 |
| |
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
So, with courthouses in the Rank 8 and higher, we get an overall 70.8% increace in Productivity in those cities. Currently, the Rank 4 Cities (and lower) wouldn;t get any Courthouses UNTIL after they have Banks, Universities & possibly Factories built in them, to get the most for the little bit of improvement that courthouses would have in them.
|
Where exactly is this 70.8% coming from?
Are you simply adding the % change in corruption for these cities?
quote:
code:
Rank 8 - Hero’s Summit - 31.98% (22.61% with Court)
Rank 9 - Eisten Boulen - 37.07% (26.70% with Court)
Rank 10 - Silk Road - 40.99% (28.59% with Court)
Thunder Bay - 40.99% (28.59% with Court)
Rank 12 - Down Under - 48.96% (35.21% with Court)
|
Usig this method you could add in a few more cities and get the factor up over 100%!  Which is not applicable or even reasonable to look at when considering why we would build courthouses in those cities.
What I feel is important is the return, in shields, we would get from the courthouses. I calculate, that these 5 cities, with courthouses, would give us a total of 11 more shields per turn! Not 11 per city, but 11 divided up among those 5 cities. At a cost of (5*80) 400 shields. It would take us 37 turns to reach the break even point.
Also, you percentage of increase in each cities efficiency is slightly larger than I have previously calculated. For example, look at Silk Road. You say it has a corruption factor of 40.99%. Then when you add a courthouse, you say it's corruption factor is reduced to 28.59%. A courthouse reduces corruption by 25% yet you show a reduction in corruption of a little over 30% (40.99-28.59=12.4) then (12.4/40.99=30.25%) I think it should be (40.99%*25%=10.25%) which provides (40.99%-10.25%=30.75). In short I think a courthouse in Silk road would recuce corruption there by ~10.3% while you say it's ~12.4%. Close enough though.
I don't think it's worth it to build courthouses in cities in which corruption/waste won't be reduced enough to save or give us 3 or more shields per turn. With a city putting out 10 shields gross is it worth an 80 shield investment to get it to net 5 spt versus 4? For a city capable of 20 it would be 10 spt versus 8; again, is it worth it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
Don't forget, our Impending GA
Eisten Boulen for instance:
at size 6, with using 1 of the Hills, 4 Plains and 1 irrigated desert (no Growth at that time), it would have 7 SPT and 10 TPT with the courthouse and 6 SPT and 9 TPT without.
While in the GA with the same WF, it would have 12 SPT and 15 TPT with the Courthouse and 10 SPT and 13 TPT without.
That translates to
4 Vet Frigates over the 20 turn GA (1 every 5 turns), compaired to just barely 3 Vet Frigates (1 every 6 turns) without the Courthouse.
As that is around when GWT might get themselves back on their feet, and make their attempt to Invade us, IMHO, that extra production, at that time, is more important than if we are "wasting" shields for limited payoff.
Plus, the Harbor that is built, in the interum, between the Courthouse and the GA, would take 3 turns longer, without the Courthouse, with it;s expected growth rate. And with the Harbor, I can get (up to the GA point), slight growth with using a Coastal tile instead of the Desert, for more trade.
And further, with the 3 extra turns, after the Harbor, and before the first Frigate, I could get 1 Vet Caravel out, right before the GA starts. But that would also require some shortrushing, to get it out before we get Mags, so it;s better to not do that and use that as a Frigate prebuild and have the first Frigate out of the Docks on the 3rd turn of our GA. That also lets us get 2 more out and very possibly a good prebuild on an Ironclad, at the end of the GA.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
Where exactly is this 70.8% coming from?
code:
Rank 8 - Hero’s Summit - 31.98% (22.61% with Court)
|
Well, maybe I was wrong about the number, as I took 22.61 / 31.98 = 0.7070 * 100 for my 70% (I did that for all of those, then averaged them). Maybe my figuring was incorrect on that point.
[EDIT] O.K., I should have done it this way (31.98-22.61)/31.98 = 9.37/31.98 = .29299 * 100 = 30% reduction in that one city's Corruption. So, we just take my original figure and subtact it from 1.00 and we get 29.2%
[/edit]
E_T
Last edited by E_T on 24-07-2004 at 12:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
No, a courthouse reduces the corruption DUE TO DISTANCE by 25%, it also increases the MOCN for that city, too, which is the other part of the equation for corruption.
Cdist + Cnum = Total Corruption
In all cases, the Corruption due to Rank (Number of cities closer to Palace), plays a much larger amount of difference to the final amount than the distance part does. That is why, in the case of Silk Road, you get that much of a difference in Corruption. This is also not from calculated values, but from Simulated values. And the Sim Model that I have been using, after we found out that the Game Corruption Amount was altered from the Default for Regent Difficulty, has been 100% accurate, so, I can get my numbers to that point of accuracy, too.
And actually, for Silk Road, the Values that I have been able to get, are averages of ranges. In this case, I had my sim for this city up to a value of 28 TPT
code:
Lower Upper Working Average
40.91% 41.07% 40.99%
28.34% 28.84% 28.59%
Where the Actual corruption value, is somewhere between the Upper and Lower Values (inclusive) and the value is taken at 28. At higher values, the range will only narrow down more. But for the most part, at the values that we currently are working with, the Average will do very well (seeing that the range, in this case, is so close, it;s not funny....
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
What else is there to build in those cities? Is there anything which would bring more benefit? |
As both of those cities are
Well, we have the choices of Mil Units (Barracks needed first for non Bombardments units), and Improvements for Cash (Markets), Science (Lib), Happyness (Temple), Growth related (Granary and or Aquaduct)
And with their lower SPT, before the effects of the Courthouse, they will take a long time to build, especially, as they are still growing (and the worker pumps Just got started up and there are other priorities for those first few workers). So, realistically, to take full advantage of when we are getting our GA and how long it;s been from when the cities have been built, even, we are doing d*mn good getting them ready for the GA.
Now, let me ask you this, how many Frigates/Caravels will be needed, to give us both early warning and a responce force to Multiple GWT/GCA invasion forces?? Than ask if we are wasting this for a few extra sheilds/trade arrows, now and not later. Multiply the figures, for just these 2 cities by 10 (we have about 20 Coastal cities, most are now building Courthouses) and see if that will come up with what we will need??
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
Just my 2c... CH's are wonderfull things for micromanagers, but have to be seen in each specific situation. If the difference at a current time is 10 spt or 9 spt when you're building workers, it is so significant that the investment of 80 shields is worth it, even rushing it. If it is 11 spt or 10 spt, it is very rarely worth it.
I know E_T has been calculating things so that every city ends its build queue with a surplus of 0 shields, but unless this practice will get continued from now on, changing WF each and every turn, it will be easier to look first at those cities just 1 or 2 shields shy of an 'round' spt. Forget the rest, it takes more effort to build a CH (possibly taking 40-80 turns to pay back) then worth a simplistic planning. The end result won't matter much. Also, take into account factories, and WLTKD... sometimes a temple is worth more than a CH. And, nearly all MMers I know are builders. It's extremely difficult to calculate the cost of a unit built later, when you want to conduct war
One final thing: Every granary built in a city not destined as a worker pump is a lost investment. If you want to really explode the empire, build 4 pumps, not 2. Every irrigation on a tile, not belonging to a worker pump is a loss, unless you can work hills because of it. The way this game works, growth comes ideally from workerpumps, not from cities... and those are needed up until each necessary city has a hospital. Views might differ, but I have yet to see the first example where this is not true... food should only be produced when shields would go to waste, and there is no option to compensate.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
there's even more to it.
- No granaries means no upkeep.
- More workers means better control on when a city grows. You don't need to wait and count on when a city should go ideally from 10 spt to 15 spt, the moment you need it, you just add workers and instantly you're city is perfectly upgraded
- indeed, you don't lose tiles to growth. You lose some for your workerpumps, but as you can pick where these are, it's far better then having 1 or 2 growth tiles in each city.
- and finally: the moment you're saving for vaste terrain improvements, like RRs, it's almost perfectly timed as all your cities will be size 12, and waiting for hospitals. Once your RRs are done, hospitals come on-line, and cities are pumped to ideal size.
There is only one situation where it's debatable that cities should grow on their own, and that's when you own the Pyramids. But the more I use this technique, the less interested I am in the Pyramids. Worker pumps do their job just as easily, and for lower investment. If you got a well-timed leader, go for the pyramids, otherwise look for a spot with a bit of food and start a pump.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
Yeah, GS has used worker pumping to great effect in the PTWDG. If I wasn't sure about the power of pumps prior to that game, I'm SOLD now.
10fpt/10spt for 1-turn workers in select cities would make a lot of sense. We could use 2 or 3, I think. 4 might be overkill... but I'm not sure. Certainly they should be divided geographically so we aren't sending a stream of workers on long trips to get to cities to boost pop or develop terrain.
On the subject of courthouses: it's really a gut call, unless you want to simulate the empire out a 100 turns, with all possible permutations of what's going in the game at that point in time. It can get ridiculous. Personally, the rule of thumb I use in SP is that 2 shields/turn of waste is the max I'm happy with. Over that, and I want a CH, as soon as I can. Consider that our GA is what, ~30 turns away? CH's will maximize our productivity during the GA, so I would lean toward building them... but not in every single city. The cities in the immediate ring around AP may not warrant CH's, at least not yet.
Ideally, we want each core city to have a CH, Market and Library at the time our GA is fired. In cases where we cannot manage that, I think we have to make a gut decision on which one or two things we CAN do in time, and which one or two gets build during the GA.
I like building CH's pre-GA, because then less of the GA is wasted. But then again, if corruption/waste in a particular city is already low, then it might be better to go with a library for a boost to the science output instead.
...
Ok, my basic thought:
Immediate core cities (first ring around Palace/FP) probably don't warrant CH's. Further out, I want 'em.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
We could use 2 or 3, I think. 4 might be overkill... but I'm not sure. |
Our empire is underdeveloped, partly because of the jungle we started in. The only reason why GS was nearly fully grown by 740 AD (current date here) was because our 2nd built city was a worker pump, and as soon as possible we got a second one, sometimes even a third. Yes indeed, this gave what... 65(?) workers when RRs arrived, but this pays off real quickly.
Don't forget GS is half the size of poly... I say you need at least 2 workers per turn, preferably more to pass GWT pop-wise. This assumes all irrigation goes to mining whenever possible, so that all other cities do not grow from theirselves, unless unavoidable. Oh, and please sell all granaries you don't use, they will never again be used!
quote:
Certainly they should be divided geographically so we aren't sending a stream of workers on long trips to get to cities to boost pop or develop terrain. |
good point. However, workers chain, so don't focus too much on this. Just look where the bonus foods are, or bonus shields if you don't have bonus food. You need 5fpt, 4spt (and an empty 2spt tile) for a pump, as I don't think a 10 fpt, 8spt (or 7spt with an empty 3 spt) is present. I haven't looked at the map in ages, though.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
Arrian, I quickly glanced through E_T's spreadsheet yesterday, and we've got 2 worker pumps, on 2-turn workers already. But, we also have loads of cities on 2 or 3 fpt, which could turn into 2 or 3 spt. It would seriously diminish the MMing needed, to get an effective empire rolling. Which stays my main arguement.
So, designate an extra 2-4 cities as pumps, cut all food to all other cities (unless you simply can't), and rearrange citizens in those cities to get optimal spt. It would seriously cut into the needed amount of time the MoI department is going to spend on keeping this empire efficient. And we need efficiency, but without the effort done by E_T (If you look at his spreadsheets, you'll see what I mean. No wonder he burnt out)
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
The problem with making 4 more is that that's a whole 4 cities that won't be doing anything else for quite some time... |
Nope. That's the classic mistake: you don't lose anything empire-wide, on the contrary, you win big. True, those 4 cities don't do anything else, but all our other cities produce faster, and total shield (or beaker, whatever) wise, you're better off with concentrating your growth.
To give a simple example: suppose those 2 extra cities I'm asking for were meant to be barrack cities. Now, they build granaries, nothing else. They don't need barracks (no upkeep). They provide growth to 10 other cities, which grow twice as fast, and can turn all their former food production into shields. No shield losses, simple WF distribution (only needs to change when workers are added), and in total more units get produced in faster growing cities.
I thought 'poly had something like 40 cities allready, and they are in desperate need for growth. I wouldn't be suprised if the ideal number of pumps is 6... simply because we've got a bit of a disadvantage to make up for.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2004 10:36
Great discussion guys. Although I think I am still with BF on this one. I acknowledge that they reduce corruption, but waht BF is asking, and what I was implying, is the investment worth it at this point in time. And hence the dicsussions on what else could be built. 
to Couthouses in cities with less than 30% corruption.
)
|