shields vs arrows

[La Fayette]

This topic is as old as civ (but I am much older than civ, so why not?).
I would like to refer to Dave's topic (posted November 18, 1999 12:01) named "Analysis of resource square usage" and to my own topic named "the 3 arrows strategy".
Here are Dave's assumptions regarding resource squares:
"Each city is built on a square that yields 2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade.
Each city has a choice of 3 types of surrounding terrain to work:
1 food, 2 shield, no trade (forest)
2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade (grassland)
1 food, no shield, 2 trade (ocean)".
This choice seems quite reasonable to me (after having stressed that choice #2 refers to "rivered" or "roaded"/and shielded grassland). It expresses that in the early game one can easily trade 2 shields for 2 trade arrows (forest vs ocean) and vice versa.

(Other examples would show us that it is also easy to trade 1 food/1shield (forest vs nonroad nonshield grassland) and 1 food/1 trade arrow (ocean vs roaded plain).
Without improvements in the city, we also have 1 trade=1 gold=1 beaker (through the "tax rate" cursor).
Hence, it appears that, in the early game:
1 food=1 shield=1 arrow=1 beaker=1 gold; ...but...)).

Dave's test shows very clearly that, after 150 turns, a "shieldrich" strategy gives much better results than an "arrowrich" one.

Why do some people (like me ) think that trade arrows should not be completely forgotten?
I'll try to answer to morrow.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[Chaos Warrior]

why people think so? I guess it's because they're necessary for gold and for science...

but I think you can concentrate on shields in the beginning, to get the necessary settlers.. and end up as a mediveal civ in 2020

[War4ever]

Trade is great..... but you can create trade easier than creating shields..... IMO

[Ming]

Like everything in Civ... a balance is needed.
And concentrating on either while ignoring the other is a problem...
But even after saying that, I'll take trade over shields in the early part of the game. Too many shields are wasted while in despotism. If it takes forever to get into monarchy or republic, you will actually be farther ahead of the game by getting to a real government faster.

Given a choice, I like my capital to be leaning toward science, and my second city leaning toward production and food so it can kick out the settlers

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 09:12 AM Too many shields are wasted while in despotism.

In 2x production, maybe . I find that I can usually crank out 4 or 5 shields with no waste in my early cities. There's a huge difference in producing your third and fourth settlers in eight turns (5 shields) versus 14 turns (3 shields). My original argument was that newly established cities will be producing their own arrows to compensate for the arrows sacrificed while building settlers. If your early goal is expansion, then expand!

And, of course, balance is important. Monarchy makes a huge difference in support, corruption and waste, and building cities on rivers and on or near trade specials will pay dividends through the whole game. But my workers will always prioritize forests after the city grows to size 2. If the forest has a silk special or a river, so much the better!

[DaveV]

Knigget - that's exactly how I used to do it. I'm convinced my game improved when I started emphasizing shields. The referenced thread was an attempt to analyze the different approaches.

[Adam Smith]

Suppose you are going to AC. At the end of the game you will have all the money and science that you need, but there will still be plenty of libraries, universities, markets, trade routes, and other improvements which would still be beneficial to build. If you had switched some of your population from arrow squares to shield squares, you would have been able to build all beneficial improvements, thus increasing both your production and trade. Therefore a shield strategy is superior to an arrow strategy.

------------------
Old posters never die.
They justfadeaway

[Ming]

It really all depends on what you are trying to do.
If you are just trying to win the game in SP mode, it doesn't really matter what you do. Come on... what's the OCC record now

In MP... it's expansion and science... If you are getting sciences every two turns, it helps big time
Nothing better than using artillery against pikeman...

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 03:12 PM It really all depends on what you are trying to do. If you are just trying to win the game in SP mode, it doesn't really matter what you do. Come on... what's the OCC record now

Alpha Centauri in 416 AD

But the truth is, it all depends on your horizon. You don't need more universities if you have already discovered all the techs. Nor does it make sense to build a factory first when you have to rush-build every other improvement (such as SDI defence) anyway. Every city improvement is an investment, and the longer you can profit from it, the more priority it should have.


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

[Knigget]

DaveV

You have to consider the food production as well.

If you put both your workers on forest you will not have any food surpus. And when you build the settler it takes a long time to get back to size 2.

If both workers work on grassland and produce warrior-settler the city will never spend a single turn as size 1. (and waste no food)

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 03:12 PM In MP... it's expansion and science...

Exactly. Expansion leads to more cities, leading to more science. How to get more cities? Build settlers. To build settlers more quickly, generate more shields.

Ming, I really think your opinions are biased by all the 2x production you play. In a 1x game, the early science lead of an "arrow-centric" player can be overcome by a "shield-centric" player once he gets his cities cranked up to speed.

[Ming]

Might my attitudes be a tad biased because of my 2x production love... maybe.

But I never said I ignore shields... A balance of the two early in the game is what I'm looking for. If you are only getting 2 or 3 beakers a turn, the time needed to advance along the science path is just way too great. As I said before, I like my capital to be based on a trade special since there is no corruption and you can maximize science development. My second city is usually the one with food and shields so it can continue to crank out settlers. While I don't crank out settlers like the true ICS'ers do, I still expand at a great rate, while also cranking out the sciences.

I think it is a mistake to ignore either shields or arrows... A balance of the two will serve you much better in the long run

[Dry]

Amen Ming.

DaveV: if I understood well La Fayette, he was speaking about pre-monarchy turns.
What is best after monarchy is another topic.

[War4ever]

I will take the side of shields over arrows as DaveV stated.....the quicker you get the intial cities down.... the faster your mid game will go......

I look at civ in stages...... expansion era is all about expanding......and nothing else........only when you achieve trade do you dedicate some cities to caravans.......

therefore its my belief that trade can be made up via we love days and/or a better govt......while never really losing any production power.

However to emphasize whats already been stated by others... a balance is preferred

[Ming]

The faster you get to trade... the faster you can build those caravans and set up those crucial trade routes Yes, a balance is the best...