OFFICIAL: What to research next?

[Gilgamensch]

Another advantage is that they can see our enemies slavers; critical!! The enemy can and will use slavers. Losing population would be a serious setback for our cities.

That is one of the main reason's for me why I have choosen slavery , plus

Let's convince the barbs to join us

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I think you are mistaking basic slavers for basic slavers in another mod, Maquiladora. Slavers stacked with armies can capture a slave when the stack they are in is victorious in battle, city or not.

Actually you can stack slavers in the default game too, so im well aware of all the advantages ... which still doesnt make a difference, we only have 2 cities.

Another advantage is that they can see our enemies slavers; critical!! The enemy can and will use slavers. Losing population would be a serious setback for our cities.

We're not gonna spot every slaver before they attack (if spot any), especially as slavers only have 1 vision range, and we can easily find them with the right click trick (on fast moving terrain that the AI aims for), then kill or expel. Not to mention building an expensive slaver to sit and watch for enemy slavers is a waste, when we could have an extra few units built instead of that slaver.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Actually you can stack slavers in the default game too, so im well aware of all the advantages ... which still doesnt make a difference, we only have 2 cities.

"Only" makes it more important. Let me explain the math; the advantage for a successful slaving attack is an additional 1/6 (modified) production of the 1st ring of the city. This is a constant increase. The proportional increase is inversely proportionate to the existing population. Ergo, Slaving is more important when you are small.

Having less cities means that slaving is more effective, because slaving will be concentrated over less cities, meaning fewer cities being larger. Improvements multiply, so larger cities= greater production for each 'slave' input.

However, due to the city size capping effects, and the fact that you can 'target' slaving to a certain degree, empire spread is not undesirable, since in the final equation, being at the empire size cap is always the best policy, if you can achieve it.

Slaving is always enormously beneficial, since it ignores growth slowing as city size increases... meaning large cities can grow... quicker, and small cities become proportionally more productive... quicker.

Its a win-win.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
We're not gonna spot every slaver before they attack (if spot any), especially as slavers only have 1 vision range, and we can easily find them with the right click trick (on fast moving terrain that the AI aims for), then kill or expel. Not to mention building an expensive slaver to sit and watch for enemy slavers is a waste, when we could have an extra few units built instead of that slaver.

The number of extra units would likely only be 2... not a few... hardly a make or break situation. The culmulative insta-growth advantages that a slaver gives us is massively more critical that the production spent producing 2 extra units. That slaver, stacked, can allow cities to build units in twice the speed, in relatively little time, given smart targetting.

Agreed, that if we cheat, then we don't need to use slavers or build city walls, but I thought we weren't going to use game exploits...

MrBaggins

[Maquiladora]

Slaving a powerful enemy when youve only 2 cities will get your arse kicked in less than 50 turns, we need to build combat units, maybe when we conquer the first city we can build a slaver or two. Even if we only get an extra 2 units it means we'll reach a 12 stack quicker and so attack sooner. If we slave them now and only build a few units in the other city, what if the slaver is captured they declare war and start sending stacks our way? We need to attack first, if we let them take the first punch we likely wont get one.

Maths is part of civ but its a mistake to think it always shows the right path.

[MrBaggins]

Its disingenuous to say that we'll be attacking when we have 2 cities. A third (definite) and forth city(theoretical) can be added in the meantime.

The fact that we slave during an attack makes no difference to an enemy. An attack=an attack=an attack.

I am not suggesting slaving cities conventionally... I am suggesting including slavers in large offensive armys. We then gain in each military victory, not only in the conquest of a city, but in external victories too...

I don't believe a 12 stack is necessary for victory, given a wily Lemur miltary approach... attack points of weakness.

A 12 stack is CERTAINLY not necessary to pillage slaves from roaming barbarians and enemy troops.

In a large strategic sense, I'd agree with you, that you cannot use math to figure out the best course of action necessarily... however, in a smaller strategic sense, such as this... it certainly helps massively; for instance the city decision...

Finally... Do you (and everyone else) have a response to the comment regarding the game exploit?

[Gilgamensch]

OK,

some more 'information'

we will be able to produce mines => more production
Only considering barbs... every chase group we inplement (i.e. warrier with Archer and a slaver) will produce a slave in one of our cities => increased city size => more growth and production
Whenever we go to war, every victory we have with our army => increased city size => more growth and production

So all this would strengthen our peaceful nation

So to produce some slavers will give us advantage.

As far as I remembered, we agreed on, not to use weaknesses in the programming.

[MrBaggins]

Agreed... Slaving is going to give us our best bang for the buck... now (ish)

[Maquiladora]

We'll have to be building only combat units anyway, if we delay it the Austrians may have pikemen and knights while we're still weaker than them, we should aim to roll them over asap.

As far as the bug goes, ill go with the majority, and thatll probably be a 'no', seeing as we already agreed to not use any bugs to our advantage.

edit: monarchy also wont take as long as slave labour to research, so choosing the best/quickest research at such an early stage is the best option. Maybe after we've researched (the cheaper option) Writing, we'll be in a stronger position and will no doubt research slave labour twice as fast as now. Makes sense to go for the cheapest advance, as long as it isnt a dud (stone working).

[MrBaggins]

A theoretically future tech advantage of our enemies, is the very reason we should aim to accelerate our production now... with a slaver. That is an investment that will pay off... again, and again... and again.

A delay equivalent to 2 units is tiny, and what difference would 2 inferior units make vs pikemen and knights anyway? I'd rather aim for parity in the tech race than concentrate on larger numbers of inferior troops, anyway.

You do realize that we only get Monarchy after researching... Monarchy, don't you. Monarchy = 1142 and Writing = 380. Slave Labor= 616.

I don't know how mathematics works in your part of the world, but in mine, and this game, 616 is a lot less than 1522. Monarchy will take us more than twice as long to get to... not counting anarchy etc... We get the culmulative gains of slaving in the meantime.

[Maquiladora]

archer cost - 150
hoplite cost - 175
slaver cost - 480

We can produce 3.2 archers or 2.7 hoplites for one every slaver.

The point is we can easily deal with them now if we produce combat units and only combat units, you do know that, dont you? Id rather conquer 5 or 6 of their cities now, than slave a few of them in battle and conquer only say, 1 or 2 of their cities, while theyre still attacking. Ultimately number of cities makes the difference, not size. The quicker we reach the city threshold and the quicker we reach Monarchy the better.

[MrBaggins]

The average city size * the number of cities is what makes the difference. Slavery allows us to start improving in 30 turns... not 60 turns...

In the 60 or so turns it will take to reach Monarchy... we will have at maximum 4 more cities, from settlers... (which you apparently don't favor... and would rather build just military units instead)... Basically 7 cities. We won't even be at the city cap, even if we have optimal development. If we detour via Slave Labor, we'll be hitting the advance as we are hitting the tech... plus accelerating production all the way through slaving.

Slave Labor+Writing+Monarchy will take less time than Writing+Monarchy+Slave Labor, due to the increased commerce, from the slaves production.

Monarchy doesn't magically gift us with 10 extra cities... and certainly doesn't magically increase population, which slavery... does.

[MrBaggins]

To summarize:

Slave Labor is an accelerant.
Monarchy is a (less significant) accelerant and a cap extender.

We are in no need of the cap extender now... or indeed by the time we finish researching Monarchy.

We are in need of the earliest possible accelerant...and that is Slave Labor.

[Maquiladora]

How much prey will we have to get these slaves from? and what will the consequences will be when we do? The Austrians will come out all guns blazing as soon as we start slaving (we wont just be slaving barbs im sure), now i dont know how many games of SAP youve played but i reckon theyll have at least a couple of 12 stacks ready, unless youve had different experiences with it...

I dont know if youve ever played MP CtP2, but slave labour is seen very much as a secondary advance (even when AI's are included), if you find it in a hut, great, but you could go a whole game without researching it. Granted the AI isnt human but reaching your city threshold asap is the best way to get the lead in all areas, no matter what the city size/limit is at the time.

Im sure we'll research slave labour at some point (if we dont do it right now), simply so we can experience every area of the game in this DG, to make it as interesting as possible, but its not the quickest way to win, pumping out units until we have more than they can deal with, is.

Slave Labor+Writing+Monarchy will take less time than Writing+Monarchy+Slave Labor, due to the increased commerce, from the slaves production.

Your relying alot on these slaves your gonna get from somewhere aren you? What if the Austrians declare war in the meantime? What if the Germans do? We'd have researched slave labour but now we cant afford to produce slavers to make that extra commerce with captured slaves can we? This makes Writing not only the safest option to bank on, but the quickest next advance to research and the quickest route to a better government (which is always a good goal to aim for).

Monarchy doesnt just increase the city limit, but it increases commerce, production and food collected. If you can guarantee enough captured slaves in the meantime to justify the choice to research slave labour for so long, (and therefore not to delay our switch to monarchy) then id like to see it.

edit: changed grammar in last paragraph to sound more... effective

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
*snip*
The point is we can easily deal with them now if we produce combat units and only combat units, you do know that, dont you? Id rather conquer 5 or 6 of their cities now, than slave a few of them in battle and conquer only say, 1 or 2 of their cities, while theyre still attacking. Ultimately number of cities makes the difference, not size. The quicker we reach the city threshold and the quicker we reach Monarchy the better.

I fail to see how the 480 production units will make a critical difference in our ability to make a conquering army, and disbelieve your assertion that it will mean the difference between 1 or 2, and 5 or 6 cities won.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I fail to see how the 480 production units will make a critical difference in our ability to make a conquering army, and disbelieve your assertion that it will mean the difference between 1 or 2, and 5 or 6 cities won.

Okay so,

1 slaver = 2 hoplites or 3 archers
2 slavers = 5 hoplites or 6 archers
3 slavers = 8 hoplites or 9 archers

Considering 9 units would (near) guarantee to take a city (may need 12 for walled cities) we should put everything into combat units for the moment. Not to mention combat units we'll need for defence and continued support lines to the front.

To say that researching and building slaves now (when we dont have alot of research capability and researching writing towards monarchy is quicker) will offset the time lost towards monarchy because of captured slaves working hard for us is... expecting alot.