 |
|
Elephant
|
|
Phila PA
Aug 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
Do'Y: read the Wildcard explanation of this thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=67754
Solo is graphically summarizing Samson's "Wildcard Supply/Demand" formulas.
Thanks again, both of you!
(Iron-y: isnt that when you build your chokepoint fortress city on an Iron mountain?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rjmatsleepers
|
|
In another thread, La Fayette provided this analysis of wheat vs silk as a special.
quote:
Originally posted by La Fayette
... here is what should happen in a fully developped SSC:
Let us start with 10 beakers
Library = +0.5 (=15b)
University = +0.5 (=20b)
Research Lab = +0.5 (=25b)
Isaac (doubles the effect of improvements, contrary to what is written in the manual) = +1.5 (=40b)
Copernicus (doubles Science, contrary to what is written in the manual) = 80b
In other words the multiplier is 8.
1) Wheat
A specialist brings 3 beakers/turn, which means 3*8 = 24 beakers/turn in the SSC described above.
Therefore 2.5 specialists bring 2.5*24 = 60 beakers/turn.
2) Silk
With the slider at 100% research, 3 trade arrows = 3 beakers.
Therefore 3*8 = 24 beakers/turn
|
I think it assumes that the wheat tile has been improved and a supermarket built. On the face of it, this would give a massive population boost that could be employed as Einsteins. 21 extra food could give 11 more Einsteins which would give 264 more beakers per turn. Even if only half the SSC tiles can be improved that is still a massive boost to research.
What does the master have to say?
quote:
Originally posted by solo
2.5 Acquiring Technology (cont)
2.5.6 Using Scientists
Lots of grassland in the SSC site may make Refrigeration a useful early landing tech. A huge SSC population is almost like getting two super science cities for the price of one.
|
An yet in the early landing game #2, the only person to improve the farmland was La Fayette himself. And most people opted for three silk by converting the wheat. There are some major costs associated with the refrigeration / supermarket / improved farmland option.
1) Refrigeration is an off path technolgy - it takes a lot of beakers to research and increases the research costs of subsequent technologies.
2) Building a supermarket in your SSC uses shields that could have been employed in building caravans.
3) Improving the farmland takes time and engineers that could be doing something else.
4) Research beakers are lost because of the need to raise the luxury rate to get the extra years of celebration to grow the SSC.
Evaluating whether the value of those extra beakers is greater than the cost of obtaining them is too complicated for me.
Anyone else like to have a go at the sums?
RJM at Sleepers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
I think it assumes that the wheat tile has been improved and a supermarket built.
What does the master have to say?
An yet in the early landing game #2, the only person to improve the farmland was La Fayette himself.
RJM at Sleepers |
1) I didn't assume anything: I just made some calculations to partly answer the question asked by Elephant, using the numbers he provided. IIRC the most detailed calculations I have made about the power of SSCs are in the thread named 'Twin Cities'.
2) You are very kind to call me a master. IMO the masters, those who have done most to explain how this game works and how to take advantage of some hidden features, are samson, solo, Xin Yu and SlowThinker (+ Starlifter at CFC)
3) Probably, my example is not to be followed. IIRC my landing date was #4 or 5 in that game. The masters are solo and samson. The strong players are The Monk (hope to see you again soon, Monk  ), Zenon and SG(2) (please forgive me if I forget someone).
I'll never be a strong player at early landing unless I begin to make use of black clicking and helper programs, but I don't feel like it at the moment (since I am so fond of scenarios).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elephant
|
|
Phila PA
Aug 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
RJM:
You raise some of the right issues regarding increasing your SSC with Farmland. My experience is that in the part of the game where Refrigeration becomes an option there is always a tech round where I have to take an off-path tech anyways, so I choose Rfg and go to work on the SSC terrain. The Engineers are usually available, as I have finished the primary round of roading and irrigation by then, and am usually keeping two or three pairs around to clean up any pollution and work on longer-term transformations of SSC terrain. Re-irrigating Grass and Plains is not a very time-consuming exercise, and can be easily interrupted for pollution cleanup. The bigger issue you correctly point out is the extra time spent with increased luxuries for WLTPD growth, but that can also be timed to coincide with a spurt of growth of your second generation cities and offshore colonies which should be coming on-line around the time the Farmland is ready. I usually figure on 5-6 turns of high-lux growth; adding 4-5 more to go from size 25 to 35 is not a big diversion. I don't think the SuperMarket is too big an issue around then either: I usually have a fair amount of gold sitting around in the mid-game then as more and more caravans and freights are getting delivered to bring in enough beakers for one or two techs per turn, so an SM is just a one or two turn diversion from the regular SSC building program.
So I would summarize that goosing the SSC into the 30s with Farmland and SM is not a major hassle, but I would suggest that the player's primary focus should be on building up the secondary group of colony cities and ramping up the long-distance trade. The benefit of growing the SSC is the multiplication of the science Wonders already built there; very few other cities will have much more than a Library anyway, and a good SSC in the mid-30s should provide something like 1500 beakers per turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stealthlover
|
|
I was trying to Launch with one city one citizen. I know I am about 4 years late. It didn't work out but it was interesting. I learned how to micro-manage the beakers so few are wasted. And beg for gold. A funny thing happened that I wanted to ask about. I had alliances with everyone including the Celts. But the Celts never built a city, just wandered around until someone blew them away in the 1900's AD. Has anyone ever seen that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
stealthlover,
I've never seen that. Was the terrain unsuitable? The AI emphasize food when selecting city sites.
Farmers,
In my best games with excellent SSC sites, farmland really wasn't needed, since cities produced enough science for 1 turn advances after Superhighways. Adding more scientists in these games would not have mattered, when all resources were better spent to generate additional advances from trades.
In games with SSC sites lacking good trade specials, farming is needed to add enough scientists to get enough city science for 1 turn advances.
In games without huts, Zenon has shown that an even more effective way of getting to the level of science needed from cities was by building and developing more helpers and colonies and placing less emphasis on early SSC development. His method built secondary city science levels higher earlier and resulted in better trading opportunities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stealthlover
|
|
Solo,
When wiped out the Celt Settlers were standing on grass with one or two whales inside a potential city area. I did get the map from a previous game I had played. On the previous game I played a size one game with a gold but no river. I launched but the another AI launched a faster one and wiped me out to boot. I noticed the blues had a better site so I took the map and started as the French. I think it was just 1 chance in 7 I was started where I wanted, the same place as the blue started the previous game. The other colors were different civs and switched starting areas. There is a warning that altering the map could cause the ai to be erratic but I didn't alter it. I have really enjoyed studying your EL guide. Still trying to make sense of trade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
patrickwl
|
|
sydney, australia
May 2001
time: 15:27
|
|
Solo,
May I also publicly thank you for your willingness to share your deep insights into this marvelous game. Your work has hugely improved my success with the game, and my enjoyment of playing.
I wonder whether there is a typographic error in your formula for calculation of the second demand wildcard, ie the demand wildcard for 32 or more techs. You say that the formula is:
Demand Wildcard = RemainderOf((Horizontal x 3 + Vertical x 7)/9) + 5
I strongly suspect that the correct formula is as follows:
Demand= R((Horizontal x 3 + Vertical x 5)/9) + 5
You give a number of examples of application of these calcs. The first example after you introduce the subject is for the city of Rome with co-ordinates (18,12). Using the first formula, the result is:
Demand = RemainderOf((18 x 3 + 12 x 7)/9) + 5
= RemainderOf((54+84)/9) + 5
= RemainderOf(138/9) + 5
=3+5
=8, wine
Yet, you say the result is:
Demand = R(114/9) + 5
= R(12.666666) + 5
= 6 + 5 = 11, spice
Application of the second formula gives the result you predict:
Rome (18,12) Demand = R((18 x 3 + 12 x 5)/9) + 5 = R((54+60)/9) + 5 = R(138/9) + 5 =R(12.6666)+5 =11, spice
Your next example is Tlatelolco. You say that Tlatelolco has co-ordinates (31,19). It appears to have co-ordinates (31,39) - is this also is a typo? Using the correct co-ordinates (31,39) the results are:
First formula: Demand = R ((31 x 3 + 39 x 7)/9) + 5 = R((93+273)/9) + 5 = R(366/9) +5 = 11, spice
Second formula: Demand = R ((31 x 3 + 39 x 5)/9) + 5 = R((93+195)/9) + 5 = R(288/9) +5 = 5, coal
The final example is Isandhlwana (68,52). The calculations are:
First formula: Demand = R((68 x 3 + 52 x 7)/9) + 5 = R((204+364)/9) + 5 = R(568/9) +5 = 6, copper
Second formula: Demand = R ((68 x 3 + 52 x 5)/9) + 5 = R((204+260)/9) + 5 R(464/9) +5 = 10, silver
On each occasion, applying the second formula gives the outcomes you predict. Am I correct in believing that there is a typo in the first formula?
Presumably this would be made clear somewhere in Samson's original thread on the subject, which I can't find at present. Do you have a link to Samson's original thread?
Last edited by patrickwl on 15-09-2003 at 09:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
Patrickwl,
Thanks for catching those two typos. I have edited that section of the guide to include your corrections since you were right in both cases:
1) The formula for the demand wildcards always use a 5 as the multplier with the vertical coordinate. The typo for the formula for the demand wildcard after 32 techs has been corrected, changing the 7 to a 5. The 7's are used as the supply vertical coordinate multipliers.
2) Tlatelolco's coordinates have been corrected too, the incorrect vertical coordinate of 19 being replaced by 39.
As for Samson's original thread (id=67754), there is a link to it at the beginning of section 2.6.9 (Commodity Overview) which I have justed tested. Today it appears to be working fine, linking to his thread entitled "How Commodity Supply and Demand Lists are Determined."
Thanks for your kind words, too! It's nice to know there are readers with enough interest and enthusiasm to check out all the complicated details.
Last edited by solo on 15-09-2003 at 20:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
But isn't "mental problem" just another word for what I speak of?
What about panag?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
While trying to use my chart for demand wildcards (tech total under 32), it did not seem to be working correctly! I hope I have fixed it now, and apologize to any who tired to use the bogus chart originally posted on page 2.
The correct chart is attached below:
 Attachment: demwildu32.jpg
This has been downloaded 88 time(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2003 20:17
|
