The economics of food velocity in a Despotism

[Gatamelata]

Pop rushing is an interesting topic, to be certain. I was first seduced by its allure - the promise of fast and easy production at a time when my empire needed it the most. But it has a long term cost.

Take, as an example, a game I played recently as the Romans on Regent difficulty on a standard sized map. Rome was my first city on some nice grasslands, and typically had a food velocity of 2. Veii, my second city, encompassed two wheat tiles, one of which was flood plain. So it had a food velocity between 3 and 5. I used both Rome and Veii to rush build extensively. Veii was obviously my main source of rushed legions, since the pop growth was so high. I finally switched from Despotism to the Republic at 1 AD, interestingly enough.

Once my cities started growing, I noticed something horrible - Rome was somewhat hobbled, and Veii was stuck with one producer and three entertainers. Rome finally started growing again around 800 AD, but Veii didn't start growing until the 1600s, and its people remembered all of the oppression until the early 1800s.

This is not to say that it wasn't a valuable tool for me, and the trade-off was rather minor - those Legions conquered the Aztec empire and doubled the size of my territory. But the net effect was that my first and second cities were nearly useless for many turns after that, and their growth was stunted even after the period of uselessness ended. I'm still stunned by how long the Veiians remembered the rush building. Now, Veii produced quite a lot of legions and city improvements, but still.

At any rate, I have yet to find the perfect rush-building balance. And for some players, this trade off may be perfect - it certainly was advantageous to have the early super-production from Veii, but it did hurt not to have much production at all from it later. Incidentally, after Veii shedded its protestors in the 1800s, it boomed to primacy among my cities in short order, which gives a good indication of what it could have been in the interim if I hadn't been so eager to sacrifice population.

[absimiliard]

Hate to say it friend, but I think you need to build more MPs in those rushing cities. I've found that I can keep rushing city content up to pop 4 with 2 MPs and a Temple. For MPs I recommend Warriors, though if you rush them you might as well go with Spearmen.

Your example is a perfect display of the high cost of rushing in the long-term. Recall how high O(lt) can be if you can't use MPs to reduce the value of U (unhappiness) in the city in question. By rushing you lost 20 turns of productivity in Veii, in your example. Using MPs can cut that down somewhat, but O(lt) will always be fairly high.

The high value of O(lt) versus O(st) is why I think the tactic of rushing is mostly useful only in the early game and even then only in some of my cities. I'm still perfecting my strategy on it to try to balance the power of rush-building against the losses it incurs in the long-term.

Do bear one thing in mind though. If you do many rushes in a city O(st) will be your cost for all but one of those rushes. Only the last rush incurs a cost of O(lt). So if you do rush a city, rush it for all it's worth. Don't stop rushing until you've built every improvement and unit you'll ever need in that city. Then rush a few more military units for your main army before switching over to a normal economy.

[Sauron07]

Excelent Topic



This has been by far the most interesting and thought provoking thread I have encountered in the strategy forum to date, nice work absimmilliard(and other contributors)!. I have a few thoughts after reading through your analysis.

First, I believe the opportunity cost of one population point is actually less than you calculated due to the food required to support each additional point of population. While the value of working a single tile does not change the value of food decreases over time as each additional pop point requires 2 food to support it. Your city tile always produces at least 2 food so the the first tile worked yields 100% of its production value(f + s+ c) back to the city. After that however each additional pop point requires 2 additional food in support. Therefore the opportunity cost of the second popis acutally f +s + c -2f, or 20s for an average tile, as you dont gain anything by that two food other than being able to support the production of an additional square.

Therefore I beleive rush building is worthwhile in more situations than you have determined. All you really lose by rushbuilding down from 2 pop to 1 pop is the shields and commerce produced by the second tile as the rate of growth does not change unless the food produced by the extra tile is greater than 2. Using your formula 0= G*A, A=4 for an average tile for the first pop. point, but is decreased to 2 for each pop. point after that(and those are the only ones we can rush with). If a rush is worth 40s than G can be as high as 20 and still make it worthwhile to rush if you're not able to add an above average tile with your second pop point. This also gives a higher opportunity cost value to forests and other high shield and or commerce squares.


Secondly, and related to the first point. The ultimate issue which must be decided as you correctly note is the relative value of food, shields and commerce. This depends on many, many factors but I think if we limit the analysis to the start of the game some useful info can be gained. Basicly food is only useful to grow your city and thereby increase production and/or rush build. In the rush build context under despotism 1 food = 2 shields if that food is contributing directly to population growth and is not being used to suppor the city(this assumes no granary). Otherwise 2 food is = to the production of the tile which it supports(on average 1s and 1c). The value of commerce is difficult to quantify under despotism as it cannot be used to purchase units or improvements, but serves to support maintenence costs for improvements, purchase luxuries, research science, and trade once other civs are encountered.

Lastly, and I havent had time this morning to think this through completely, but I believe that a 1 or 2 pop city requires 20 food to grow and for 3 and above 40 food is required(again without a granary). This will definately have an effect on the efficiency of rush building and changes G rather dramatically once pop 4 is reached.

Thanks again for giving me something fun to think about this morning at work!!!

[Velociryx]

Simply an outstanding thread, and it very much appeals to the economist in me! I'm lovin' it!

Some additional things for your consideration:

1) Cultural Impact - Rushing early and often (especially where Temples and Libraries are concerned--the two earliest culture producing builds), will net you culture points that last from the turn of completion to the end of the game, assuming the city is not taken from you. Thus, the price of a few unhappy citizens from lossa rushing more than pays for itself via the cultural gain alone, and, if the despotic rush is used to speed build OTHER cultural enhancements (cathedral, coleseum), the unhappiness factor should be nicely offset by the builds themselves.

2) Question - When adding a "transplant pop point" (worker/settler) from another city, does the transplanted citizen have any "memory" of the previous rush-attrocities, or no? If no, then this represents a quick and easy fix to the unhappiness side of the equation....simply populate with a few out-of-towners, such that they outnumber the natives....

3) As has been mentioned, speed building military units that lead directly to the capture of enemy towns....hard to quantify, but a HUGE advantage.

4) Corruption....a little dicey to figure out....but the ability to sacrifice population points is a thing that keeps despotism a viable form of government long after you discover Monarchy! Regardless of the shields lost to production, you can KEEP your fringe cities cranking out infrastructure and units simply by pop-rushing....in my mind's eye, that's the major selling point....as long as you have a decent food tile and a grainary, corruption is a non issue.

5) Faction choice. Religious factions can make MUCH better use of Despotism than anyone else, which is a hidden strength of the trait. Switch to Republic/Democracy to speed research, get a new facility to build (or 2-3), then switch to Despotism, build them all in 2-3 turns, regardless of corruption, then switch back to Dem...poof....instabuilds!

-=Vel=-

[Grim Legacy]

Glad to be of help.

[Out4Blood]

Another note: Despotism is a viable form of government all the way to the end game, not just early. Rush building using pop is just too powerful. And if you rely only on food production (i.e., you rush everything) then there is NO corruption. You don't even need to build wonders - you just used rushed troops to capture the AI wonder cities. I do this all the time. Games end quickly when you just rush military units and your goal is a conquest victory.

[zapperio]

I just can't bring myself to rush under despotism/communism unless in dire strait. I mean...the people will hate me! Working people to death makes me feel so icky. Gee, I should never have taken this job.

Zap

[absimiliard]

Hey Zap, maybe I should have titled this "How to be an Evil Overlord to Your People in Civ III"! *grin* I gotta agree that rushing is very powerful, I believe it is how the AI grows at such stupendous rates. I feel no qualms in doing the same myself.

Velocyrix, I think that where the population comes from is irrelevant to the happiness. My belief is that happiness is purely a city-based phenomenon. (doo do de doo do) I think as long as the pop is yours it's irrelevant which city it's from. Sorry for the muppet gag.

Everything else you state are excellent reasons to rush-build at a lower profit point or even at a loss. *shudder* The more I think about this, the more compelling the case for rushing becomes.

Sauron extends the case even further. By using your reduced value for A due to the cost in food of supporting that pop you change the point of profit quite a bit. If A = 2S instead of A = 4S then you effectively double where you rush or don't.

I think unfortunately we should probably do the relative values of the resources on another thread. They're pretty important, but they'll complicate the math for us and can always be substituted in later when we're sure of a correct formula relating food, shields, and commerce. Maybe I'll start a thread to discover that, unless someone else does so first. (please do) I think growth is 20 Food up to Pop6 by the way. The manual claims such, I've never bothered to confirm it, but I know it's still 20 at Pop4.

I would like to talk about U for a moment. I think it needs to be the cost in shields of producing an MP plus the cost per turn in commerce times the number of turns it needs to be supported. I'm going to say that Commerce requirement is 1C, deliberately ignoring any lost to science. In short term builds this will be for a turn or two at most, in the longest term it is 20 turns, the time to pacify a city from an earlier rush-build. I'm still very unsure on whether this is a good approximation, the theory needs work here. Anyone care to jump in? If not, I'll worry at it a bit later.

So what does all this do to the equations? Let me summarize. This all assumes no inefficiency in the 40S return on a rushed pop, so

P = 40S -- Rush one Pop and get 40 Shields

A = 2S -- The new approximate value from Sauron.

U = 10S + T * C -- Approximated as U = 30S

O(lt) = G * A + U -- Still true.
O(st) = G * A -- No value for U since you will re-use the same MP multiple times in a series of rushes.

Normal values for P > O(st) now coming as 40S > G * 2S make a rush profitable if G < 20, as Sauron pointed out.

P > O(lt) is now changing as well. 40S > G * A + U or 40S > G * 2S + 30S boil down to a profit point for rushing at G < 5. This is much lower than I'd suspected.

These lower points mean Velocyrix is even more right. Rush for culture early and hard. Rush for military to conquer your neighbors after that. Then rush for a way to keep corruption in check, Sauron's change to A makes this even more important.

I'll even have to try the switch from better Gov. to Despot for quick rushing. After all, it's worth it if G < 5, and it's easy to get a big city to G5 status or better under a Republic or Democracy. No MPs when you switch back do mean you'll eat the full cost of a pop needing to entertain unless you can cover it with luxuries or somesuch.

[David Weldon]

When thinking about switching between governments late in the game in order to insta-build improvements, remember that this will likely only be used in fringe cities, as all your core cities are so productive (roads, mines, maybe railroads) that A is much higher than 2. The corruption in your fringe cities, however, makes A essentially 0.

Conlusion:
Switch to despotism, rush in all corrupt cities, knowing that any growth is better than no production or commerce from extra workers, then switch back.

Edit:
Don't forget O(st) of the two turns of anarchy caused by the switching. If your interior cities are very productive, this might greatly outweigh the benefits of adding improvements to extremely corrupt fringe cities.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally posted by absimiliard
I think quantification in general is a good thing, kind of obvious since I'm goind it here, but I would agree that the quantification of the civ-traits is flawed. The analysis we've seen so far has failed to take into account inflation, which is why the early game low-value stuff like expansionist isn't total suck. The problem as I see it is that no one yet has a good value for inflation in Civ III.

I think you mean the discount rate, which is adjusted for inflation (which should be nil in Civ III, since the gold value of shields is constant). The discount rate depends on the expected value of the investment over its planned course, etc.

This may be impossible to determine independent of the game situation and playing styles. Then again, that's very realistic.

Great analysis, though. I look forward to more.

[Gaius Marius]

stupid me. The gold value of shields isn't constant. There is a one-time 100% deflation with the discovery of Economics (there's an Econ joke there, if I wanted to find it),

Of course this only applies to shields - other things of value (shields when rushing, techs (in the estimation of the AI), etc. are constant.).

[Sauron07]

I knew I should have gone home and grabbed my manual at lunch You are probably correct about the pop. threshold for cities before you need 40 food to grow, I couldnt remember and went to the infocenter at another "fanatical" civ site(which shall remain nameless) and it said 4 was the threshold. Whatever it is, it will have an impact on the rate of growth and relative worth of rush building.

One question, I thought there was no upkeep costs for units under a despotic government? Could someone please post or pm the relative number of "free units" you receive under the respective governments if they have that info available? This would substantially alter the U value and make MP's a more viable option to deal with unhappiness from rushing.

Also, I find that in the very early game after temples and granaries are rushed there is small period of several turns where I have no other improvements available (other than barracks and walls which I do not build in every city)to rushbuild until mapmaking/literacy/code of laws are discovered, and units are my only option so I have MP's available for most cities anyway(Im playing on Prince BTW).

Im also glad to see that the strategy of switching governments and rush building units and/or improvements being discussed. I raised this as a potential strat in one of vel's other threads on rush building and referred to it as the DRAFT(Despotic Rapid Acquisition of Forces Tactic/Technique). I agree this can/will be a viable strat in certain circumstances(multiplayer anyone?), especially for religious civs who can minimize the anarchy time. Sorry if this drifted a bit off topic, I guess my mind just works that way.

[ken01]

For everyone thinking rush building isn't THE ONLY way to go, remember the point brought up earlier. The culture benefit is immediate from rushing a temple.

I've maintained MASSIVE culture leads by expanding quickly, conquering my continent, and rush building temples and libraries on the fringes of the empire.

From those border towns, my culture quickly expands. My temples bring in 4 culture points vs 2 very quickly.

In mid to late game, rush building is worthless. Instead of rush buidling, use your core cities to build bombers, then move those bombers to fringe cities with no production. Disband the bomber, add some cash, and you have your improvement.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Sauron07
Could someone please post or pm the relative number of "free units" you receive under the respective governments if they have that info available?

From the civilopedia.txt file:

Government                    Town            City            Metro
Anarchy                        0               0               0
Despotism                      4               4               4
Monarchy                       2               4               8
Communism                      2               4               8
Republic                       0               0               0
Democracy                      0               0               0

[David Weldon]

I've started a thread on inflation so that future benefits and costs can be properly discounted, please check it out and add to it as much as you are able:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35196

P.S. I'll go with Gaius semantically. Perhaps 'inflation' is the wrong term, but for most people I think it connotes the idea properly.