Hurry Production.

[rjmatsleepers]

If we knew how to compare the value of gold, shields, beakers and food, this would help analyse a lot of the crucial decisions in the game. For example, during the silly rules game, I had a discussion with La Fayette concerning the relative benefit of a high tax rate and using the money to rush caravans compared with a high research rate.

It seems to me that one of the things that makes this game so interesting is that the strategic decisions are very difficult to analyse. Part of the reason for this being that the value of shields etc varies from game to game and from time to time (and perhaps from city to city!)

In the early landing games, it can be worth sacrificing shields and food in order to obtain a single extra beaker - the one that enables you to discover monarchy in time to revolt 4 years earlier! In this case, 2 food + 2 shields is worth less than 1 gold and one beaker.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Kramsib]

First of all, I want to thank SlowThinker to be here, let's see if we can reach a solution altogether.

Secondly I want to clarify a concept. When I use "gold" I mean trade arrows.

As we all know, trade arrows are turned into "science", "luxuries" and "taxes", I assume that the percentage for science is "gold" expended in technology, and "luxuries" is "gold" expended in goods for people. So I consider trade arrows as a global amount of gold which is used in several expenses.

Originally posted by SlowThinker

-- Talking about considering citizens as "labour force" --

Bad idea. You forgot that labour forces are not equally effective.
In order to simplify situation imagine there are only 2 types of squares in Civ2: forest produces 2 shield only and grassland 3 food. Then you can exchange 1 shield for 1.5 food. (now we disregard the fact that shields may be traded for food also using food caravans)

You have always to consider rates you can 'trade' resources (replacing workers is also a kind of trade).

I don't think is totally bad. Of course, each terrain type has different productions, but once you have placed your citizens, the production in that turn determines three quantities ( food / shields / gold) as they were produced by the same quantity of citizens in one turn, their values would be the same.

Of course, if you replace your workers next turn, the quantities would be different, in addition if new citizens spring up, quantities would be different too. We can see this like prices continually fluctuating up and down and changing depending on where you are focusing your production.

Therefore rushbuy cost + capitalization cost (or improvement building and its subsequent sale) are possible methods how to compare gold and shield. Which one to use, rushbuy(RB) or capitalization? It depends on situation, shields may be used for city production, gold for bribing. If bribing is more effective then you will build improvements, sell them and bribe: you will consider 1 shield=1 gold. If city production is more effective then you will RB units and improvements: you will consider 1 shield = approx. 2 gold.

I agree with you, there are other ways of comparison, but they include a penalty to avoid game exploits, so real values are altered. Someone can think that when you can only choose among penalty based alternatives, real value is quite irrelevant. But when trade is quite free like in PBEM's, the situation is pretty different.

(a digression: gold has one big advantage: it is freely transferable over your empire. Therefore with large civ it may be 1 shield = 1 gold; but also in small empire the possibility of transfer has its value, because gold may be used immediately (in 1st city that is able to finish production with RB), in opposite cumulated shields must 'wait' 10 or 20 turns before they start to be effective).
The price of bribing is quite high in Civ2, therefore you usually prefer not to bribe but to rushbuy (not speaking about MP duel now ), and so the ratio should be about 1 shield = 2 gold (and less, because of free transfer).

Gold from treasure is freely transferable, but "trade arrows" aren't (although caravans can create more). I am sorry for this misunderstanding.

Gold in treasure is out of my analysis as it is a stock variable and it cannot be studied in the same way as a flow variable.

When I speak of gold I mean "trade arrows", which can be considered as gold.

-- Speaking about the ratio --

This is a good idea if you want an 'average' price of a resource. But in a real play you shouldn't think this way, because prices are different in different cities.
Again our simplified example: imagine we have also Plains that produces 2 food. One city has only plains+forest around, another one has only grassland+forest. Of course you won't want to use a general, 'average' price food/shield but you will consider each city separately.

This is exactly what I mean when I said the ratio can be used individually for each city. The fact that each city is surrounded by different terrain types makes them have different ratios (different prices for shields).

You can use individual ratios or the average ratio whenever you consider is better to use.

------------------------------------------------------------

What I am more interested in , is to know if we are following a good track using this ratio. Once the idea seems to be acceptable, let's study each case specifically.

[Bloody Monk]

Maybe there is a language thing going on here, but I just do not understand how you can equate gold with trade arrows.

This entire discussion has been replete with references to "buying" or "rush buying" units or improvements or WoW. There is no way in the game I play to buy anything with trade arrows. This is becoming very artificial and theoretical, and the theory fails on bad initial assumptions.

Gold does equate to trade arrows. Now, if you want to state some unprovable proposition and call it a "constant", to act as a shortcut in making complex calculations, ala Richard Feynman, then maybe some general agreement can be reached. But saying gold = trade arrows will not suffice as a proof of anything.

Monk

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Gold does equate to trade arrows. Now, if you want to state some unprovable proposition and call it a "constant", to act as a shortcut in making complex calculations, ala Richard Feynman, then maybe some general agreement can be reached. But saying gold = trade arrows will not suffice as a proof of anything.

Also for me arrows=gold.
If you want to think about problems like Civ2 you should simplify it first. Only when you understand the simplified problem you may continue by adding new items.
You can simplify it by different ways - e.g. beakers are freely transferable in gold and back, or there is no science and no luxuries in the game... But for our existing debate it is not important which kind of simplification is applied, and so IMO there is no need to articulate it.

Originally posted by Kramsib
I don't think is totally bad. Of course, each terrain type has different productions, but once you have placed your citizens, the production in that turn determines three quantities ( food / shields / gold) as they were produced by the same quantity of citizens in one turn, their values would be the same.
Of course, if you replace your workers next turn, the quantities would be different, in addition if new citizens spring up, quantities would be different too. ...

But you don't place workers deliberately. First compare price of a resource with an asset of this resource, and only after this comparison you place your workers.

...We can see this like prices continually fluctuating up and down and changing depending on where you are focusing your production.

Again, price cannot depend on where you put workers...

Gold in treasure is out of my analysis as it is a stock variable and it cannot be studied in the same way as a flow variable.

I do not understand. What is a flow variable and so can be studied?

[N35t0r]

And remember that Capitalization yelds 1:1 only when the city has neither market, bank, or stock exchange... in those cases, it yelds 1:1.5, 1:2 and up to 1:2.5

[Kramsib]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Maybe there is a language thing going on here, but I just do not understand how you can equate gold with trade arrows.

This entire discussion has been replete with references to "buying" or "rush buying" units or improvements or WoW. There is no way in the game I play to buy anything with trade arrows. This is becoming very artificial and theoretical, and the theory fails on bad initial assumptions.

Gold does equate to trade arrows. Now, if you want to state some unprovable proposition and call it a "constant", to act as a shortcut in making complex calculations, ala Richard Feynman, then maybe some general agreement can be reached. But saying gold = trade arrows will not suffice as a proof of anything.

Monk

Ok, I will explain.

Let's say, we have 1000 trade arrows, and we are using 50 % in science, 20 % in luxuries and the 30 % left are taxes which turn into "gold", this gold is expended in paying buildings cost and the rest is thrown into your treasure.

What I say is that the whole amount of trade arrows is gold, money (just a change on the name, nothing else), and 50 % of that money is expended on scientific investigation, 20 % is money expended on luxuries and the rest, after paying buildings cost, is gold for your treasure.

You can make it easier, think that taxes are 100%, then all trade arrow = gold , that's it, 1000 trade arrows = 1000 gold coins.

It does not matter where do you employ your trade arrows, they can be turned into gold.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
But you don't place workers deliberately. First compare price of a resource with an asset of this resource, and only after this comparison you place your workers.

No, I place my workers where I believe they produce more, or they will produce what I consider is better, then the price comes as a result of my decisions.

Let's say, one of my cities is producing, 20 food, 10 shields and 25 trade arrows. Shield price would be 2.5 , but if I replace my workers and I get 22 food, 11 shields and 23 trade arrows , shield price would be 23/11=2.09 .

First alternative means less food, less shields and more trade arrows.

Second alternative means more food, more shields and less trade arrows.

As shields become more abundant under the second alternative they are logically more expensive.

Price is given by my decisions.

But then, after seeing this price I can realise I need more gold (trade arrows) or more shields and that fact can help me to take future decisions.

Again, price cannot depend on where you put workers...

Prices depends on production (shortage or abundancy of sources), and production depends on where I put my workers.

I do not understand. What is a flow variable and so can be studied?

Trade arrows are a flow variable (perhaps this is a bad translation of what I mean, but I haven't found a better word), they are produced and expended every turn, like a cash flow.

In real life a cash flow means money input and money output, what remains in the middle is a stock, whereas what enters and goes is the flow.

Trade arrows are produced every turn and expended (in science, luxuries, ...), the rest which is not expended are acumulated into the treasure.

In Economics we must be careful not to mix stock with flows because they don't have the same features.

( I this game. )

[SlowThinker]

Price is given by my decisions.
...
Prices depends on production (shortage or abundancy of sources), and production depends on where I put my workers.

I understand price as a ratio between resources that expresses how easily/arduously I can get them.
I need price because it helps me to place workers most effectively (I compare prices and revenues and then choose resource that has the highest revenue/price ratio).
If you place workers first ... then what is the price for?

Let us forget food so that things are more simple. We have only shields (S) and arrows (A). You can place workers only two ways: so that the output is
a) 2 A + 3 S
or replace them so that you get
b) 5 A + 2 S.
You are saying you have two prices of shields, 0.66 and 2.5 . What are these two prices good for? Can you explain it on this example?

I will tell you how 'my' price works:
In the example you get always 2A and 2S. This part of the output cannot be changed. Additionaly you may decide between a) 1 S or b) 3 A. So the price of 1 shield is 3 arrows.

Flow/stock:
I am not familiar with economics, but I understand that 'stock' is a freezed, not working (and so not growing) item.
But what are shields? They 'flow' in each turn, then they represent a 'stock', and they 'flow' out when production is finished.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by N35t0r
And remember that Capitalization yelds 1:1 only when the city has neither market, bank, or stock exchange... in those cases, it yelds 1:1.5, 1:2 and up to 1:2.5

I never used it... how does it work with a factory? Is the output doubled?

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Kramsib


Ok, I will explain.

Let's say, we have 1000 trade arrows, and we are using 50 % in science, 20 % in luxuries and the 30 % left are taxes which turn into "gold", this gold is expended in paying buildings cost and the rest is thrown into your treasure.

What I say is that the whole amount of trade arrows is gold, money (just a change on the name, nothing else), and 50 % of that money is expended on scientific investigation, 20 % is money expended on luxuries and the rest, after paying buildings cost, is gold for your treasure.

You can make it easier, think that taxes are 100%, then all trade arrow = gold , that's it, 1000 trade arrows = 1000 gold coins.

OK - at the margin we have a relationship between gold, luxuries and beakers. (Although in governments other than a democracy, there is a limited on the total amount in each category.) So for our first city with 3 trade arrows we can choose 2 gold and 1 beaker or 2 beakers and 1 gold (ignoring luxuries). So the "price" of a beaker is 1 trade arrow. But as we build infrastructure this ratio changes. With a library and a university, but no market, the "price of a beaker has dropped to half a trade arrow. I think I've got it. (Of course when you have a market and a bank, 1 trade arrow becomes 2 gold, but maybe that doesn't matter.)

So how do we use this in the game? Among the important decisions in the game are:

a) what should I "spend" my shields on? (For example should I build a market or a caravan)

b) should I allocate my workers to grass in order to boost city growth or to forest in order to boost production?

Can you give us an example of how we can use your ideas to analyse either of these questions.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by N35t0r
And remember that Capitalization yelds 1:1 only when the city has neither market, bank, or stock exchange... in those cases, it yelds 1:1.5, 1:2 and up to 1:2.5

IIRC this is not the case - Capitalisation yields Gold, not trade arrows to be converted to gold - I am pretty sure that I ran a recent test and got a strict 1:1 ratio

Stu

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
OK - at the margin we have a relationship between gold, luxuries and beakers. (Although in governments other than a democracy, there is a limited on the total amount in each category.) So for our first city with 3 trade arrows we can choose 2 gold and 1 beaker or 2 beakers and 1 gold (ignoring luxuries). So the "price" of a beaker is 1 trade arrow. But as we build infrastructure this ratio changes. With a library and a university, but no market, the "price of a beaker has dropped to half a trade arrow.

Yes, this is 'my' view on price. A good example, more clear than with replaced workers.

But in Kramsib's theory it is different:

Originally posted by Kramsib
Price is given by my decisions.
...
Prices depends on production (shortage or abundancy of sources), and production depends on where I put my workers.

In other words if Kramsib sets 90% science + 10% taxes then price of 1 beaker is 0.11 gold. If he sets 10% science + 90% taxes then price of 1 beaker is 9 gold.
But such a conception of price is completely useless IMHO.

Kramsib, IMO you are thinking about one situation and speaking about a diferent one: If you can choose between 90% of science (and no taxes) or 10% taxes (and no science) then the price of 1 beaker is 0.11 gold.
But in our case you can have both science and taxes.

[SlowThinker]

Preface: next reasoning supposes you can trade resources deliberately, which is not completely true...

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
So how do we use this in the game?

Let us say we have a simple price system: 1food = 1shield = 2beakers = 2gold
(For example 1food = 1shield supposes we can switch between shielded grassland and forest, but this is not always so simple: for example if there is a road on the grassland).

Let us say in the beginning of the game we are deciding how to set taxes: to go to monarchy as fast as possible or to use gold for rushbuys of Settlers?
1) taxes up, Settlers
A new city costs 20 food + 40 shields = 120 gold (I disregard facts that the city may need a warrior for martial law and the settler must walk before building a new settler). New city is built on grassland with shielded grasssland and forest around, so it is producing a 9-gold output each turn (3 shields + 1 food surplus + 1 arrow).
120 / 9 = 13.3
In 13.3 turns we have our investment back.

2) science up, Monarchy
Monarchy costs you ... say 10+20+30+40+50 beakers, so 150 beakers.
Now we must imagine status of our empire when Monarchy is completed: suppose 5 cities...one is whale on grassland... then monarchy gives me 1 arrow + 1 food ... summing ... let us say there is an aditional 10-gold output.
150 / 10 = 15
In 15 turns we have our investment back.

A sidenote: Also you should take into account gold works faster than beakers. Imagine a game where you can build Settlers or Engineers. Engineer cost is doubled, but a city build by Engineer has a doubled production. Will you build 1 Engineer or two Settlers in a row?

Edited: sequence of paragraphs

[Kramsib]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

I understand price as a ratio between resources that expresses how easily/arduously I can get them.
I need price because it helps me to place workers most effectively (I compare prices and revenues and then choose resource that has the highest revenue/price ratio).
If you place workers first ... then what is the price for?

Let us forget food so that things are more simple. We have only shields (S) and arrows (A). You can place workers only two ways: so that the output is
a) 2 A + 3 S
or replace them so that you get
b) 5 A + 2 S.
You are saying you have two prices of shields, 0.66 and 2.5 . What are these two prices good for? Can you explain it on this example?

I will tell you how 'my' price works:
In the example you get always 2A and 2S. This part of the output cannot be changed. Additionaly you may decide between a) 1 S or b) 3 A. So the price of 1 shield is 3 arrows.

Oh my God !, you have discovered the MARGINALIST THEORY you will be an economist pretty soon

"Your" price is the price of the unit in the margin .

Ok, I will explain.

I suppose you are asking me to select the best alternative between a) or b) using price as an indicator.

Someone can think that the best alternative is that one which means the highest output. Let's calculate the outputs.

Option a) 2A + 3S

2A = 2 gold
3S = 2 gold ( 3 * 0.66)

Total output = 4 gold.

Option b) 5A + 2S

5A = 5 gold
2S = 5 gold ( 2 * 2.5)

Total output = 10 gold

Option b) is better than a).

But this is an ERROR,

, the correct way to select among alternatives comes through MARGINALIST THEORY, that's what you have applied, involuntarily I suppose.

Passing from a) to b), means changing 1 shield for 3 gold.

Under option a), shield price is 0.66, changing option a) for option b), means to sell one shield for 3 arrows, as 3 > 0.66, you earn money and become more efficient.

Now, under option b), there are less shields and their price is higher, 2.5.

Now, imagine you can change option b) for a new option c) which means:

c) 8A + 1S

Passing from b) to c), means changing a shield which costs 2.5 gold, for 3 arrows. You are still earning money so the change is good.

Now, imagine that you cannot change option b) for option c), you can change b) for d), and d) is:

d) 7A + 1S.

Passing from b) to d), means changing a shield which costs 2.5, for 2 arrows. 2 < 2.5 and you are losing money, changing b) for d) is not worthwhile.

Now, let's assume that we can always exchange shields for arrows at a constant rate, 1 shield for 1 arrow. That is to say, we have a wide range of alternatives like the following:

a) 4A + 6S
b) 5A + 5S
c) 6A + 4S
d) 7A + 3S

In case a), each shield costs 4/6 = 0.66 gold.
passing from a) to b) means changing a 0.66 gold shield for 1 gold (1 > 0.66, we earn money ). Shield cost raises to 1 gold.

Passing from b) to c) means changing a 1 gold shield for 1 gold (1 = 1, we are indiferent ). Shield cost raises to 1.5

Passing from c) to d) means changing a 1.5 shield for 1 gold (1 < 1.5, we are losing money ). Passing from c) to d) is not worthwhile.

This analysis is using prices in the margin, the marginal cost of exchanging 1 shield for a determined quantity of arrows.

As you can see, when choosing among different alternatives, price gives you the clue.

So, my ratio is the real price of the shields under the current production. "Your" price is the exchange rate for the new alternative. If the exchange rate is higher than the real price, changing is good, if lower is bad.

Flow/stock:
I am not familiar with economics, but I understand that 'stock' is a freezed, not working (and so not growing) item.
But what are shields? They 'flow' in each turn, then they represent a 'stock', and they 'flow' out when production is finished.

Shields flow, they are produced every turn and expedended every turn to maintain units (entrance and exit of shields), the unexpended remaining shields are acumulated in a stock to construct buildings, units or wonders. That is to say, you can exchange a fix quantity of X shields for a building a unit or a Wonder.

There is a classical drawing to show what is flow and what is stock, I hope it can help:

[Kramsib]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


OK - at the margin we have a relationship between gold, luxuries and beakers. (Although in governments other than a democracy, there is a limited on the total amount in each category.) So for our first city with 3 trade arrows we can choose 2 gold and 1 beaker or 2 beakers and 1 gold (ignoring luxuries). So the "price" of a beaker is 1 trade arrow. But as we build infrastructure this ratio changes. With a library and a university, but no market, the "price of a beaker has dropped to half a trade arrow. I think I've got it. (Of course when you have a market and a bank, 1 trade arrow becomes 2 gold, but maybe that doesn't matter.)

So how do we use this in the game? Among the important decisions in the game are:

a) what should I "spend" my shields on? (For example should I build a market or a caravan)

b) should I allocate my workers to grass in order to boost city growth or to forest in order to boost production?

Can you give us an example of how we can use your ideas to analyse either of these questions.

RJM at Sleeper's

Very good appreciation, that is what I mean when I said the idea has to be improved.

Let's work a bit more without marketplaces nor libraries and then I will introduce them in the analysis once we get a strong base.

Thank you

[Kramsib]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

But in Kramsib's theory it is different:
In other words if Kramsib sets 90% science + 10% taxes then price of 1 beaker is 0.11 gold. If he sets 10% science + 90% taxes then price of 1 beaker is 9 gold.
But such a conception of price is completely useless IMHO.

Kramsib, IMO you are thinking about one situation and speaking about a diferent one: If you can choose between 90% of science (and no taxes) or 10% taxes (and no science) then the price of 1 beaker is 0.11 gold.
But in our case you can have both science and taxes.

That is not correct.

Asuming there is no marketplaces nor libraries, 1 beaker is equal to one gold, as the beaker is obtained from only 1 trade arrow.

Prices are not altered with a different distribution of trade arrows, as the quantity of arrows stays the same. You can expend your trade arrows wherever you want, science, luxuries or "cash" in your treasure, prices remain the same. Only changes in production (more/less arrows, food or shields) can alter prices.