damn, deity is hard

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-13-2001 03:20 PM But you ignore all "cons": c) war conditions (small loss may cause a big problem, ) d) doubled research and the effect of WoWs (i. e. doubled for each half of civ) e) a teamwork between both halves of civ

[c] My empire is better prepared for war, because it has roads.
[d] Research catches up even faster than size, because I have roads. And by the time we are completing WoWs, I have probably already overtaken you.
[e] You have little of that, since you have no roads.

Did I mention that my empire has roads?



------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Ribannah]

[quote]Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-13-2001 03:19 PM
Any function may be considered as exponential if the exponent depends on variable "x": I am always right
[QUOTE]

A function (an expansion) is exponential if and only if the slope (the growth of the empire) is proportional to the value of the function (the size of the empire).
Simplifying in ICS terms: if you have 1, then 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 cities after equal periods of time, you can call it exponential. If you 9 cities by 1500 BC, exponentiality demands 81 cities by 1 AD. A quadratic expansion would demand "only" 25 (if you had 4 in 2750 BC).
With railroad, democracy and on infinite land, exponential expansion is be possible, but by that time you have already won the game

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Theben]

You seem to think that dropping the second settler ASAP doesn't involve road-building. It is simply a matter of improving as much terrain as one thinks the city will use before it can (or you plan) to pop out another settler. This usually means building 2-3 roads max.

In other words, don't get your hopes up.

[Edward]

East Street Trader,

Good point. Those early hut nomads make me drool!! You might get two or more free cities with them if you continue to found cities instead of work the land.

A minor advantage for those of us with weak micromanagement skills - no need to keep track of which of those settlers is the NON guy. I've been known to accidentally found a city with him when I try the keep him around for unsupported infrastructure duties.

[rah]

It seems that all the good MP players agree it's beneficial to create a second city asap. Since these people play real opponents.....nough said.

And I find that In MP, an opponents road system will assist me also

The only time i pause to improve with the second settler is to road a buffalo in reach of my capital on the way out.

RAH
Quickest to Monarchy is always beneficial.

[SlowThinker]

Ribbanah,
BTW, what means LOL, I am a newbie on the net?

I am always right:
If I have understood well, there is no settler working in your example "NONE-SETTLERS FOUND". That is what I (Didn't you forgot any refinement of "don't preserve second settler" strategy?) and Theben (don't get your hopes up) mean.
You have to compare all possible "2nd settler found" strategies with "2nd settler work" so that you may declare that the "work" strategy is better.

I supposed you supposed the first settler built (the 3rd settler on aggregate) within "found" strategy immediatelly takes a mission of your non-settler and start working on squares so that you may compare well.
I did so in my "granary" example.
BTW, I used a granary because I thought you are encumbered by the idea of none support and I wanted to erase this advantage of "work" strategy. But now, I don't think that a granary was best for purpose of comparison: if you replace a granary by a settler then a comparison may be easier.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 07:31 PM</font> [c] My empire is better prepared for war, because it has roads. [d] Research catches up even faster than size, because I have roads. And by the time we are completing WoWs, I have probably already overtaken you. [e] You have little of that, since you have no roads.

I repeat: we are too theoretic in our thoughts about a halved civ. I like thoretic thinking, but we cannot apply it suitably now. In fact, power of your "work" civ isn't behind power of the "found and don't improve terrain" civ.
BTW, did you monitor following quantities of both civs in your comparison game?
sums (for all cities) of shields, trade, <food surplus / size of food storage>

I will call theses three numbers as "approximate power" next.
(Of course, it is very rough expression of power of a civ, but it's better than nothing.)
If yes, could you post them?
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-13-2001 07:31 PM A function (an expansion) is exponential if and only if the slope (the growth of the empire) is proportional to the value of the function (the size of the empire). Simplifying in ICS terms: if you have 1, then 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 cities after equal periods of time, you can call it exponential.

I don't count number of cities, because this is an irrelevant quantity. I consider a general power (or "approx. power", see a foregoing definition).
An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time.

quote: With railroad, democracy and on infinite land, exponential expansion is be possible...

then it will be more than exponential (the exponent will increase within time)
Will I teach you one day you must not forget equivalents of
d) doubled research and the effect of WoWs (i. e. doubled for each half of civ)
(you suppose no research and no WoWs)
e) a teamwork between both halves of civ
(you suppose all cities will take an independent way of development)

quote: With railroad, democracy and on infinite land...

Good. Some indication of theoretic thinking. Don't give up

[East Street Trader]

This is a lively debate indeed - and I'm not sure I'm following it well.

Maybe one comparison might be to quantify and compare the value of all the work done by a "none" settler employed to work the land, to the net contribution made by the city founded with the "none" settler under the alternative regime. By net I mean the contribution made over and above the city's production consumed to support its own needs.

I have not attempted a quantification but my instincts are that the volume of extra arrows, wheatsheaves and shields due to the work of an unsupported settler would exceed the net contribution of one city.

But that ignores the "tide in the affairs of men" arguement. And it is a powerful arguement. It is easier to reinforce an early lead than to play catch up.

So I stick to my proposition that if I'm not forging ahead early I need that extra city down to fuel expansion.

But Ribannah makes good points about the value of roads.

How many times is it possible to get advantage out of the arrival of barbs (or at least avoid damage) if you can move one or two units to the right spot in time? How often do you win a race to pen in a potentially troublesome neighbour because your phalanx or settler or diplo has the use of a road?

And what about extra shields? I love to have a mined wine/gold/coal/iron special at my disposal early. It is downright comforting in a 5 (or even 10) shield city to build a barracks and let the vets roll rapidly off the production line. Or to set to work on HG, the Collosus or the Lighthouse knowing that it is not going to be a month of Sundays before the work is completed.

These are "tide in the affairs of men points" which point the other way.

And there is a more specific point. No matter how skilful the player there is a vulnerable period which starts with the founding of the second city and, for me, tends to end about when I have a strategically placed diplo with gold in his pocket. During this period there may be bugger all to do but await the loooong video if barbs turn up. You don't have the military force to repel them nor the gold to buy them off.

Delaying the second city for just a short time and working the land so that this city is more productive (and the second and third cities, once established, will be too) truncates the vulnerable period at both ends. The exploration going on before the second city is down helps as well and some land improvement (foresting river squares, say, or building a road to a handy mountain) also affords your warriors some chance of proving defensively sufficient.

I give little or no weight in the arguement to the risk of losing the "none" settler. I managed that feat very near the start of the second OCC I played but I account that to be one of my better claims to fame as an incompetent. It is normally easy to keep him comfortably out of the firing line.

I rate this a close call in which seat of the pants judgement taking account of the exact situation is called for - not adherence to a fixed rule.

P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference.

[rah]

"P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference."

It's very simple. It's the order of movement. If you notice early in the game, with two settlers. Settler A flashes to move first then Settler B moves. The next turn the order is reversed, Settler B then A. If the settler that is working has already cycled, his turn has been used to continue working. If you click on him before his turn in the rotation, you may move him.

As long as the settler isn't first in the rotation for the turn. If you click on him as the turn starts, you will always be able to move him. You may artifically change the order by going to into a city screen at the end of your turn (or in between turns in MP, or during the building announcements at the beginning of a turn) and activate a unit. That unit will jump to the top of the rotation at the beginning of the turn. Now before you move that unit, click on the settler. You will be able to move him.


RAH
Also a good way to cancel go-to commands when taking over for an AI in a MP game.

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-14-2001 11:16 AM I don't count number of cities, because this is an irrelevant quantity. I consider a general power (or "approx. power", see a foregoing definition).

You can count the size of your empire in any way you want, it doesn't make the expansion exponential.

quote: An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time.

By this definition ANY expansion would count as an exponential expansion, because you can always write its formula that way. In other words: the term exponential would give no information whatsoever. I don't think your definition is very practical!

Slowthinker, I'm perfectly prepared to make a third run in which the NONE Settlers build a few roads first (say to their destination and THEN found - only by that time the newly built supported Settlers will be at that spot about just as fast. Or I could have ALL Settlers build ONE road before they move to their destination - but I can tell you now that such an approach would be worse than either of the extremes chosen in my sample runs. Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[SlowThinker]

East Street Trader,

quote: But Ribannah makes good points about the value of roads... And what about extra shields? I love to have a mined wine/gold/coal/iron special at my disposal early...

I think that the majority of people here agree that roads/irrig./mining is a good strategy.
The question is if to start it with the 2nd settler or the 3rd one.

quote: P.S. Sometimes when you tell a settler or engineer to stop work they do so at once and you can move them in the same turn. More commonly they stop work that turn but can't be moved til the next (hence the OCC debacle). I'd be interested if anyone has a view on what determines the difference.

See "The Lone Engineer at Work" thread, and place your question there, if you can.
And read my note "1." in 2nd post there.

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-14-2001 02:33 PM Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

Fight! fight! fight! fight!

Whoops, sorry. Got caught up in the moment there.

I fall in the settle soon camp. Early claiming of land is so important in my games. I play as a peaceful expansionist on small worlds so War4ever's note about city sites being at a premium is particularly true for me. My success is directly proportional to the amount of land I claim in the beginning (either through fast city founding or warriors penning in the AI). My experiences are similar to geofelt's, DaveV's, and Ming's - rapid expansion is best.

Rambling comments follow...

quote: East Street Trader I have not attempted a quantification but my instincts are that the volume of extra arrows, wheatsheaves and shields due to the work of an unsupported settler would exceed the net contribution of one city.

The above must vary depending on game circumstances. Otherwise the best strategy would be to either never found cities or to never make terrain improvements. To everything, turn, turn, turn...

quote: Ribannah - but I can tell you now that such an approach would be worse than either of the extremes chosen in my sample runs.

There is a point that's reached pretty early where building a road or two on your way to found a city saves time for future settlers to get to the borderlands. I can't imagine that a purist stance of never building roads until you've laid down all your cities could beat one that incorporated their prudent use.

Ribannah's point about hitting the unhappiness wall before the Hanging Gardens is well taken. This somewhat lessens the advantage of building cities at that point.

The fact that new techs double in cost over time means that soon the "keep the settler" approach makes you behind by one tech at most. However, early Monarchy is quite important (and you can never trade for it).


p.s. I'll have to try the "build a settler from your only city while it's size 1 yet not have it disband" trick (which obviously requires you to keep that "extra" settler at least a little while).

p.p.s. What's the etymology of your name, Ribannah? Like "rah", it sounds like something from the rabbits' language in the book "Watership Down".

p.p.p.s. Thanks, DaveV for the demand tribute advice. While I didn't build Marco Polo's Embassy, shaking down the AI's periodically has resulted in much unwarranted coinage. They've also withdrawn troops allowing me to pen them in more. I'd been treating them much too kindly in the past.

[SlowThinker]

Will anybody tell me what "LOL" means? I speak seriously for once.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Ribannah on 02-14-2001 02:33 PM</font> You can count the size of your empire in any way you want, it doesn't make the expansion exponential.

Hm, what about "population" in "demographics" window?

quote: >An expansion is never exactly exponential: you must always suppose that the exponent varies within the time. By this definition ANY expansion would count as an exponential expansion, because you can always write its formula that way. In other words: the term exponential would give no information whatsoever. I don't think your definition is very practical!

I agree. By my definition ALL expansions are exponential, by your definition NONE real expansion is exponential.
I may study exponent rate, at least. You may do nothing.

quote: Maybe you can tell me exactly what your approach is, or if you like, propose a map we will both play and we'll compare our games

Good idea. I had a similar one:

To choose a map, to publish it, and let play people up to monarchy. Any participant would publish saved games or pictures with a list of all actions (micromanaging of cities included) of all turns with very detailed explanation of decisions. Then we could discuss everything.

Of course, less detailed (and less time consuming) approach would be useful too.

The problem is I didn't start thinking about the best civ algorithm yet (In other words, I have no own approach). I will contact you later.
Of course, I am not afraid to be behind you in that comparison game now...

(a graceful escape...)
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

[SlowThinker]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Edward on 02-14-2001 03:16 PM</font> p.p.s. What's the etymology of your name, Ribannah?

Karl May?

quote: Fight! fight! fight! fight!

I don't fight. I cannot fight: I have no fixed opinion to that problem.
I just comment Ribannah's false statements
[This message has been edited by SlowThinker (edited February 14, 2001).]

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker on 02-14-2001 03:35 PM Will anybody tell me what "LOL" means? I speak seriously for once.

LOL = Laughing Out Loud ( )

quote: I agree. By my definition ALL expansions are exponential, by your definition NONE real expansion is exponential

That is true in Civ2, but there may be exponential expansions in other games or in entirely different processes. The mathematical concept is pretty clear.

quote: ... To choose a map, to publish it, and let play people up to monarchy. Any participant would publish saved games or pictures with a list of all actions (micromanaging of cities included) of all turns with very detailed explanation of decisions. Then we could discuss everything.

Exactly. Monarchy may be too early to stop, but we could make that decision when we get to it.

quote: The problem is I didn't start thinking about the best civ algorithm yet (In other words, I have no own approach). I will contact you later.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire