01-08-2005 06:50									#1
	Chivalry and change of Government Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ok, two issues that may / do overlap

we are currently researching Chivalry - very slowly

and we are still in despotism...

many differing opinions are out there

lets get them heard and sorted

Attachment: mongol lands.jpg
This has been downloaded 24 time(s).

	01-08-2005 06:52									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ljube I see that the AM have offered to fund our research in chivalry. Personally I'm against it. We don't have enough money to upgrade our horses at the moment. Also keshik is an expensive unit our small cities are unable to build. Finally, once we build keshiks we should use them and that will trigger our golden age. I see the golden age as an opportunity to wipe out all other civs. In order for our golden age to be more effective we must have many more cities. So, if we want to accept the AM offer, I suggest we delay the start of our research for at least 5 turns while we make a government switch to feudalism so we can use our golden age to the maximum.

	01-08-2005 06:54									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Once we have defeated eithier the babs or bards, then I am for an immediate switch to Monarchy. In the mean time, I believe we should research Chivalry at the best possible speed and take advantage of AM's offer to share the cost.

Last edited by PLATO on 01-08-2005 at 07:05

	01-08-2005 08:16									#4
	Tired of ads?

this is long....................


PLATO has been added to the conversation.

Paddy says:
hello to your both3
Rob says:
hi
Paddy says:
hello Rob
PLATO says:
Hi Rob, Paddy
PLATO says:
Sorry about the other night Rob...Laptop battery packed it in at the wrong time
Rob says:
lol
Paddy says:
Rob
I would likeyour opinion on Ljubes comments in the 1150 thread
the issue oin Chivary and change of gov to feud
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...217#post3941789
Paddy says:
ok a thread has been started on this matter
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=136972
Rob says:
Ok...here are the issues that I think need to be addressed: 1. We are at war with two or three civs. Switching gov'ts during that time will be painful at best. 2. We do want our UU (and a golden age), but, as Ljube says, we would not do well in despotism. We would want to switch to Monarchy or Feudalism.
Rob says:
3. Feudalism has the negative that WW must be factored in.
Rob says:
4. In order to build up our production to the level where Keshiks are buildable, we would need to build home guards (for MP's) or retract our armies in the field.
Rob says:
5. I recommend doin all of this.
Rob says:
...other than feudalism... not sure whether that or monarchy will be better.
Paddy says:
it can be said thet many of thesurviving units of the Blood Force Horde (formely AGE) at the Bards war, will be available for home guard soon
Rob says:
Ideally, we would want size 5 (or greater) cities in order to build keshiks. If we plan on size 7's then we must go into Monarchy (since the cost of supporting units will be prohibitive). Most of our cities are on rivers (or lakes) so they will naturally grow unless they don't have enough happiness.
Paddy says:
we will / may need a massive home guard for when DR turn on us
Rob says:
the problem is that we are talking about some 20 turns into the future and the future is far from certain
PLATO says:
What are the practical advantages of Fuedalism and Monarchy to the style we are currently playing?
Paddy says:
within 19 turns of research we would have more than 1/2 our cities at / over sioze 5
Rob says:
Monarchy allows us to beat up on anybody we want to. No war weariness, 2/4/8 support of units, 3 MP's
Rob says:
Feudalism gives 5/1/1 support of units, 3 MP's and has low war weariness (i.e. the same as republic)
Rob says:
Thus, feudalism supports more units per city with small cities.
Rob says:
Oh...feudalism rushes by population, monarchy by cash
PLATO says:
So then is the question 2 fold? 1.) Are we to grow our cities and 2.) are we to remain at war full time?
Rob says:
yes
Rob says:
If war full time, feudalism would eventually prove disastrous. Each city (of ours) that is taken adds 12 to WW. Each unit attacked adds 1 to WW. Each defensive unit killed adds 2, each unit redlined adds 1, each defenseless unit captured adds 1. These are true even if you just took the city or the captured unit is actually liberated (i.e. did not originally belong to you)
Rob says:
sorry...cities taken are 16 (for size 1) or 17 (for all others).
Rob says:
60 WW begins to hurt in 'low WW'
Paddy says:
I must report here that Chris is a major supporter of our being in Monarchy
PLATO says:
So, it seems to me that you are recommending Monarchy unless this game drastically changes in its play style.
Rob says:
I would be too, provided that we can grow our cities.
Rob says:
yes.
Rob says:
If we switch to feudalism, our opponents need only check their F3 screen to see it. Then they will gang-tackle us because we will ultimately be forced to enter anarchy a second time.
Paddy says:
my hope would be that if we are victorious in our war battles, that we start heading for city growth
Rob says:
My hope is that you have sufficient strength already and will immediately head for city growth. We need to switch BEFORE our GA if at all possible.
Paddy says:
yes indeed, we certainly should have
Rob says:
By 'heading for city growth' I mean that we need mp's (desperately).
PLATO says:
We can get Chivalry 1st and refrain from building Keshiks until after govt switch. That should do it don't you think?
Paddy says:
ahhh, I forgot to ask earlier, do either of you mind if this chat is posted in the new thread on this matter ?
Rob says:
I would even consider disconnecting our iron for a few rounds so that we can build cheap ones.
PLATO says:
Not at all
Rob says:
fine with me
Rob says:
Alternately, we could garrison with archers (which cost the same as spearmen)
Paddy says:
hmmmm disconnecting the iron...
PLATO says:
or just not connect a new city and make a warrior factory. They are upgradable to MI now if we really need them
Rob says:
We need to many to allow a warrior factory. We need at least 3 cities building them.
Rob says:
*too
Rob says:
It would be far faster to just disconnect the iron (with workers on it) and build as many as we need, then reconnect. Keep in mind that once the last one (that we need) is in the queue, the iron can be connected. So, we can begin connecting before we have even placed the last warrior in the queue.
PLATO says:
hmmm...maybe that is not such a bad idea. If we do that then we can still produce Horse if we need to replenish the front.
Rob says:
yes
Rob says:
Meanwhile, the magic numbers become 2/5/10. Any city with those useable shield numbers will be warrior-friendly producers.
Rob says:
those with 3 & 4 could be set on spears (since pikes require iron)
Rob says:
any 7's or 8's could also work for spears (although 9 would be a bit excessive for loss)
Paddy says:
hmmmm
Paddy says:
Fililous Ala is founded on the iron
to disconnect from main cities requires 2 road tiles to be disconnected
Rob says:
Now: please, please, PLEASE keep in mind that I have not really been following the combat phase (given my title and duties, it did not seem all that prudent--too much energy for not much return).
Paddy says:
indeed mate
Rob says:
Then disconnect those. It takes the same time to build two 'flat-tile' roads as one hill road
Paddy says:
yez
Rob says:
We also took the Bard's iron. If that is connected, it must be disconnected.
Paddy says:
bugger indeed
Paddy says:
hmmm massive
Rob says:
Alternately...if we have a viable trade route, we could trade one of the irons and then disconnect the other (we would be the ones to lose iron first)
PLATO says:
That could present a logistical problem for the army...hmmm
Rob says:
how so?
PLATO says:
If we cut a road to the bardlands then we are cutting the route to the front
PLATO says:
Where is the bard iron in relation to the road?
Rob says:
One more possibility (if you really, really trust an ally--which I doubt). You could ask an ally to declare war on us and station troops to prevent the shipment from getting to our cities, thus blocking our source....until we want it back.
PLATO says:
At this time, I do not believe we have any trade routes open eithier
Rob says:
Ft. Napster's iron is next to the city and at the end of connected roads
Rob says:
cutting roads to FA means cutting luxuries to 3 cities (FA being one of them)
Rob says:
We are just about to hook up our dyes...so that means that our cities can start to grow from that
Paddy says:
all dyes are connected
Paddy says:
the last save was played
Rob says:
Then you have already played 1175 (which I have not, of course)
Paddy says:
many days ago
PLATO says:
So then, the luxuries are not a major issue?
Rob says:
Only in the sense that 4 luxes lead to size 7 cities (thus Feudalism would be a bad choice)
PLATO says:
It is certainly sounding more and more as if Monarchy is the way to go. I guess the main issue is how to provide the fastest way to a large number of mps?
Rob says:
and a large population...keep in mind that we do not have grainaries.
Rob says:
Since most of our cities are size 3 or 4 (at most), they will take some 40 turns to reach size 7
PLATO says:
wow...that is a long time. What can be done on that front?
Rob says:
So...we need to delay chivalry until that time if possible.
Rob says:
Very little. Granaries would cut the time, but it is too late for that option.
Paddy says:
yes it is
Paddy says:
we be Horde - warmongers
PLATO says:
haha...indeed
PLATO says:
why do we need to delay Chivalry?
Rob says:
Well...we could remain in despotism until just before we finish chivalry. We then switch to anarchy (before obtaining the tech) and then finish the tech in Monarchy. Thus, at least some of the build time (in population) will have passed.
Paddy says:
what time frame do you see that taking
Rob says:
We need to delay Chivalry, because we don't want to have ANYBODY get it before we switch gov'ts. We don't want a GA in despotism.
Paddy says:
yes too both indeed
Rob says:
So...for example. Let's suppose that Chivalry will take 30 turns. We go to turn 29 (maybe 26 by the time we get there) w/o building settlers, so our cities will grow. One turn before we get the tech, we switch gov'ts. The anarchy period will be close (although not the same due to luxuries) to the same food production. So we get a few more turns (again--possibly) of growth. Then we are in
Rob says:
Monarchy and may be paying a bit for the army, but, we hope, not too many turns as our cities will begin to reach size 7.
PLATO says:
What is the case if we are only 15-18 turns from Chivalry?
Rob says:
In addition: bigger cities produce more cash.
Rob says:
hold on
Rob says:
We have 11 cities (now) and 45 units (I presume). One city (KBH) is already size 8. The other cities will take...
Rob says:
a lot of time to reach size 7.
Paddy says:
yes, but what within the chiv/gov time fram
Rob says:
Even if we concentrate on irrigating grass...(in preparation for the gov't switch) it will be 6 or 7 turns per number. Many of the cities are size 1's.
Rob says:
Thus...we would have to pay for 23 units (23 gp) plus whatever we build.
Rob says:
By the way. My mistake on luxuries...we will have only 3. However, with mp's we still will end up with size-7 cities.
Rob says:
sorry...21 units (BOH would pay for 4, not 2)
Rob says:
KBH, I mean
Rob says:
If we add in the temple of Artemis, that would be yet one more content per city
Rob says:
I need to come to a finish soon or I will look like this:
Paddy says:
ok
PLATO says:
You are truly awesome Rob.
Paddy says:
thanks Rob
Paddy says:
I will need some time with you soon Rob, as I have far more questions now than I did before
Rob says:
Now...FA can grow fast, so that would give us (likely) two cities >6 (assuming we stopped building settlers). Or...we can build settlers and make more cities to support our army
Rob says:
np
Rob says:
Only problem with more cities is that leaves us more to defend...
Paddy says:
yes
Rob says:
Never thought I would recommend this this soon, but I think we should switch all settler production to either workers or pikes (or archers) and begin for the transfer into Monarchy.
Paddy says:
ok
Rob says:
I also recommend going for ToA, as per the thread
Rob says:
Once we have size 7 cities, we will need space for our laborers
PLATO says:
Okay so let's recap
PLATO says:
You are recommending setting our research to coincide with both gov't change and population growth
Rob says:
Actually, the other way around, more or less
PLATO says:
You are recommending a research time of approx 30 turns for Chiv with gov't change starting between 26 and 29
PLATO says:
Estimating time to pop 7 for most cities at 40 turns more or less
PLATO says:
The current cost for units if we were in Monarchy is 21 gpt
Rob says:
for 3-5 of them, yes
Rob says:
yes
PLATO says:
and this is not likely to change with the exception of FA being able to grow to 7 quickly
Rob says:
yes
Rob says:
It is actually impossible to grow any more faster until we get into another gov't.
PLATO says:
Our alternative is to build more cities to support the current troop levels but are recommending against it due to military exposure
Rob says:
This is assuming that we choose Monarchy.
Rob says:
If we choose Feudalism, we would easily support troops UNTIL our cities reach size 7.
PLATO says:
yes...this is the Monarchy option
Rob says:
But...in feudalism, we will ultimately have 50% war weariness (since our wars seem to never end)
PLATO says:
Would there be any benefit at all to go through two periods of anarchy within 40 turns?
Rob says:
Well...given that we could probably hand WW for 20 or more turns, we probably would be looking at it in 50-65 turns (the two periods, that is). The problem I foresee is that we would be FORCED into anarchy (as opposed to taking it at our choosing).
Rob says:
One more possibility: Screw war weariness. Let cities starve if they need to. Try to conquer the world in the next 50 turns.
PLATO says:
haha...indeed. Ljube is extimating, I think, 15-20 turns to eliminate the babs and 20-25 to eliminate the bards
Rob says:
Then we can not afford Feudalism. Unless we get incredibly lucky.
PLATO says:
We may be able to conquer a lot of it, but we can't take 'em all out in 50
Rob says:
So we are back to researching slowly (Chivalry in 25-30) and then 'hoping for the best' as concerns unit support. Mostly, we will just bite the bullet for about 10 turns, so save up some 200gp cash.
PLATO says:
Okay...I think that answers most of my questions.
Rob says:
300 would be safer, btw
PLATO says:
indeed...the more the better as we will probably have more units then anyway
Rob says:
also...don't forget that after Chivalry, we will probably never research again, so that money can go to troop support...
Paddy says:
indeed
Paddy says:
world wars after that
PLATO says:
indeed. Do you forsee us needing the lux slider much with 3 luxuries and ToA with size 7 cities in Monarchy?
Rob says:
depends upon mp's
Rob says:
ToA gives the equivalent of one mp per city. 3 happies will offset 3 unhappies
Rob says:
We get one content to begin with. (thus giving size 7)
Paddy says:
well we are still waiting on Ljubes plan for ToA I believe
Rob says:
Also, our cities that are NOT on rivers can be used for settler/worker production since they can not grow >6 w/o a very expensive acqueduct.
Paddy says:
so we do not have details on how long that will take
Paddy says:
yes to cities not on rivers
Rob says:
right...so size 8's require an mp, 9's require 2...
Rob says:
On the happiness...this is assuming we no longer population rush. I am not sure that all pop. rush unhappiness leaves in 20turns. It may be that each pop used adds 20 more turns...I have not tested that. I have noticed that when I pop rush with 2 or more, the time seems to go on endlessly.
Rob says:
So...Bloodview may be a problem for many years to come...
Rob says:

PLATO says:
What if we produce workers there then and add them to other cities to accelerate the growth rate
Rob says:

Rob says:
yes, that can also be done.
PLATO says:
If you need to go Rob, I have the answwers I need for now
Rob says:
It is an expensive way to increase city population...since you lose the 10 (or 30 if you use settlers) shields.
Rob says:
ok, cya
Paddy says:
Bloodview is on worker now
Rob says:
I will watch, but not say more unless needed.
Paddy says:
hmmm
Paddy says:
Rob, when you are able, I have a few things I would like to chat about, would you like me to do an email
Rob says:
Actually, given it's location (near high-yeild food) Bloodview was the one other city likely to build up fast.
Rob says:
no...ask away
Rob says:
I just took my meds
Paddy says:
not now, sorry, I am at work
Paddy says:
the issue here was chiv and gov
Rob says:
oh...np, then in 7-8 hrs if I am up
Paddy says:
cheers
PLATO says:
Take care Rob, and Thanks
Paddy says:
yes thanks3



will try to do a summary - no promises

	01-08-2005 12:26									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The plan to switch to monarchy assumes that we more or less stop production of new units. But that would be very dangerous. We have built a position in this world, a position of might. We have built it through strength and glory of our arms. We would not be wise to compromise it.

So, if we maintain the level of our military build-up monarchy will never become justified.


I strongly dislike the idea of military police. We have achieved so much in this game because we have not wasted our military units on MP duty. The spearhead formations which won important battles for us are the consequence of our policy of full mobilisation of resources. If we were to split forces now, scatter them all over our empire and bog them down performing MP duties, we would lose the edge that we have had so far against our enemies - our ability to concentrate large number of our units creating the task forces of overwhelming power.


Rob doesn't like feudalism because of war weariness issues. It is true that war weariness exists in feudalism, but to claim that it exists and to list its effects is just an observation. War weariness isn't something that appears immediately upon switching to feudalism. War weariness happens as a result of other events in the game and war weariness can be avoided. Detailed planning of war campaigns exercising a higher degree of caution can completely eliminate the threat of having war weariness issues. I speak of this from my experience.

	01-08-2005 12:44									#6
	Suffering from ads?

If we wish to consider monarchy which I think will bring insolvency to our empire, I dare say we should better also take republic in consideration. Both governments require cities 7>. Monarchic city supports 4 units for free while the republican city supports 3 units for free. But republican cities generate twice the amount of cash the monarchic cities generate. Therefore, republic has better unit support compared to monarchy and is far more profitable in the long run, both in terms of cash generation and in terms of science.


War weariness is low under republic and controllable using the lux slider. Golden age would be extremely beneficial to us under republic and would probably tip the scales in our favour decisively.

	02-08-2005 04:12									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I had a chat with Rob and he convinced me that feudalism is not the right choice for us. In addition to this, feudalism has very little support in the horde, so I'm hereby officially dropping the idea of proposing a switch to feudalism.


However, I'm not supporting monarchy at the moment either. If we wish to switch to monarchy we must prepare first. But these preparations should not jeopardise our military supremacy.

	02-08-2005 04:19									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

From Alexman's post about corruption:


DISTANCE CORRUPTION
For all non-communal government types, the distance corruption component is proportional to the distance of a given city from its closest Palace. For communal governments, the distance to the closest Palace is considered to be the same for all cities on a given map. The "closest palace" to a city can be the Palace, the Forbidden Palace, or any other Wonder with the "reduces corruption" ability.

For corruption purposes, distance is always an integer number, and is given by:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d = max(x,y) + min(x,y)/2
where
max(x,y) denotes the maximum between x and y,
min(x,y) denotes the minimum between x and y,
x is the distance in the NW/SE direction,
y is the distance in the NE/SW direction,
and the integer division is rounded down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the special case of communal governments, the distance for all cities is taken as:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d = (MaxD) / 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

where MaxD = (MapW+MapH)/4, MapW is the width of the map, and MapH is the height of the map, as given in the editor.

The distance, d, is used to get the adjusted distance, da, as follows:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

da = 0.5^Ni * min(Gd * t * d, MaxD)
where
Ni is the number of anti-corruption buildings,
t = 1 if the city is on the trade network
5/4 otherwise
Gd = 3/2 for Rampant corruption (Despotism)
3/4 for Minimal corruption (Democracy)
1 otherwise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So each anti-corruption building, which is a city improvement with the "reduces corruption" ability in the editor (Courthouse and Police Station), divides distance corruption by 2.

Finally, the exact value of the distance corruption component is given by:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cd = da /MaxD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RANK CORRUPTION
The rank corruption component depends on the rank (R) and optimal city number (Nopt) of each city.

In a non-communal type of government all cities of an empire are ranked in order of distance to the capital, starting at zero for the capital itself. If several cities have the same distance to the capital, they are ranked in order of founding, and if they also have the same date of founding, they are ranked by their order in the database. In a communal form of government, all cities have the same rank, which is half the total number of cities in the empire, rounded down.

Each city also has its own optimal city number, Nopt, given by:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nopt = max(OCN * (L/100 + c + Gr + Gp*Nwe + 0.25*Ni), 1)
where
OCN is the optimal number of cities for the map size,
as found in the editor
L is the percentage of optimal cities for the current
difficulty level, as given in the editor
Nwe is the number of active Wonders in the empire with
the "reduces corruption" ability
(Forbidden Palace, SPHQ)
c = 0.25 for a commercial civilization,
0 otherwise
Gr = 0.1 for minimal or nuisance corruption
2 for communal corruption
0 otherwise
Gp = 3/8 non-communal corruption
3 for communal corruption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For waste calculations only, when the city is in a WLTKD celebration, add OCN/4 to Nopt.

The rank corruption for a city is then given by:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cr = R / (2 * Nopt), if R < Nopt
(2 * R - Nopt) / (2 * Nopt) otherwise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM CORRUPTION
The sum of the distance and rank components of corruption can be greater than 100%. The game sets an upper limit for the total corruption in a city to be equal to 90% minus 10% for each city improvement and minus 70% for each Wonder in the city with the "reduces corruption" ability:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cmax = 0.9 - (0.1 * Ni + 0.7 * Nwc)

	02-08-2005 04:25									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Our Nopt number is 14 for this level and this map size (Rob). First 13 cities will suffer less rank corruption. Every city after that will have high penalty from rank corruption.

Despotism also has high penalty from distance corruption (50% greater) compared to monarchy.


Bottom line: We need to do a calculation into when monarchy will become better than despotism and switch at that time. Until then we stay despot.

	02-08-2005 10:56									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Impressive Alexman....

Where are my Keshiks though.

	13-08-2005 01:59									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

ok party people

where do we stand on this matter?

	15-08-2005 03:18									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I say monarchy soon as possible

We must start to build some culture to expand our boundaries though.

	15-08-2005 03:42									#13
	Put an end to popups!

Yes indeed... I understand a bit of this cultural issue - I drink beer which I here is a culture

and I know we are committed to Knights Templar

yet should we also commit a city to the Temple project?

	15-08-2005 13:13									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The problem with this is that we have no cities that can build temple other than our capital. My suggestion is to finish Templar and then build a couple of keshiks in Khan's Blood Hall.

Then start on Temple of Artemis which will coincide with our switch to monarchy. In the meantime we should have doubled the number of our cities which would provide some level of support for our large armies. Then, after we switch, we engage in a victorious battle using our keshiks which triggers our golden age. This event increases the shield production of our capital to more than 30 shields per turn (a more optimistic estimate would be 40 shields per turn, depending on mines). This will allow completion of the Temple of Artemis in some 15 turns or less.

	15-08-2005 13:27									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Thank you General for your words...

	16-08-2005 12:17									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ljube, you have my interest here. Yet Cheif Chris has a valid point.