 |
|
DanielJ
|
|
Iowa City, IA, USA
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
This is my first message. And I would like to simply state that putting Factories in every city before you build the Hoover Dam is essential. And build them during Republic because I find that Democracy doesn't work until you get the Woman's Suffrage. Unless you want Fundamentalism which is perfect, because your city will need production power to build crazy amounts of units when needed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SandMonkey
|
|
Sound advice, in some ways. To get the most efficiency out of the hoover Dam you should build your factories... but it's not always only for units. Increased production can ease the production of a spcaeship.
It also depends on how large your civilization is... with a ton of cities, the maintenance cost of all those factories can add up quickly,.
[This message has been edited by SandMonkey (edited December 29, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I always build factories asap. why would you not want to build one? I try to get them up asap, but sometimes my dam goes up first depending on what I research first.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
There is a thread named "overlapping..." in the archive. That thread was started by John Barbarossa (I suppose he is one of the great players at this game, since he states somewhere that he remains undefeated in MP!).
IMHO that thread is perhaps the most interesting one in the whole archive. I just reread it, because I had in mind that Mark Everson had given there some noticeable results about factories. I found them, and also found something else of great interest to me (and perhaps to you later on ).
1) Mark wrote that, studying investments with a method based on the payoff, he found out that the number of turns required to pay back the investment of building a factory was greater than: 400/p + 1 (p being the size of the city concerned). This means more than 40 turns to get your money back in a city size 8, which is far from brilliant. My own results are slightly different, but the conclusion is the same: "avoid building factories ASAP" (results whithin a few days on this forum).
2) John Barbarossa wrote:
"When your first city is in a low trade environment, with no rivers, fish or whales, it is important to make sure you have at least 3 trade, as this doubles your early science (assuming a 60% initial science rate)."
This is almost exactly the basic idea for my "3 arrows" strategy that I described a few days ago in another thread on this forum. I bow.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Edward
|
|
La Fayette,
Barbarossa's math sounds correct. The factory bumps up your shield production by 50%. Assuming that before the factory, your city is pulling in roughly 1 shield per worked square...
return = cost
#turns[benefit/turn] = 200 shields
t [50%(prefactory production in shields)] = 200 shields
t [.5 (population shields)] = 200 shields
t [.5 (p)] = 200
t = 400/p
For a size 10 city that's roughly 40 turns.
(Of course you can tweak the formula to include the fact that the city square itself is worked (400/(p+1)) and the fact that you lose 4 coins (about 2 shields worth? (400/(p+1-2))?) through upkeep but the formula remains roughly the same.)
It'll take roughly
400/(number of shields the city is currently producing) turns
for the factory to "pay off."
However, this indicates to me that the sooner you buy a factory, the sooner it pays for itself (as long as it's not later than 1960 or so). (I'd still be very leery of building one at any time in a city with less than 5 shield production.)
Fergus Horkan's caution on civ-wide factory making is also well taken.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000 time: 00:12
|
|
The formula is great, but like so many other things, it can only be used as a guidline. First it assumes your city is static (i.e. what if when you start to build your factory your producing 10 shields from 6 squares and in the time you build it your pop grows to 8 producing 14 shields) in which case your formula would undervalue the factory. What if your gonna get Hoover's. What about the impact of rush buying if you are cash rich. The concept is good but it shouldn't be used as the final litmus test.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mercantile
|
|
Westcoast of Canada
Dec 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
Bohlen I think the real strategy is to know which cities need the factories. Its all dependent on city size, resources etc. For instance if most of your land was grassland without the shield, you may not want the factory. Just like why build a harbour if you only have one ocean square. Each improvement requires the right scenario for it to be built or else your wasting your money, especially the expensive improvements. If you have alot of cities, 100 aquaducts, sewers, banks , cathedrals, etc adds up right quick
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hawkman
|
|
Pioneer and Builder
Jan 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
The only thing worth considering is whether or not you can immediately afford the upkeep on the factories. If you're worried about payback, then crank out a few trade units on each factory and send them to a distant city. That will keep your cash flow looking good.
Buying all the factories in one turn can turn your budget from a nice surplus to a nasty deficit, but the trade units will fix that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
If you have good science and plenty of opportunities for caravans, don't waste time or resources with factories. The time between industrialization and launch should be so short that you'll never get much use out of your factories or hoovers.
As expensive as they are, factories should only be put where they will best serve you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
When I started reading the archive to this forum, a few weeks ago, I found out that many tricks I had had the pleasure to discover playing civ2, such as "2 continents trading" or "repeated commodity", were quite thoroughly described by people like Xin Yu or Adam Smith.
It was like discovering brothers after a long voyage across the ocean.
That is why it was my pleasure mentioning Mark Everson's formula to help stressing that I am not in favour of factories ASAP.
There are 3 main arguments against them:
1) Low return on investment
2) Pollution
3) High opportunity cost (1 factory=200 shields=4 caravans=almost certainly more than 2000 gold or science beakers, and also 1 factory=4 transports=a great help for large scale trading overseas).
But I strongly agree with Adam Smith when he states that HD radically changes the picture, with much better return and much lower pollution.
BUILD FACTORIES, Noble Leader! (but not ASAP)!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hawkman
|
|
Pioneer and Builder
Jan 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
Factories are the best investment in the game. They give you 50% faster production and the sunk costs can be amortized in just a few turns when freight units can be built.
Pollution can be easily managed with Engineers.
Factories give you the edge that quickly defeats a player without them.
All the formulas about return on investment are bogus unless they target the true return that factories produce, more units, more infrastructure. That's what this game is about.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SandMonkey
|
|
but on the same thought, Hawkman, if you get a great deal of pollution from a factory, you have to waste precious turns using a settler/engineer to clean it up, when they could be building roads/mines/irrigation that could further your gains.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hawkman
|
|
Pioneer and Builder
Jan 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
The pollution is a downer, I'll admit, but the gains far outweigh the negatives. Two engineers can wipe out a square of pollution in one turn, so the delay is more of a nuisance than a serious problem. By this time, there is a strong road net throughout the country which helps in moving the engineers around. And many of the cities are large enough to support two or more engineers. I usually assign two engineers to each city and they pay for themselves by quickly clearing some land to bring the food supply up to where it was before the assignment, then everything after that is gravy.
If I'm concentrating on building up cities, the factories are a must. On the other hand, I've found that manufacturing plants are not needed (although they are nice to have in a war). With a factory and manufacturing plant in every city, and Hoover Dam to help out, production is so high as to make the game boring.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000 time: 06:12
|
|
Edward
The math was not Barbarossa's but Mark Everson's.
I mentioned Barbarossa because he started the thread and because he demonstrated that he was thinking the same way as I was when I started developing the "3 arrows" strategy. John, I salute you.
Mark Everson must be praised, since he developed a theoretical approach of many aspects of this game. Mark, I salute you.
But,
Hawkman,
I agree with you: it is not enough telling shields. It is also precious to take into account what one does with those shields. I ran a test last night, a small simulation comparing the results of a "no factory" strategy compared with a "factories ASAP" strategy. After 25 turns, the result was in favor of "no...", but rather slightly.
I hope to be back soon with stronger evidence derived from using the "di$counted cash-flow" method (look at my thread " true value of early trade" for details).
Happy New Year!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|