Grassland Wheat - Irrigate or Mine?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I always feel that a square producing no sheilds is kind of wasteful. The value of a wheat square with four food instead of three (in despotism) is that it can contribute to feed another worker who will gain shields. However, each added laborer adds one unhappy ciitzen.

The key in the early game is to balance three things: food, shields, and the luxury slider setting. As long as a city has enough shields, the extra food from irrigating instead of mining can go into building workers and settlers more quickly: with sufficient production, a city with four food surplus and a granary can produce about 4/3 the settlers or workers that one with three food surplus and a granary can. (Without a granary, the ratio is 7/5 because of rounding issues.) But if a city can't get enough shields to take advantage of its food surplus, sacrificing shields for food is counterproductive. Where the luxury slider comes into play is that it can help cities get bigger so they can sacrifice shields for food and still get enough shields to be suitable at least as worker pumps.

Thus, in the early game, irrigating is generally the right move in core cities, but mining is often the right move in outlying areas where corruption reduces the benefit from the luxury slider and makes shields harder to come by. Another issue that might come into play is if the only high-food city around is not the capital and has no river or other significant commerce bonuses, in which case targeting food and boosting the luxury slider enough to take advantage of the food may be prohibitively expensive under some circumstances. The exact balance of when to do what isn't something I can provide a formula for. But if you pay attention and watch for situations where you mine but have enough shields that you could have irigated or where you irrigate only to find that you're not getting enough shields to take advantage of the irrigation, that can help you get better at choosing which to do.

Also note that with a granary, bringing a city up above five surplus food is pointless until the city grows past size 7. So if a city has access to two wheat tiles or a wheat and a cow, the only reason why it might make sense to irrigate both is if a player is willing to micromanage enough to have another city use one of the tiles half the time on an alternating basis. (The situation is a little different for Agricultural cities built next to fresh water, since they get a food bonus from the city tile in addition to other food bonuses.) There is no point giving up shields for extra food if the extra food won't do any good. (Note that without a granary, seven food does have an advantage over five. But in that case, what's really needed is a second city to take over some of the extra food.)

Once a city reaches size 12 (or some smaller "permanent" size if crowding requires that it stay smaller), it generally makes sense to shift the city's operations to focus exclusively on production assuming the workers can be spared to change tile improvements. If hills, mountains, or such can absorb the extra food, leaving food bonus tiles irrigated can make good sense. But if not, shifting irrigation to mining once there is no longer a use for extra food can be a good way to get a few extra shields.

[Theseus]

Nathan, that is a tad 'forest for the trees', and should clearly come labeled "FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS ONLY".

Yes, where appropriate, food should be maximized to to match the Settlers that can be produced within happiness limits by the shields available...

But when someone of your rep posts "Thus, in the early game, irrigating is generally the right move in core cities..." , I would be concerned as to how often vxma1 would have to correct other players' early games.

[vmxa1]

This why Nathan is a master empire builder. I fear that Theseus is right that most will only remember the irrigate is generally right, early.

The people that will use the concept properly, probably already know how to do it (even then most are too lazy).

[Jaguar]

Wow, a lot of good stuff in that post.

[Vince278]

Well thought out and great presentation (if just a tad long...).

[JimiD]

for my own clarification, is Nathan refering to Wheat squares or general squares?

ie irrigating Wheat in the core is good, 'cause you can make the most of extra food, but mining is more useful at the edges, due to corruption / waste.

Or is it a more sweeping statement?

[nbarclay]

I'm referring most directly to grassland wheat tiles, but the same basic issues are also involved with cattle and wines on grassland. For grassland tiles without food bonuses, irrigating under Despotism is useless, so mining is always the right choice under Despotism. (And by the time Despotism is over, the REXing phase is also usually pretty much over, so about the only time I irrigate grasslands that don't have food bonuses is when I need to do so in order to work more hills or mountains.)

Keep in mind that the issue is complicated enough that any rule of thumb is by nature limited. For example, the more grasslands with shield or equivalent tiles a city has, the easier a time it has getting the production to take good advantage of irrigation. Similarly, the more rivers or other commerce bonuses a city has, the easier a time the city will have using the luxury slider to grow bigger in order to get extra production to take advantage of extra food. So my rule of thumb is better used as a starting point than as a hard-and-fast rule.

I might also mention that if a city uses irrigation instead of mining and then ends up using specialists due to inadequate production, that indicates some kind of problem. The problem might be that irrigating instead of mining was a bad choice, or that the city is lagging behind in mining other grasslands it's working, or that the city is trying to build other things when it ought to be focusing more (or even exclusively) on settlers and workers, or that the luxury slider needs to be set higher. But one way or another, something isn't going the way it ought to be.

I'll admit that as Theseus said, what I'm writing here is a bit on the advanced side. The problem is that the issue is complex enough that it is impossble to come up with an answer that is both simple and complete. Given that reality, I prefer to provide an answer that is as complete as I can reasonably make it and let players decide how much of the answer they're willing to take the time to use.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Must...listen...to...builderers...


Anywho, just to throw one other kink into the works, one should also consider the effects of a GA under Despotism in certain situations. While most will come and say, rightfully so, how horrible a GA under despotism is, it is also a thing that can be made quite effective with the right planning. Probably more-so for PBEM's than SP games, though.

[Arrian]

There are very few things that hold true in every situation in CivIII. Therefore, a despotic GA can of course be useful for certain things. By and large, though, and especially for we builderers , they suck.

I've refined it further, though. I now hate GAs that happen before I've managed to pump up my core cities to size12 (or less if they are simply unable to reach 12 due to their terrain). A republican GA > despotic GA but not if the republic has a bunch of size 4 towns and the despot is ruler of a bunch of size 12s. Your GA boosts what each citizen produces. More citizens (in reasonably non-corrupt cities) = more benifit. This ties back into the "pop is power" thing.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

/me thinks: Hmmm... how to tie the despotic GA threadjack back into the irrigation topic?

One might further note that if a despotic GA is in fact anticipated, it is desirable to have every tile being worked producing at least one shield for the duration of the GA. So, non-shielded grassland with bonuses may very well be mined in any case.

[nbarclay]

On the surface, it looks like irrigating instead of mining costs a potential advantage in a despotic GA. But if irrigating instead of mining lets you have more cities to get the GA bonus in, or more workers and hence more improved tiles to work and take advantage of the GA bonus, the indirect benefits of irrigating instead of mining can be considerably greater than the direct costs even with a despotic GA.

[Theseus]

Fair enough.

I think it would be useful to less experienced players to elucidate the various instances where irrigating instead of mining (and, I guess, the exceptions to the exceptions ), would be useful... situations to watch for, as it were. Thus, we could develop sort of a two-level 'despotic rule of thumb', e.g.:

Level One:
* Mine grassland
* Irrigate plains
* Only road floodplains, unless there is a food bonus resource, then irrigate

Level Two:
* Irrigate all food bonus resources, unless:
- Shield production is problematic
- Despotic GA is imminent
- ??

etc.

[Theseus]

Not exactly on point, but an interesting (and PIA) case study.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Theseus
Fair enough.

I think it would be useful to less experienced players to elucidate the various instances where irrigating instead of mining (and, I guess, the exceptions to the exceptions ), would be useful... situations to watch for, as it were. Thus, we could develop sort of a two-level 'despotic rule of thumb', e.g.:

Level One:
* Mine grassland
* Irrigate plains
* Only road floodplains, unless there is a food bonus resource, then irrigate

Level Two:
* Irrigate all food bonus resources, unless:
- Shield production is problematic
- Despotic GA is imminent
- ??

etc.

This would be a truly terrific resource for newbies just like me

And forgive my ignorance, what is PIA?

[punkbass2000]

I think he meant PITA, which is 'pain in the ass'.