The mathematics of slavery/whipping

[Krill]

He sits next to me at work, but he's here less during the day because I don't think he want his boss looking over his shoulder while he posts here.

He's beta testing Civ 5.

[rah]

He'd better not be. (since he hasn't mentioned anything like that)
Holding out on your boss is not good.

[Krill]

Have you ever seen the NDAs Firaxis make you sign? He's required to.

Then again, I'd apreciate it if you could be mean to him until he gives up the info to you. Post back here with constant updates on how the exercise is going, will yah?

[Blaupanzer]

Rah, are you his boss?

[rah]

Yes, after playing civ with him online I met him IRL at a chicago poly meet at my brothers, and was so impressed with him that the next opening I got, I offered him a job. One of my best hiring decisions EVER. (and I've hired over a hundred people in my career).
And yeah Krill I'm aware of the NDA's but I'm pretty sure I'd know if he was doing it. I'm sure he wouldn't tell me any specifics but he'd probably hint that he was doing it.

[sorinache]

Common times I whip --
Early, when capital has 3-4 improved tiles but grows fast enough that it is at 5 or 6 pop and at the happy cap. Especially whip that 1st settler. Whip garrison in new cities, overflow goes to monument or granary.

The only time I commonly whip in the AD years is on those annoyingly expensive universities. I've usually chopped all the forests by that time and I need six of the suckers for Oxford. While it hurts to whip population that is working villages or towns, it is sometimes worth it to get Oxford running in the main science city.

During conquest of large developed cities, you might as well whip 'em hard. Many will still be choked by enemy culture when they come out of resistance and starve down uselessly if you you don't.

Hmmm, I wonder if I'm playing the same game ... By the time I have education, I also have Serfdom and Caste System. Why on earth would anyone be running Slavery rather than Serfdom or Caste System, both of which are, IMO, vastly superior ? Besides, thanks in part to serfdom, by the time I have education, I developed the tiles of my cities so thoroughly that an University takes only a couple more turns to build than the Library took several centuries before. If the map is unhelpful and I do not generate enough hammers, I build Universities during a Golden Age.

[rah]

Well, you're not playing aggressive AI so no, you're not playing the same game.
But yes by then we're running somthing besides slavery, but during a conquering spree I may drop back in to help deal with the conquered cities. And if you're playing aggressive AI you have a few cities that just crank out units without an extensive infrastructure. Most of you cash and science is coming from just a handful of cities so you may need to slave a university or two from your other cities to make Oxford avail.

[Theben]

Not me, and I do play aggressive AI. Since I rarely play spiritual civs that leaves my civic switching relegated to when desired civics are discovered, GAs, and after the Cristo wonder is built. As you said, late game you'll have cities able to churn out units quickly, so I don't see a need to drop back into slavery. And After Uni Suff I'll just buy what I need in conquered cities.

Now I don't play MP as often and haven't had my back against the wall due to a human player- ever- so in that case I might change my mind. But not otherwise.

[sorinache]

Rah, are you his boss?

Whose boss is Rah ?

[sorinache]

That's a wonderful exercise, thanks Diadem. It goes to show that Slavery is mostly not worth it given the way I play, because Granaries are not the buildings I build first. I usually start by building libraries or monasteries of the AP religion if the AP has ben built. Next are either forges or courthouses. By the time I get around to build a granary, given the number of workers I use, the city is already size 6 - 8 and at least as many tiles are developed.

BTW, the upfront cost of building a granary should somehow also be substracted from the benefit of whipping. If I build a granary first in order to increase the efficiency of my whipping it means I did not build a library first - meaning less culture and less beakers

Actually the amount of food surplus does not effect the efficiency of slavery. Only how fast your city grows and thus how often you can slave. But that's the efficiency of the city, not of slavery. Other things being equal, slavery is as efficient in a bad city as a good city. But of course in the good city you will benefit more from it, because it's a good city.

Slavery is
- Usually not worth it in a big city (Say 8 and up)
- Not worth it if you have very good tiles to work
- Usually not worth it if you do not have a granary

The basic effect is slavery is to turn food into hammers. Since bigger cities require more food per population point, slavery gives you more hammers per food in small cities. So in big cities, do not bother. And if you do not have a granary, it is 50% less effective, because a granary halves the food needed per population point.

Note that in a way, any tile you work also turns food into useful stuff. Every tile you work costs 2 food, and gives you whatever the tile gives. Working a farmed floodplains turns 2 food into 4 food and 1 commerce. Now that's a deal. Do not whip such a tile (unless you reach happiness of health caps, or need stuff in a hurry). Working a mined plains hill turns 2 food into 4 hammers. That might be more interesting to whip.

Let's use the mined plains hill as an example. That's usually not the best tile to work. So if slavery can not even beat that, it's not useful. So 2 hammers per food.

If I recall correctly slavery gives 30 hammers and one population point costs 2 * (10+city size) food. So a size one city grows for 22 food. Slavery will thus give you 1.36 hammer per food without a granary. Not worth it! With a granary it givies 2.73 food though, and that's a good deal. If the city is bigger the efficiency decreases. At size 5 the city grows for 30 food, and whipping with a granary gives you exactly 2 hammers per food. Same as a plainshill.

Of course there can be other reasons to whip. To get stuff (and thus the benefits of the stuff) earlier. This is most obvious for units to defend against attack. But whipping a granary is usually also worth it, because while you may lose out on the whipping, the 10 extra turns of having more efficient food production more than compensate for that.

[rah]

Whose boss is Rah ?

Snoopy369


and you're right, the way you play probably wouldn't need to take advantage of whipping.
In SP games you have plenty of time to build your infrastructure, especially with no agressive ai.
MP is a totally different game. You need a bigger army a lot earlier, and if you don't whip or chop, you'll probably get caught with your pants down.

[sorinache]

Snoopy369
and you're right, the way you play probably wouldn't need to take advantage of whipping.
In SP games you have plenty of time to build your infrastructure, especially with no agressive ai.
MP is a totally different game. You need a bigger army a lot earlier, and if you don't whip or chop, you'll probably get caught with your pants down.

It reminds me of the old days when I was playing Starcraft with friends or against the AI. I used to like the Protoss because they developped slowly but had powerful late game units. Then I happened in a cybercafé and accepted an invitation to play against a guy I didn't know. He took the Zerg and rushed me with zerglings, I was dead in about 2 minutes. Ok, I said, hat off, that was impressive, now let's play the game. The second time around he did the same thing and I gave up. I mean once it's ok, you surprise the other guy. Twice, one gets to ask what's the point ? We weren't playing for money or in a league or tournament, there was nothing special about winning against a guy you just met ... Where's the fun in playing the same zergling routine every time ?

I imagine in MP people get too worked up about winning to my taste. As one thread form last month asked : what do you prefer : a game where you thrashed everyone quickly and thoroughly or a game where you sweated and struggled and came back from behind to finish just one or two turns before your closest enemy ? I would definitely be more satisfied with the latter game (even if I would need to admit that I probably played less well than in the former)

So maybe the Coubertin guy had a valid point : it's not necessarily about winning, it's about playing

[rah]

Well we do play random civs so each game is different. WHile being eliminated early does happen it's not that frequent and you can rejoin as one of the AI's, so at least we play more of fun game. Somewhere between the cut throat games at game spy where they risk everything knowing if it doesn't work they can quit and join another game and the diplo games which while there is action, maybe not quite as much as we have. It's a good compromise for us.

[Blaupanzer]

Rah, tell Snoop to stop by once in a while. I (We) miss him.

[T-hawk]

The other important mathematical effect of Slavery whipping is to accelerate workers and settlers. These units always convert food to hammers at a 1:1 ratio, which is very inefficient. With a granary, the whip converts food to hammers at a much better ratio. It's a 1:2 conversion ratio if the regrowth happens at size 5, and still a good 1:1.5 if regrowing at size 10.

That also leads to another rule of thumb of whipping: never whip away a grass hill mine. That laborer converts 1 food to 3 hammers which is better than any whip.

And of course workers and settlers have very quick payback from coming out earlier - several turns sooner on every improvement that worker will ever build, or several turns sooner at every stage of the new city's life.