"We don't do nation-building"

[wodan11]

Well that's all fine... I'm not disbelieving.

What I don't buy is when we simply toss out the conclusion and provide, at best anecdotal, evidence without either the governing assumptions or the intermediary thought processes.

So again, I'm not even saying I disagree... just that I remain unconvinced. In particular, the hidden assumptions are big question marks in my mind. The nature of such is that the speaker doesn't even necessarily know he's making such an assumption. CIV is complex enough and allows varied enough strategies that an exhaustive test is pretty much impossible. It also means that any kind of "general rule" is often not so universal as we might think.

Wodan

[Krill]

Yet ignoring empirical evidence is ok?

[wodan11]

Are you implying I ignored empirical evidence? And you called me a troll.

I carefully read and thought about every situation posed. Empirical evidence which does not provide data about the question being asked is non determinant. That does not mean it is invalid, or that it was ignored. You had some very valid points, they just weren't about the question I asked.

We can re-examine any such evidence if you disagree with that assessment. Just list the post number.

Or, feel free to offer additional empirical evidence which is more appropriate to the question. I'd be glad to see it, especially if it helps provide an answer, because nothing so far has done so.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

I've multiple times mathematically shown that it works out. If you're not willing to accept mathematical evidence, then I don't know what you are going to accept

Define "X" as (commerce/turn after using slavery) and "Y" as (commerce/turn not using slavery), and C as "Commerce at the point we begin to evaluate, using slavery", and D as "Commerce at the point we begin to evaluate, not using slavery", then:

If X > Y, and both are in {R}, and C and D are constants, then there is a real number n such that n*X+C > n*Y + D for every value in {R} of C and D.

Given that the values of C and D are relatively small compared to X and Y (less than 20 times X and Y, and typically less than 10 times, given that you do much more commerce later on compared to earlier no matter your strategy), it is trivial to accept that n is not a very large number itself.

Even just the extremely simple version Krill originally posted will get you significant returns, having the worker that much faster means significantly more production/food/commerce - which are exchangeable at that point of the game (more food -> more production -> more commerce).

If you don't want to believe this, then don't... but the evidence is there to be seen in the numbers.

[Nikolai]

Interesting. I've never used whipping in my games, as I've never seen a good explanation on how and why. Thanks, Krill and snoopy.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If X > Y,

Is that always true?

and both are in {R}, and C and D are constants,

What other assumptions are you leaving out, such as that C < D?

Plus, C and D are NOT constants. City size (and worked tiles) changes, and also cottages mature. Other things change also... you might get bananas.

then there is a real number n such that n*X+C > n*Y + D for every value in {R} of C and D.

Given that the values of C and D are relatively small compared to X and Y (less than 20 times X and Y, and typically less than 10 times, given that you do much more commerce later on compared to earlier no matter your strategy)

I'm not sure that is a given... in fact, that's the point we're trying to illustrate. That it is NOT a given.

Under slavery, where you're whipping as you describe, and working food tiles, yes, C is quite small actually. D, however, is not.

it is trivial to accept that n is not a very large number itself.

If the assumptions hold, and if we haven't missed listing any telling assumptions altogether, then yes I agree.

Even just the extremely simple version Krill originally posted will get you significant returns, having the worker that much faster means significantly more production/food/commerce

Why would you have a worker faster? Slavery can minimize the production time. However, "faster" also depends on start time, and thus the non-BW situation could start the worker earlier if desired. Thus, "worker turns" would often be an advantage of the non-Slavery case, rather than of the Slavery case (as presented).

- which are exchangeable at that point of the game (more food -> more production -> more commerce).

How does more production -> more commerce?

If you don't want to believe this, then don't... but the evidence is there to be seen in the numbers.

There are too many missing assumptions and unestablished logic to declare a fait accompli.

Wodan

[Krill]

Why would you have a worker faster? Slavery can minimize the production time. However, "faster" also depends on start time, and thus the non-BW situation could start the worker earlier if desired. Thus, "worker turns" would often be an advantage of the non-Slavery case, rather than of the Slavery case (as presented).

Talking specifics, Worker turns are useless if you don't have any possible improvements to make. Which is why getting BW early if you have forests to chop is so good, you can get one early worker and use it to get you more for when you have the techs to improve your land, and still make the warriors/scouts to explore/defend.

If BW wasn't the first tech researched, then the worker has to be built from scratch, so it takes longer to build because either both cases start at size 2 after getting out a warrior/scout, or the none BW case goes worker first, which you've admitted is normally suboptimal. It should take around 22-25 turns to get the first worker without slaving if not going worker first, so you could feasibly get the required techs, such as AH for improving food even if you didn't start with hunting/agri, but after you improved the food resource, that worker is going to be idle or mining hills until you get to BW, and if you are going for pottery, that worker is going to be idle for a long time or farming tiles that aren't going to be used for a long time (and so are of limited value).

(There are exceptions to both, such as two irrigated corns/2 grassland gems/no forests start, where Agri first and then going for BW/Archery is a wise course of action).

[wodan11]

Chopping workers is useless if you don't have any possible improvements to make. So, I imagine you're suggesting that after BW you get Pottery and such. Which amounts to the same thing as Pottery and then BW, except that your first worker can make cottages while you're researching BW, and the research of BW will come faster because you have more commerce coming in.

22-25 sounds right for worker first, but a size 2 or 3 city will make a worker in 12-15 turns usually.

Wodan

[Addled Platypus]

what and when is the next topic ???

many thanks for the down and dirty

[Krill]

Research a tech after BW maybe? Agri, hunting, wheel, AH, whatever, but by the time you have chopped the second worker you should have a tech that lets you hook up a resource, hell, you could have started with mining, and have hills, or agri and have grain, or hunting and have ele, or wheel and you can road to the second city site. Chopping the second worker allows you to use up the worker turns that would otherwise be idle andget you a second worker that will continue to payoff for the rest of the game (you aren't going to have to build another worker until you have the thrid settler out most likely). Going Pottery first is an awful strategy because it requires 3 techs to be researched, and you don't want to be working cottages when making a worker because that slows you down even more. You will not be able to hook up any food resource that isn't a grain (or fish, but fishing boats make for a really interesting study), you won't know where any strat resources are and you won't be able to build anything other than warriors to defend yourself. BW only requires 2 techs, shows you copper, allows slavery and chopping forests

Also, never work with any numbers other than the numbers in Normal game speed. 22-25 turns is how long a worker should take after growing to size 2 and not slaving depending on if the city was working a 3 food tile from turn 1 (and on a standard map I think BW takes about 13 turns give or take a turn if you start with mining). A worker takes 15 turns at size 1 by going worker first if not Exp and is working a forest.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
Going Pottery first is an awful strategy because it requires 3 techs to be researched

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.

and you don't want to be working cottages when making a worker

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

BW only requires 2 techs, shows you copper, allows slavery and chopping forests

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.

Also, never work with any numbers other than the numbers in Normal game speed.

Why not?

Wodan

[Vampgelus]

Well... i read all this, and i began to wonder. I build 2 workers before anything else and thought this was a great start. After reading this, i had a doubt, so i checked the slaving strat out (took Bismark of the Incans for the test) but correct me if i'm wrong... exept getting the terraces instantly once reached 2 pop, i didn't get what is so great about crushing down your citys and getting serious happyness problems if you do it as often as needed to catch up with the (relative) lack of workers.
Ok, first try for me... but score showed me that i suck with that strat ^^

PS: I always play in marathon, maybe the malus isn't such a pain in the ass at normal speed. I am curious if you had an idea of a "noob" mistake i could have made with slavery.

[wodan11]

Most people will advise not whipping until the very turn that the previous whip unhappiness goes away. On Marathon, I think that's 15 turns.

It can also be advantageous to whip on the turn before that city is about to grow another pop. If that new citizen will be naturally unhappy because you're already at the cap, then you circumvent the issue. And, regardless, it means you will "regrow" at the smaller food resupply number. I'm sure Snoopy can validate this.

So anyway, what this means is that it's not necessarily a good idea to whip literally as often as you can. Some modicrum of restraint is called for, to get the most bang for the buck.

Anyway keep in mind that whipping gets you production speed and raw hammers both. But it doesn't really deal with the commerce question, which is what we've been talking about.

Wodan

[UnOrthOdOx]

I think the solution here is to run a comparitive game. Turn by turn for 80ish turns and show the economies of the same start, same civ, with whipping vs non-whipping.

[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 ^^.