Great Tech Leaders

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Diadem

So please let me know if you think my assumptions are wildly unrealistic. I'll update.

I'm not sure about wildly unrealistic, but I there are a couple of things about your SPI calculation that don't correspond with my experience.

Firstly, you seem to be assuming more GAs than I would expect - 3 or 4 depending whether the 2 switches in period 5 were from the same GA. Perhaps one of these was from the Taj Mahal, but even so, you are still burning at least 3 GP. I am willing to spend a Great Artist on a Golden Age, but surely there are much better things to do with your GSs, GMs, GEs and GPs?

Secondly, you are assuming far more civic switches than I would make if I'm not playing a SPI civ. And the switch to the end game civics in P5 seems way early. P5 is roughly AD 1400 - AD 1600. I would be thinking about switching to end game civics post AD 1800.

However, these two assumptions seem to (roughly) cancel each other out, so I don't disagree with your conclusion that SPI is pretty good but not top notch.

RJM

[Unimatrix11]

Tho i wouldnt overestimate the value of the results, i enjoy the analysis made here. It would be nice, if some of the guys, who seem to play with excel open and a calculator in the left hand anyways, to actually verify the trait-scores (remind me an awful lot of benchmarks) in real games. Like in: ´In my last game, playing mansa, SPI rated ca. 22KG (kilo-gold ), while financial only gave me about 17KG´, with a bit of elaborating of the game itself and the replacement of the numbers of the examples with real ones.

BTW, i, too think, that too many GAs have been assumed in the example above.

[Diadem]

Yeah what is needed to get accurate results is a database. Information about 'average x sci per turn during phase y' and stuff like that. For a great many games. That would allow much better estimates. I of course looked a bit at my own games when I made these estimates. But I'm not sure how average I am, or the games I looked at were.

Thinking about the SPI trait, I suddenly realized something useful. One game-turn is worth the same, regardless of where you are in the game. Think about this for a second. You build up your empire in a certain amount of turns. It doesn't matter if you spend a turn in anarchy earlier or later, your empire is at a standstill during that turn. So one turn is worth the same in every age. This gives us a natural way to weight ages. We should express bonusses not as a total in gold, but as a fraction of the total output for that turn.

This is still an idealization. A turn of anarchy is not a completely lost turn. Your workers still work, your settlers still move, your military still fights. But still. It seems like a pretty good estimate.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Diadem

Thinking about the SPI trait, I suddenly realized something useful. One game-turn is worth the same, regardless of where you are in the game. Think about this for a second. You build up your empire in a certain amount of turns. It doesn't matter if you spend a turn in anarchy earlier or later, your empire is at a standstill during that turn. So one turn is worth the same in every age. This gives us a natural way to weight ages. We should express bonusses not as a total in gold, but as a fraction of the total output for that turn.

This is still an idealization. A turn of anarchy is not a completely lost turn. Your workers still work, your settlers still move, your military still fights. But still. It seems like a pretty good estimate.

I'm not sure I follow this argument; perhaps you can run through it again in different words.

On the face of it, a turn of anarchy costs the science and hammers your empire is producing. The benefit of of SPI is that you don't lose them. The more your empire is producing, the greater the benefit of not losing them.

You say that you build up your empire in a certain number of turns, but that is not a fixed number. An early civic change can easily save you a turn over the course of a game.

Even if "a game turn is a game turn", I don't see how to use this in comparisons. For example, with a SPI leader, you might gain a small amount of science by switching out of slavery and into caste system for a few turns when the cost of doing this with a non-SPI leader would be too high. That seems to be a benefit unrelated to game turns.

RJM

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Diadem
Yeah what is needed to get accurate results is a database. Information about 'average x sci per turn during phase y' and stuff like that. For a great many games. That would allow much better estimates. I of course looked a bit at my own games when I made these estimates. But I'm not sure how average I am, or the games I looked at were.

Here is some data from some recent games - first with Frederick, emperor, fractal, normal and then with Lincoln (ditto):


Turn 115 Gross income 11 Net income 0 Science 113 Civic upkeep 2 (4, -1, 118, 1)
Turn 154 Gross income 43 Net income +1 Science 200 Civic upkeep 4
Turn 201 Gross income 79 Net income -2 Science 495 Civic upkeep 11 (73, -4, 514, 17)
Turn 237 Gross income 115 Net income +1 Science 858 Civic upkeep 14 (104, -21, 867, 28)
Turn 250 Gross income 131 Net income -10 Science 863 Civic upkeep 17 (114, -35, 837, 33)
Turn 300 Gross income 161 Net income -42 Science 922 Civic upkeep 21

RJM

[rjmatsleepers]

I have now played a game with Frederick. I didn't get the benefit I was hoping for. I rechecked my figures, and probably miscalculated the effect of inflation. I have revised my figures and posted the new ones in the original posting. Using my original approach, Organised now appears to be inferior to Financial or Philosophical. This still does not allow anything for differences in the values in different time periods.

RJM

[Diadem]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers

I'm not sure I follow this argument; perhaps you can run through it again in different words.

On the face of it, a turn of anarchy costs the science and hammers your empire is producing. The benefit of of SPI is that you don't lose them. The more your empire is producing, the greater the benefit of not losing them.

You say that you build up your empire in a certain number of turns, but that is not a fixed number. An early civic change can easily save you a turn over the course of a game.

Let me use a simple example to clarify. Say your empire is growing. The first turn you do 1 sci, 2 the second, 3 the third, etc. Until after 10 turns you'll be doing 10 science. Total science 55.

Now, imagine you spend a turn in anarchy. Does it matter which one? You might say "yes, spending it in the first turn, will make you loose less science". But that's not true, because your growth will also be slowed.

So your science would become 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or maybe 1,2,3,4,0,5,6,7,8,9 or maybe 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0. Either case the total will be the same.

So one lost turn always has the same effect on your empire after x turns. No matter if this turn was lost somewhere early or later.

In a 400 turn game, spending 4 turns in anarchy means reaching a size you would otherwise have reached in 396 turns. Doesn't matter when you loose those 4 turns.

So 1 gameturn always has the same value for you. If you could somehow do a bonus turn, it doesn't matter if you do this bonus turn early or late in the game.


Now stricly speaking, this is only true without external influences. Loosing a turn early instead of later in the game might mean missing a world wonder, or religion, by 1 turn because the AI gets there first. Also researching techs the AI already has is slightly cheaper, so loosing turns early might mean you're researching slightly cheaper techs on average. Both these effects, you'll agree with me I hope, are usually small though. So say that all turns are equal is still a very good approximation.

Also you'll still be moving units and workers during anarchy. So it's not a completely lost turn. Again though, this is a small effect.

Even if "a game turn is a game turn", I don't see how to use this in comparisons. For example, with a SPI leader, you might gain a small amount of science by switching out of slavery and into caste system for a few turns when the cost of doing this with a non-SPI leader would be too high. That seems to be a benefit unrelated to game turns.

RJM

Well if a turn is worth the same whatever your period, then a percentage of a turn is also always worth the same right.

Early game you might be doing 10 science a turn. If you get a bonus of 10 science, that's worth a full turn. Late game a full turn bonus is much more science, maybe even over 1000. But it's still the same bonus.

You have to be careful here of course. A turn produces more than just science. Most importantly hammers. But also culture, espionage, great people points, etc. Money too, though you usually aim to break even (or make just enough to pay for the occasional random event or diplomatic trade).

Still we can use this I think to compare the relative value of advantages early or late game, by expressing them as a percentage of your total output that turn.

[Unimatrix11]

Very good and interesting - i guess that´s why the ´experts´ always talk about ´turn-advantage´.

I´d really like to see this discussion go on...

[Kuciwalker]

In a traditional analysis all turns are equally-valued. As a practical matter, though, the fact that you can deny your enemy resources (settling city sites, getting wonders) and actively interfere with his activities (war) means that earlier turns are strictly more valuable.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
However, don't overlook the industrial trait in such a plan, as those wonders can act like trait substitutes or enhancers if you don't get too carried away. Louis 14th with Cre/Ind can be useful for tech racing and cultural wins.

IND provides a 50% bonus for wonders (I assume national as well as world). The number of turns gained by this trait when building a wonder depends on circumstances. From my most recent game (with Huayna Capac) an average gain of 6 turns seems reasonable. I shall assume you build the Pyramids (say 8 science per turn), the Temple of Artemis (say 1 science per turn) and the Great Library (say 15 science per turn) during the first 100 turns as well as the University of Sankore (say 21 science per turn), National Epic (say 25 science per turn), Oxford (say 100 science per turn) and Wall St (say 20 science per turn) during the second 100 turns.

The national wonders give 1 additional Great People point and the World wonders give 2. This is an extra 36 points during the first 100 turns (worth say 500 science)and 24 during the second 100 (worth say 100 science).

The benefit in the first 100 turns is about 144+400=544 science; during the second 100 turns the benefit is about 996+100=1096 science. This seems to imply that the direct benefit of IND is useful for a peaceful space race, roughly as good as CRE, but probably not as good as PHI, FIN, ORG or SPI.

This analysis does not allow for any benefit from other wonders (Ironworks, Moai Statues, Heroic Epic, etc) which give benefits not directly translatable into science.

It also assumes IND allows early completion of a wonder that would have been completed anyway. If IND allows you to complete a wonder that you would otherwise have missed, the benefit is significantly larger.

As Diadem said, anyone who thinks these assumptions are wrong, please post.

RJM