shields vs arrows

[La Fayette]

This topic is as old as civ (but I am much older than civ, so why not?).
I would like to refer to Dave's topic (posted November 18, 1999 12:01) named "Analysis of resource square usage" and to my own topic named "the 3 arrows strategy".
Here are Dave's assumptions regarding resource squares:
"Each city is built on a square that yields 2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade.
Each city has a choice of 3 types of surrounding terrain to work:
1 food, 2 shield, no trade (forest)
2 food, 1 shield, 1 trade (grassland)
1 food, no shield, 2 trade (ocean)".
This choice seems quite reasonable to me (after having stressed that choice #2 refers to "rivered" or "roaded"/and shielded grassland). It expresses that in the early game one can easily trade 2 shields for 2 trade arrows (forest vs ocean) and vice versa.

(Other examples would show us that it is also easy to trade 1 food/1shield (forest vs nonroad nonshield grassland) and 1 food/1 trade arrow (ocean vs roaded plain).
Without improvements in the city, we also have 1 trade=1 gold=1 beaker (through the "tax rate" cursor).
Hence, it appears that, in the early game:
1 food=1 shield=1 arrow=1 beaker=1 gold; ...but...)).

Dave's test shows very clearly that, after 150 turns, a "shieldrich" strategy gives much better results than an "arrowrich" one.

Why do some people (like me ) think that trade arrows should not be completely forgotten?
I'll try to answer to morrow.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

why people think so? I guess it's because they're necessary for gold and for science...

but I think you can concentrate on shields in the beginning, to get the necessary settlers.. and end up as a mediveal civ in 2020

[War4ever]

Trade is great..... but you can create trade easier than creating shields..... IMO

[Ming]

Like everything in Civ... a balance is needed.
And concentrating on either while ignoring the other is a problem...
But even after saying that, I'll take trade over shields in the early part of the game. Too many shields are wasted while in despotism. If it takes forever to get into monarchy or republic, you will actually be farther ahead of the game by getting to a real government faster.

Given a choice, I like my capital to be leaning toward science, and my second city leaning toward production and food so it can kick out the settlers

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 09:12 AM Too many shields are wasted while in despotism.

In 2x production, maybe . I find that I can usually crank out 4 or 5 shields with no waste in my early cities. There's a huge difference in producing your third and fourth settlers in eight turns (5 shields) versus 14 turns (3 shields). My original argument was that newly established cities will be producing their own arrows to compensate for the arrows sacrificed while building settlers. If your early goal is expansion, then expand!

And, of course, balance is important. Monarchy makes a huge difference in support, corruption and waste, and building cities on rivers and on or near trade specials will pay dividends through the whole game. But my workers will always prioritize forests after the city grows to size 2. If the forest has a silk special or a river, so much the better!

[DaveV]

Knigget - that's exactly how I used to do it. I'm convinced my game improved when I started emphasizing shields. The referenced thread was an attempt to analyze the different approaches.

[Adam Smith]

Suppose you are going to AC. At the end of the game you will have all the money and science that you need, but there will still be plenty of libraries, universities, markets, trade routes, and other improvements which would still be beneficial to build. If you had switched some of your population from arrow squares to shield squares, you would have been able to build all beneficial improvements, thus increasing both your production and trade. Therefore a shield strategy is superior to an arrow strategy.

------------------
Old posters never die.
They justfadeaway

[Ming]

It really all depends on what you are trying to do.
If you are just trying to win the game in SP mode, it doesn't really matter what you do. Come on... what's the OCC record now

In MP... it's expansion and science... If you are getting sciences every two turns, it helps big time
Nothing better than using artillery against pikeman...

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 03:12 PM It really all depends on what you are trying to do. If you are just trying to win the game in SP mode, it doesn't really matter what you do. Come on... what's the OCC record now

Alpha Centauri in 416 AD

But the truth is, it all depends on your horizon. You don't need more universities if you have already discovered all the techs. Nor does it make sense to build a factory first when you have to rush-build every other improvement (such as SDI defence) anyway. Every city improvement is an investment, and the longer you can profit from it, the more priority it should have.


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Knigget]

DaveV

You have to consider the food production as well.

If you put both your workers on forest you will not have any food surpus. And when you build the settler it takes a long time to get back to size 2.

If both workers work on grassland and produce warrior-settler the city will never spend a single turn as size 1. (and waste no food)

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 02-13-2001 03:12 PM In MP... it's expansion and science...

Exactly. Expansion leads to more cities, leading to more science. How to get more cities? Build settlers. To build settlers more quickly, generate more shields.

Ming, I really think your opinions are biased by all the 2x production you play. In a 1x game, the early science lead of an "arrow-centric" player can be overcome by a "shield-centric" player once he gets his cities cranked up to speed.

[Ming]

Might my attitudes be a tad biased because of my 2x production love... maybe.

But I never said I ignore shields... A balance of the two early in the game is what I'm looking for. If you are only getting 2 or 3 beakers a turn, the time needed to advance along the science path is just way too great. As I said before, I like my capital to be based on a trade special since there is no corruption and you can maximize science development. My second city is usually the one with food and shields so it can continue to crank out settlers. While I don't crank out settlers like the true ICS'ers do, I still expand at a great rate, while also cranking out the sciences.

I think it is a mistake to ignore either shields or arrows... A balance of the two will serve you much better in the long run

[Dry]

Amen Ming.

DaveV: if I understood well La Fayette, he was speaking about pre-monarchy turns.
What is best after monarchy is another topic.

[War4ever]

I will take the side of shields over arrows as DaveV stated.....the quicker you get the intial cities down.... the faster your mid game will go......

I look at civ in stages...... expansion era is all about expanding......and nothing else........only when you achieve trade do you dedicate some cities to caravans.......

therefore its my belief that trade can be made up via we love days and/or a better govt......while never really losing any production power.

However to emphasize whats already been stated by others... a balance is preferred

[Ming]

The faster you get to trade... the faster you can build those caravans and set up those crucial trade routes Yes, a balance is the best...

[La Fayette]

It seems that something happened to my post #2 that I posted on February 09, which makes this topic look like "La Fayettte's unfinished".
Sorry!
(I am especially sorry since it was a long post and I'm compelled to write it again).
To morrow then.

[La Fayette]

Here we are (let us hope I don't lose it this time):

Very early in the game, 1 shield = 1 food = 1 arrow = 1 gold = 1 beaker.
But
1) Food is needed for growth. Growing one's city to size 2 requires 20 food in the box, which means 10 turns with a foodsurplus of 2 (or 7 turns with a surplus of 3 in case of "bananas"). Neither shields nor arrows can be converted into food.
Hence the best one can do is a surplus of 2 during 10 turns (except "bananas"). Dave advises to do that ("grow to size 2 ASAP") and I agree.

2) Gold is no use, but can be converted into beakers (1 gold=1 beaker) if the tax rate cursor is not already set at taxmin (=40%). Gold can also be converted into shields at a minimum rate of 2 gold=1 shield (up to 8 gold=1 shield in case of rushbuilding a WoW in 1 turn).
Hence an arrowrich strategy producing gold, then converting that gold into shields is not wise at all in the very early game.

3) Beakers are the only way to climb up the tech tree, which is highly desirable. A city producing 1 or 2 trade arrows gives at best 1 beaker/turn. This should be avoided (basic idea for my "3 arrows" strategy).

4) The discovery of Monarchy radically changes the picture.

5) The discovery of Trade also radically changes the picture.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

1) Consequences of Monarchy:
Keep cool! I won't name them all again (you know them already, don't you?).
As far as food and shields and arrows are concerned, the main consequence is (IMHO):
No more limit at 2 for the food surplus (hence much faster growth of the city and/or liberty of choice of the resource squares).
(I don't forget or deny consequences upon shields or arrows, but consider them secondary to that huge "food and growth and liberty" effect).

2) Consequences of Trade:

2-1: Food caravan
Converts 50 shields into 1/2 foodbox: not a good bargain in the early game (1/2 foodbox = 25 food in a city size 4; hence 2 shields = 1 food = bad rate), but very powerful later on (1 shield = 2 food in a city size 19).
I like to use that power by means of "Starving Silicon Cities" (new topic to morrow).

2-2: "WoWs" caravan
Converts 50 shields produced (or rushbuilt) by any city into 50 shields produced in the city building the WoW. This very powerful instrument should be the only one used for building WoWs (halves the price of rushbuilding and also allows to avoid rushbuilding, by stacking the units produced in advance).

2-3: Commodity caravan
Converts 50 shields into many arrows and gold and beakers. Rule of thumb: 1 shield=1 gold=1 beaker in the early game (as stated before), hence 50 shields = 25 gold + 25 beakers gives a fair rough idea that a caravan yielding an instant bonus of 25 gold is not such a bad bargain (though we all know that much more might be written about that; read "the true value..." if you wish).


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

Short conclusion
Dave's test shows very clearly that 1 shield is better than 1 arrow in most circumstances. I agree.
Dave's test also shows that ICS is very powerful. I agree.
(But IMO most of the power of ICS is due to the "double black faces" effect that I consider a bug, and I don't feel like playing it now).
I suppose that there are 3 main ways to get a good start (no preference order):
- Hardcore hut hunting
- Hardcore ICS
- Hardcore Monarchy ASAP + early Trade

The last one is my choice for the time being, but "Hut hunters and ICSers, I salute you".

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 02-13-2001 09:30 AM . I find that I can usually crank out 4 or 5 shields with no waste in my early cities. There's a huge difference in producing your third and fourth settlers in eight turns (5 shields) versus 14 turns (3 shields). My original argument was that newly established cities will be producing their own arrows to compensate for the arrows sacrificed while building settlers. If your early goal is expansion, then expand! And, of course, balance is important. Monarchy makes a huge difference in support, corruption and waste, and building cities on rivers and on or near trade specials will pay dividends through the whole game. But my workers will always prioritize forests after the city grows to size 2. If the forest has a silk special or a river, so much the better!

It seems that Ming and you and I agree (at least on the 3 following points):
Balance IS important,
Monarchy makes a huge difference,
Numerous shields are very helpful building settlers in the early game (...and other units and improvements later on ).

I would like to sum it up this way:
- In the early game (without improvements in the city) 1 arrow=1 gold=1 beaker.
- 2 gold (at least) are needed to buy 1 shield (hence 1 shield=2 arrows, this way)
- Before the discovery of Trade 1 shield can only be converted into 1 arrow through the use of choosing the right resource square (hence 1 shield=1 arrow this way).

It works as if there were a price to pay for freedom (gold gives freedom). Hence I agree with you that it is wiser to crank out settlers, create new cities and get the arrows from those cities (except when there is a possibility to get to Monarchy quickly with help of my "3 arrows" strategy).


------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental