"We don't do nation-building"

[Krill]

With the expansion rate that slavery allows you should end up with a larger economy from the med era onwards; the only time not slaving at all would allow for better commerce would be if some variant of OCC was being played or up until the med era.

Judicial use of slaving, of course.

[wodan11]

Modo, that assumes that extra food is available. i.e., that the city is working farms or food resources in preference to cottages or specialists. If the citizens are managed correctly, i.e., so that there is no surplus food, then there are no unhappy citizens to whip away. No matter how you look at it, you are choosing to generate food and thence to whip that food to hammers, in preference to generating commerce.

Krill, your original statement said "off the starting blocks" and "build up quickly". I would take that to mean before the med era. Your second statement is about "med era onwards". So, which are you talking about?

Wodan

[Krill]

Off the starting blocks means at the start of the game, obviously, but building up quickly in this case means getting the basics built in a city, such as a granary in anc, but in later eras (med onwards when a new city is built) slavery is useful in getting the forge and barracks up as well.

[wodan11]

What do you mean by "expansion rate"?

I don't see how you toss out general statements such as Slavery allows a "larger economy" yet when asked for details you talk about building Forge and barracks.

IMO, Slavery allows higher hammer income, but early game it hurts economy and research.

Even mid game it can hurt economy and research unless used judiciously.

I'm really not trying to be contrary... if you have some insights to share please do so.

Wodan

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by wodan11
What do you mean by "expansion rate"?

I don't see how you toss out general statements such as Slavery allows a "larger economy" yet when asked for details you talk about building Forge and barracks.

IMO, Slavery allows higher hammer income, but early game it hurts economy and research.

Even mid game it can hurt economy and research unless used judiciously.

I'm really not trying to be contrary... if you have some insights to share please do so.

Wodan

I agree, it's a toss up between the hammers and the commerce. It's not to say commerce will always win - if you need walls you need walls, but whipping is not the only way to play the start.

[Krill]

The unfortunate problem with slavery is that it is a general civic and can be used to increase the rate of expansion of practically everything. However in this case, take for example, the capital. If you start with mining (best scenario, of course) and have more than 4 forests (the amount I like to leave in most cities excluding my early ones).

Turn 1: settle, research BW, build scout/warrior, use grass forest/3 food tile to time growth and unit production to coincide.
Turn 9:build worker@6hpt
Turn 14: complete BW, change to slavery, start researching towards whatever tech required for food
Turn 15: Slave worker
Turn 16: start building warrior, Move worker to forest and chop, place chops into 2nd worker and slave asap, chop forests until you can hook up food and then grow as normal

---

The above short of build queue (it is very general, change it to fit circumstances as required), but it gets out 2 workers very quickly to hook up food and cut down forests which chokers can hide units in. Even though each forest is only worth 20 hammers, that is still alot of production for the very start of the game which can be used to facilitate growth (in which ever direction) and it would be much slower if slavery wasn't used.

A 2nd example: City with 6 cottaged fp, and no food res. Slave a granary when you hit size 4 for 2 pop, regrow to size 6, slave settler for 3 pop when possible and put overflow into a worker. Regrow to size 5 (and 1 turn from growth to size 6) and complete worker for new city, grow to size 6 the turn that 6th labhourer will be happy, make settler... rinse and repeat.

About 75% as good at creating commerce, but horizontal growth is maintained (and every city you get is actually worth 2, one for you and one less for the AI). If a settler was built in teh city without slaving, it would take 12 turns for the first one but with slaving the settler is built 9/10 turns earlier (so is ahead in teh growth curve, which is worth alot more than the commerce lost if you arent in dire financial straights, considering the amount of commerce the city will make by being 10 turns ahead in growth). And slaving also allows the worker to be built, so the new city doesn't have to be build a worker, pushing the new city another 15 turns ahead on the growth curve.

[Krill]

Yeah, slavery isn't always a good idea, but I've never seen a game where slavery wasn't useful in the first 80 turns.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
Yeah, slavery isn't always a good idea, but I've never seen a game where slavery wasn't useful in the first 80 turns.

Again, and no offense, but that's just another bland statement that doesn't prove anything. Here's one just like it:

Cottages aren't always a good idea, but I've never seen a game where cottages weren't useful in the first 80 turns.

Thanks for the examples. They show some good ways to use slavery to get hammers. Which is what we've been talking about... slavery gets you hammers, not commerce.

Wodan

[Krill]

Did I say it was a proof? Please, point me to where I claimed it was a proof...

[q=wodan]IMO, Slavery allows higher hammer income, but early game it hurts economy and research.[/q]

You claimed that early game slavery hurts the economy; I posted 2 ways to use slavery to increase the rate of growth of the economy compared to not using slavery. If you don;t understand that getting another city up and productive 25 turns sooner with slavery compared to without isn't increasing commerce then I really do think Blake didn't do as good a job with the AI as I thought.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
Did I say it was a proof? Please, point me to where I claimed it was a proof...

Sorry, wrong word, then. Pick one you like.

(Though, I didn't say you did a formal proof, I used the word "prove" in the sense of: to establish the truth of the claim that was made.)

You claimed that early game slavery hurts the economy; I posted 2 ways to use slavery to increase the rate of growth of the economy compared to not using slavery.

You posted 2 ways to use slavery to make stuff. You didn't show how that "stuff" (1) increased the economy and/or (2) was better than making the stuff the slow way or than not having the stuff period.

If you don;t understand that getting another city up and productive 25 turns sooner with slavery compared to without isn't increasing commerce then I really do think Blake didn't do as good a job with the AI as I thought.

Having another city =/=> increase of commerce. Depends on a lot of things... terrain, size of empire, maint costs, other civs (might be better to let them build the cities and then take them away using our stronger military because we have higher tech because we had greater commerce income).

In addition, the question isn't whether we have better commerce / turn at the point when the stuff is created, the question is at what point in the game does our total commerce overcome the commerce we lost by not having the earlier commerce. In other words, at what point did we overcome the opportunity cost. Furthermore, it's even worse than that, because earlier research is better than later research in the same amount. But that's hard to quantify. So, let's just see where the "break even" point is, and perhaps we can make some pro/con comparisons.

So, what I'm saying is that it is not sufficient to simply say (for example) "settler = wholah, it's better!" Which is what you're doing in post 24. At the point we have the settler, we are still at considerably less commerce than if we hadn't done all that whipping.

Wodan

[Modo44]

Originally posted by wodan11
Again, and no offense, but that's just another bland statement that doesn't prove anything. Here's one just like it:

I explained, and Krill explained. You just don't seem to listen. Bad troll, go play by yourself.

[snoopy369]

The main thing you're forgetting, wodan, is that slavery doesn't have much opportunity cost in the beginning of the game. The 8 commerce your palace generates is the majority of your commerce for quite a while - until well after your first workers and settler come out, unless you play a very suboptimal style. The one commerce you are forgoing for a few turns is nearly irrelevant to early tech pace, and the 30h is worth more than what you'd be giving up (usually, EITHER one hammer or one commerce for ~11 turns, but not both in most situations).

The earlier worker gives you more food/hammers (much) faster, and the earlier settler(s) gives you more of everything much faster (as a new city is worth at least 2f2h1c extra and typically more with workers). Later in the game the opportunity cost of running slavery as opposed to caste system or whatnot (plus the slavery events if you are playing BtS) certainly comes into play, but in the early game slavery is pretty much a no-brainer; getting workers and cities out faster gives you more hammers, more commerce, and more territory sooner.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Modo44

I explained, and Krill explained.

Acutally, no. You said what else are you going to do with unhappy citizens. I replied if you do it correctly you don't HAVE any unhappy citizens. Meanwhile, Krill said "did I say it was a proof?" IMO what he did was offer some anecdotes. Is that an explanation? Not really... at best, it's evidence.

You just don't seem to listen.

Please, explain again. I must be dense, because I didn't "get it".

Originally posted by snoopy369
The main thing you're forgetting, wodan, is that slavery doesn't have much opportunity cost in the beginning of the game.

You mean, besides all the food and citizens you pay?

The 8 commerce your palace generates is the majority of your commerce for quite a while

Assuming you're whipping, yes, I'll grant your statement. Assuming you're not whipping, it only takes a couple of hamlets to be more than "the majority of commerce".

And, that's even assuming that 50% is some kind of magical barrier. If I was limited to 50% research all game, what would that mean? Wouldn't it be better to be running at 100% commerce??

The earlier worker gives you more food/hammers (much) faster

Agreed. As I have agreed throughout this thread.

The question is whether it's worth not whipping and thus working 1-3 cottages/hamlets for the same period of time.

Again, it's a question of food/hammers vs commerce.

I must not be saying this clearly enough.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

You're not seeing the argument, though. You're doing this before you could possibly be working cottages or hamlets because you're doing this before you have a worker.

Doing Krill's above strategy (with modifications as needed for the specific game) will get you more commerce, faster because you get more population faster. If I can put out 3 full fledged cities (=happy cap) in the time you can put out 2, isn't that going to give me more commerce?

The point is that the whipping above happens so early on that you're talking, maybe, 11 commerce per turn versus 10. That 1 cpt is not worth forgoing 5 or more turns of worker, or same turns of settler; and the faster worker rebuilds the city such that it is as large or larger than it would have been, sooner because it essentially costs 22 food (growth from 1->2) - which is less than the gain from its 5 turns of work (on average in my games 15 to 20 food PLUS the five turns of building whatever else you wanted to build at a minimum of 2 hpt, so 25 to 30 fph, subtracted from 22 food, is a net gain of 3 to 8 fph.) It is rare enough to have a second tile that will gain you commerce AND 3 fph (essentially, a second oasis, or a flood plains or second rivered bonus tile), and even if this is true it's still alwys worth the loss to grow that much faster (and in those cases, excepting the oasis, you will be gaining more from the worker being available sooner anyway). 1/11th of your commerce is such an insignificant loss that it does not meaningfuly compute in the opportunity cost calculation.

Further, the fact that you can get a settler out sooner means you get additional trade sooner - at least 2 additional trade are available from nearly all size=1 cities if you make an effort to get it - which means that, again, the tradeoff is a false choice, because you're actually getting the same trade over time, just you're slightly discounting current trade for a trade+hammer+food bonus later on. If you gain 5 turns on your settler in exchange for 1 citizen for 5 turns (typically at that point 5 turns is the regrowth rate), that means you have 5 more turns of that second city's production - which will be on average (+2f) 2h 2c - in exchange for (+0h) 1h 1c from the average home city tile. Using two tiles to rush it is even better - 10 turns early settler, so 10 turns of (+2f) 2h 2c or 40fph+20c in exchange for 10 turns of (-1h-1c) and 5 turns of (-1h-1c) for a net of (-15h-15c) - which is a net gain of 25fph and 5c, which is pretty nice stuff. Obviously if you are using 'improved' tiles this will be a smaller gain (but you should also be using an improved tile or two from the target city, at least by the first 5 turns, so that should (nearly) cancel out).

Certainly later in the game you are exchanging commerce for hammers in a more significant way, which is why later on it is not always optimal - although once you get to the happy cap, it's generally still optimal (lowering your happy cap one versus losing the fph you'd lose from choosing substantially suboptimal tiles is often a better choice, but in cities with plenty of mines this may not be true). What is nearly never optimal is choosing 'stop growth' (I've ceased using it once I learned how to properly use slavery); either you can define tiles such that you gain as much or more from using f=even than from f=positive, or you should use f=positive and let it overgrow, and then slave as needed.

Either way, though, I've never seen a game where the food/hammer versus commerce decision was a relevant one in the very early game. Certainly once you pop a city or two out it starts to be relevant, but in the starting level, it is always better to slave early on, as long as the opportunity cost for early bronze working is worth paying (that's the only cost I see - going for BW instead of a religion, which is usually a good choice but some might not play that way).

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You're not seeing the argument, though. You're doing this before you could possibly be working cottages or hamlets because you're doing this before you have a worker.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You beeline BW and avoid Pottery for some strange reason, then yeah, you can whip before you can make cottages. What's the point there? The reverse is true too.

If I can put out 3 full fledged cities (=happy cap) in the time you can put out 2, isn't that going to give me more commerce?

Yes. But it also costs you commerce. +X commerce -Y commerce = Z.

What's the amount of Z? Positive or negative, and how much?

The point is that the whipping above happens so early on that you're talking, maybe, 11 commerce per turn versus 10.

Where do you get those numbers?

and the faster worker rebuilds the city such that it is as large or larger than it would have been, sooner because it essentially costs 22 food (growth from 1->2) - which is less than the gain from its 5 turns of work (on average in my games 15 to 20 food PLUS the five turns of building whatever else you wanted to build at a minimum of 2 hpt, so 25 to 30 fph, subtracted from 22 food, is a net gain of 3 to 8 fph.) It is rare enough to have a second tile that will gain you commerce AND 3 fph (essentially, a second oasis, or a flood plains or second rivered bonus tile), and even if this is true it's still alwys worth the loss to grow that much faster (and in those cases, excepting the oasis, you will be gaining more from the worker being available sooner anyway). 1/11th of your commerce is such an insignificant loss that it does not meaningfuly compute in the opportunity cost calculation.

So, if I get BW before Pottery, and I don't build a worker before I get BW, then it's better to suffer 1 turn Anarchy and suffer the cost to whip a worker so that I get him sooner. I can buy that, I suppose.

If the assumptions aren't valid, we still don't know. Perhaps building worker first is better than BW first. Heck, that might be the case even if I beeline BW.

Further, the fact that you can get a settler out sooner means you get additional trade sooner

That's a good point... it should be added to the comparison.

Certainly later in the game you are exchanging commerce for hammers in a more significant way, which is why later on it is not always optimal - although once you get to the happy cap, it's generally still optimal (lowering your happy cap one versus losing the fph you'd lose from choosing substantially suboptimal tiles is often a better choice, but in cities with plenty of mines this may not be true).

It also may not be true for cities with plenty of cottages... it may be more beneficial to work cottages rather than whip OR work mines.

What is nearly never optimal is choosing 'stop growth' (I've ceased using it once I learned how to properly use slavery); either you can define tiles such that you gain as much or more from using f=even than from f=positive, or you should use f=positive and let it overgrow, and then slave as needed.

What do you mean by "gain as much or more"? Are you talking about hammers?

Again, I'm asking about commerce. I don't dispute that slavery makes hammers from food. My question is whether it's better to make commerce in preference to hammers no matter how you get the hammers.

Either way, though, I've never seen a game where the food/hammer versus commerce decision was a relevant one in the very early game.

Really? Interesting.

Wodan