 |
| |
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Winning at civ2 is very much a question of choosing the right investment at the right time. That question might be answered using a method named "dicounted cash-flow" in the US, as far as I know. May I try to explain briefly?
If you are getting hungry and you have no money in your pocket, you are likely shortsighted: for you 1$ to-morrow is worth much less than 1$ now. For you, to day's value of 1$ next year is perhaps less than 0.9$ to day or even much lesser than that. On the contrary, some people are very long-sighted. 1$ next year might be worth 0.98 or even 0.99$ to day for those people.
IMHO this method is great because the economist collects the data and does the calculations, but the user, the wise despot, the strong strategist chooses whether to be short or long-sighted. Hence, if a wrong decision is taken, responsibilities are rightly shared.
Anyway, I have recently been busy applying that method to some problems related to civ2. Here are a few results in the field of early trade (#1 briefly describes the method, for those interested, and #2 gives the main rsults for those willing to go trading ASAP).
1) Method
1$ that I'm going to get in n turns from now is worth (1/(1+r) power n)$ now (r being the rate of discount that I am willing to choose).
1 beaker=1 gold (since I always can choose between these using the "tax rate" cursor).
The production cost of a caravan is 125 gold (stepwise rushbuilding with 1 shield in the box to start with).
The "true value" of the caravan is measured on delivery. Therefore the cost, which I name A (since A is not only for Alphabet  ), is then 125*(1+r) power m (m being the number of turns travelling between origin and destination city).
The revenue is B (gold bonus) + B (science bonus converted into gold) + C (current value of the continued cash-flow, doubled in case of home trade).
Hence, the "true value" of the caravan is TV=B+B+C-A
(watching TV on the BBC, this should be quite mnemonic for people like SG or EST).
2) Results
The results given here are those of my first case study in that field, playing the Romans on a medium size random map (deity, 7 civs, raging hordes), and sending most caravans to my friendly neighbors, the Indians, onboard mighty triremes, but also a few to my own cities by land, for the sake of comparison.
More precisely, I studied 12 caravans (and the resulting cash-flow during 80 turns). 5 caravans were home trade between roman cities. 4 were fine foreign trade (goods in demand in indian cities) and 3 were second class foreign trade (goods delivered in India, undemanded there).
For each caravan are given:
B=gold bonus on delivery
TV2=true value of the caravan when using a 2% rate of discount ("long-sighted")
TV8=true value of the caravan when using an 8% rate of discount ("shortsighted").
Dye Pompei-Madras (250BC) B=40, TV2=40, TV8=-115
Silk Neapolis-Veii (50BC) B=3O, TV2=5, TV8=-102
Beads Cumae-Pisae (40AD) B=28, TV2=45, TV8=-72
Copper Pisae-Delhi (340AD) B=148, TV2=333, TV8=132
Dye Veii-Delhi (500AD) B=176, TV2=402, TV8=198
Silk Hispalis-Delhi (500AD) B=246, TV2=495, TV8=307
Wool Pompéi-Viroconium(520AD) B=28, TV2=29, TV8=-82
Wine Lugdunum-Viroc.(88OAD) B=80, TV2=159, TV8=-90
Salt Lugdunum-Antium(900AD) B=60, TV2=137, TV8=-37
Gold Pisae-Delhi (980AD) B=76, TV2=168, TV8=-7
Dye Cumae-Delhi (1200AD) B=40, TV2=125, TV8=-23
Dye Hispalis-Delhi (1340AD) B=47, TV2=83, TV8=-83
3) Conclusion
Early trade can be very rewarding (look at that
silk delivered in Delhi in 500AD: net profit ranging from 300 gold (shortsighted) to 500 gold (long-sighted).
But early home trade seems to be questionable (unless one gets much better opportunities than those shown here). All of us would prefer building wonders rather than getting such tiny profits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wow! A newbie who doesnt ask questions but instead comes up with strategies. We should put him in a museum!
On a more serious note, I have looked at OCC games, and discovered that the people with the earliest trade routes are always the fastest. Paul in particular seems to get his caravans off quickly.
------------------
Go Redskins!
Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
suas333
|
|
Brooklyn, NY, U.S
Feb 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Thanks for your study, howveer early in the game when eve i build a caravan i can't help but think that it could be one more city. And settlers from that one city, especially early can make 5 more cities. Gold would be increased simply by quantity. But as i see players using trade routes with an early republic to get ahead in science and gold, I'll try to use early trade routes in some games inthe future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
SD
I am new to Apolyton, but not new to civ2. That's why.
As far as the museum is concerned, I know oedo already has a statue (perhaps two, quite soon, when the unfinished gets finished). If I might deserve a painting one day (even a very tiny one, as long as it is signed Manet or Monet), that would be great!
Blaupanzer
You describe exactly what my current research is about : "di$counted cash-flow" (how could I forget that precious letter?), and trying to improve decision making in civ2 by using that method, which I consider powerful.
Nevertheless, I tried to write a short post yesterday, and it seems to me to day that at least 2 points must be made clearer.
1) I am not arguing against or in favour of early trade; just trying to indicate whether it is rewarding or not.
2) The "true value" is not "true" (after many years of experience I would say nothing is ever "true" in economics). For example:
- 125 gold for 1 caravan is one of many possible values (looked reasonable to me when I chose it, but I wouldn't
blame on someone advocating 100 or 150);
- 1 gold=1 beaker might be discussed with very strong arguments in favor of either gold or science;
- valuing the continued cash-flow in gold is valid only in cities without improvements (in fact that cash-flow is Trade; it would be improved by 50% in a city owing both Market Place and Library).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
I meant "owning", of course. Sorry!
------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A-Team
|
|
warren michigan
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
If joining my game, (rules listed under Recruiting Players thread) you will find that when you play without wonder construction, citys must be as strong as possible. Build a marketplace, a bank and a stock exchange. Now Each caravan ( up to 3) will pay for itself via gold revenue if traded between big enough citys or off cont. citys or other civs. But more then that, each caravan will generate 4-8 trade. 3 then will give you say 20 extra trade. with the multiplication of M,B,SE that equals a return of 50 trade per turn!!!! when used for lux or tax. Team up with a partner who trades and uses the extra trade with lib. and universitys and 1 civ produces the tech, the other the gold a marraige made in civ heaven.
This is the kind of things that you can expect in my game. Oh , and by the way, it wont take several months to play a game, it will only take a few sittings as the game has been speeded up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
Look here
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum2/HTML/001969.html?23
I can regularly build 4 to 5 size 28 cities by 500 AD on 1x 1x, giving me 2 turns a tech for the rest of the game... I also make close to 800 gold per turn at 550 AD. Industrailization by 900 AD with automobile by 1100 AD. The power of early trade and using super cities blows ICS away by a huge margin. I rounded up a couple of players and we did a test, using my strat against ICS, I had over a 15 tech lead, and a launched a spaceship before the other guys got a bit past industrailization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
SG
I have no global theory of civ2 and I claim no brilliant results. What I try to achieve is a thorough analysis of some aspects of this great game, especially in the field of decision making (somewhat alike what you did in the field of starting techs).
Then, if we look at one early caravan, my theory would be:
My choice is between using this caravan to help building a wonder (in that case, its value is about 200g, as you stated, which means a "true value" about 75g if we agree to take into account a cost of 125g) and sending this caravan to some big city faraway (in that case, its value is not far from the "true value" that I describe).
Very early, the choice is always in favor of building a wonder (because the supposed big cities are hidden in the black), but then comes the period when I discover at least one big foreign city demanding at least one commodity that I can produce.
I state that if the "true value" of this caravan is much higher than 75g, then the right decision is no longer building the WoW (except in case of strong emergency: "I need that WoW and I know the AI is building it"). The right decision is foreign trade, then buy the WoW and keep the surplus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Settler seems more inspiring than chieftain (at least to me).
Go on posting La Fayette!
Warlord sounds more like it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Markusf
I read your thread.
I suppose that you forgot telling us that you were playing at chieftain level on a big map with few aggressive AI opponents.
If you wish to convince us that you got those results playing deity, 7civs , raging hordes, on a small or medium map, then it would be fair to come back with strong evidence.
Try and play at higher levels. Believe me, it's fun... and I like to see you go scouting for new ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Markusf,
Rereading your thread, I notice that you mentioned playing at king level. Fine!
And your Kremlinlike cities are real smart!
IMO they are smart enough to play at Emperor level.
Have a try!
------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
SG,
Rereading this thread, i notice that I forgot answering your second remark "only by using caravans can one 'buy' beakers in addition to those available from a maxed out tax rate".
I strongly agree that this can be beyond price (and I 'buy' as many beakers as I can that way).
But this case study was about early trade. In most of my games I feel just as 'gold-hungry' as i feel 'beaker-hungry' during that period when I am also sending scouts (and always wondering whether one more scout is better than one more caravan).
How do YOU feel then?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
EST,
I mentioned scouting on purpose, since scouting has no easily measurable value, though it is more than valuable in the long run.
So I go scouting a lot (like you), though I'm far from ready to write a post about the true value of scouting.
But, when discussing about caravans, I state that:
- decision making in civ2 has been very much discussed through dozens of threads, but very little valued (mostly by Mark Everson and Adam Smith);
- the discounted cash-flow method is more powerful in real life than any 'no-discount' method dealing with return on investment;
- it should also be the case in civ2, if I (or someone else) use it correctly.
In the meantime, I stick to my answers to Blaupanzer and SG a few days ago:
The "true value" is not true (I know it and I claim that there is no true value), but it is true enough to help one choose the right investment at the right time.
The AI is so dumb sometimes that many of us manage to win at deity level after having made dozens of wrong choices (you and I go scouting,...SG doesn't ).
After having built a caravan early in the game, I can choose:
-building a wonder,
-home trade,
-foreign trade (sending food to a city is generally not a very good choice then).
I never wrote or thought that one of those choices is better, but I think that the "true value"(discounted benefit minus discounted cost) can be greatly helpful when choosing.
You plead in favor of home trade and I won't say a word against it (people building strong SSCs ASAP can greatly benefit from such a choice).
I only wrote that this is not always true (in my case study, there was no fat SSC and foreign trade prooved to be better, that's all).
Just one more word: I don't think I overweight short-term effects at all, since YOU choose your rate of discount (and I measure the effects during 80 turns, and 80 turns is quite a long time in civ2).
------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Foreign trade proved nothing, I confess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:12
|
|
A couple of notes, just for the fun of argument! 
I do by no means claim that what I hence write is correct, feel free to point out the flaws. There are many, no doubt! 
First of all, you argue that this method is a good way of deciding whether it pays off to make the investment (i.e. rush buy the caravan and trade with it) or not, and I agree with you. If the net present value (henceforth NPV) is positive, then go ahead and buy it. But isn't this only the soccer game's first half? 
The problem I have (as pointed out by others) is that the NPV of this investment must be compared to the net present values of its alternatives. Then you choose the alternative yielding the highest NPV.
Now, you make clear that you don't want to pass a judgement on whether early trade is better than other alternatives. IMHO, this has to be done in order to properly evaluate whether to make the investment or not. Per definition it does not pay off if there are better uses of the spent resources out there (meaning yielding a higher NPV).
How can you do this? Obviously you have to analyse the alternatives using the same method you propose.
Do the same calculations you have done above when trading with the camel, but include all the gold spent to send the camel to its destination. For example, if you're on an island you need a trireme. There is a cost associated with rushing it, just like there is with the caravan. This cost reduces the caravan's value and should be incorporated when calculating it.
When considering alternative uses of the caravan, make sure to include all benefits and costs as well. This is what you do with the caravan's future benefits when you trade with it (C in your post above), in all fairness this should be done with the alternatives too (or simply cancel them out, deleting C in your original calculations).
Hence, 50 wonder shields are indeed worth 200 gold, but the future stream of benefits associated with the wonder also has a (positive) present value in gold. For example, Colossus and HG yield extra trade adding to the value of building the wonder (the caravan should only get credit for one fourth of these benefits! ).
This is not to say that your proposed method is wrong, but when used it should be implemented in a thorough and adequate way.
If we're back where we started why bring this up at all? Simply because in these forums the value of trade has been asserted over and over again by almost everyone (including yours truly, who is a big fan of trade! ).
However, the early landings by DaveV (1595 AD) and Arii (somewhere in the 11th century?) without building a single caravan for the purpose of trade (correct me if I'm wrong here, it was some time ago I looked at DaveV’s log) is clearly evidence against the case of trade. Until a trader beats those single player record years, the burden of proof is with the trade side.
Hence the need for a complete analysis of all costs and benefits of rushing that caravan!
Including not building the caravan in the first place. Which is best, 4 camels or 5 settlers?
Carolus
[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited January 11, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
Carolus,
Thank you for posting.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but...
I'm pretty sure that you have noticed what I have noticed when reading the archive to this forum: many many posts stressing the importance of this and that, and long term effects and the like.
But apart from Xin Yu, Mark Everson and Adam Smith, few people have given detailed information about the results of testing what appeared to be wrong in Winkler's Scrolls of Ancient Wisdom, for example (forgive me if I forget some important contributors), until a few weeks ago.
I feel somewhat on the same line as (I suppose) Scouse Gits (with GL and starting techs), oedo (with statue and unfinished) or Slowthinker (with dips and spies): much has been said and achieved by the 'masters' (I won't name any, since you know them better than I do), but much remains to be tested and researched by those interested. That is one of the numerous reasons why this game is GREAT.
That is also why I published this case study: trying to make some people react otherwise than saying "I use home trade and I'm glad with it" or "a settler is better than a caravan". That is also why I thank you for your post.
Then, let me answer briefly:
1) I suppose that none of us wishes to play civ2 with a computer #2 in his back, doing 1/2 hour economic calculations before any move. That's why I tried to make it simple.
2) Even if the "true value" is not true (and I am #1 to state that it isn't), IMO it can nevertheless be helpful.
For example, if we stay in the field of "caravan vs caravan", I state that food caravans sent to the capital are not ALWAYS the best solution when trying to build a wonder and that home trade is not ALWAYS the best solution when trying to boost the number of trade arrows in one's civ. I hope that the "true value" will help convince some players of that plain fact (and I intend to be back with more results within a few days or weeks).
------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-12-2000 18:25
|