't agree with that example.

You say nobody is willing to discuss it, but people have repeatedly addressed the issue by saying that you lay in such a good base so much quicker, that you win in the long run as well.

Sure, and I don't have a problem with that... the question is let's put in numerical terms. Exactly how long does it take before you reach the break-even point?

Originally posted by Krill

No, it doesn't. More leaders start with at least one of those techs than start with Mining.

In addition, who cares how many techs it is. This is the kind of nonsensical argument that has been blithely tossed out in this thread all too much. It makes sense on the face of it, but as soon as it is examined, it falls apart. What matters is # of beakers for those techs. Pottery + one of the req'ts is cheaper than BW alone, let alone BW + Mining.

Monarch Difficulty, standard size map, normal speed;

• Wheel + Agri + Pottery = 297 beakers
• Fishing + Wheel + Pottery = 269
• Agri or Wheel + Pottery = 208
• Fishing + Pottery = 168
  
• Bronze Working = 179 Beakers

The only combination of techs that are cheaper than BW alone (and no where in the thread have I said going Mining+BW first, only ever BW first) is Fishing + pottery.

Good backup with real data. A much better argument than your previous one.

Based on those numbers, it's fair to say it costs about the same. Probably the more telling point is what techs your leader starts with. If you don't have mining but you DO have one of the Pottery req's, then you would have an advantage going pottery first. Conversely, if you had mining but not a Pottery req, then you would have an advantage going BW first.

How are we working cottages when we're making our first worker?

Getting pottery, even with one starting tech (on the above settings) should take around 20 turns, so you should be getting a worker out (unless you have seafood or are warrior rushing/rushed) shortly after getting Pttery, maybe when getting the third tech. If you aren't going to get a worker to start cottaging, then the only benfit of getting pottery (not necessarily the other techs) is being able to build a granary.

Looks like you're presuming that the "only benefit" applies if you intend to cottage right away. Who says you can't wait a few turns and then cottage? For example, warrior first, grow to 2, then worker. Meanwhile tech to Pottery. Okay, so you get Pottery before the worker spawns. No worries, you're now teching to BW. It'll take a while, and as soon as he spawns he can start cottaging.

Conversely, getting BW, even starting with Mining (on the above settings) should take around 20 turns. So, whipping a worker is not really useful in the slightest. He can make a mine, but you can't work that mine, because you've got to work your food tiles to regrow from the whip. You can't make cottages because you have to tech to pottery.

I don't have a problem with researching BW or of chopping workers. Both are very strong plays.

Whipping slows down research. It's easily demonstrable and is undeniable.

The only question is when one gains back that which was lost. Or, if it can be gained back at all.

Then prove it.

Prove what? That whipping slows down research?

Frankly Wodan I'm getting pretty sick of you saying "prove it" without providing any proof of your own assertions.

Nobody has asked for proof of my own assertions. I'd be glad to do so. Though, honestly, it's not like I've taken a strong stance (before the above email, which the only reason I did that was as a summary of the debate). The entire thread has been the assertion that whipping -> hammers -> commerce. The whipping-> hammers is easy and I don't dispute it. The hammers -> commerce is not and in my mind still lacks substantiation. All we've had are a couple of examples where it works, not why, and no examples where it doesn't work. We've also had little comparison of the hammers -> commerce back to the costs, both in lost commerce as well as opportunity cost. That's the real issue here, I keep asking, and the responses for some reason continue to be about whipping -> hammers.

I'm happy to play out a competitive start on normal speed for the first hundred turns on a continents or pangaea map to show why slaving is so useful and doesn't screw over tech.

Fine by me, except that won't settle anything... all it would be is another example. And not even an example of where whipping loses most of its effectiveness, when you have a couple of cities and all the workers you need. That's like saying "I'll give an example of where it's at its strongest, and as a result we will conclude that it's better even at its weakest."

That's the kind of selling throughout this debate that I simply don't buy... and I'm sorry if me not buying offends you (as apparently it does).

Why not?

Several reasons; it's the setting at which the game is balanced at, and it is the default setting, so that any figures people quote without settings can be put into relevance. If you want to talk about Epic, or Marathon, or Quick, state that is what you are refering to. All it in all it just makes the forums easier to understand.

A good explanation and much better than simply ordering a fellow poster around with a demand. Thank you!

Wodan