Intersite Game - Turn Discussion Thread

[T-hawk]

Btw, it's worth thinking of that lake tile as fairly strong for the moment. Even in the abstract it's now much worse than the grass cottage, since it gets the financial bonus right away. And given we are in a commerce-constrained wonder race, it's very nice. So we are treating it as strictly superior to the cottage for the duration of the oracle run.

"now much worse" - you mean "not much worse"?

I remember your discussion about exponential growth rates, that the present value of a baby cottage is around 2.5 commerce/turn, exponentially discounting its future production to present value. So the Financial lake beats it; the compound productivity from the commerce now beats the cottage's raw production later. Not sure how the Fin bonus figures into the value of the cottage, absent for the first 10 cottage turns then kicks in.

[darrelljs]

Right, but the long term FOP loss from the un-worked cottages is more than made up for by the (0.69 - 0.26)*[Cost of Currency] beakers we gain, not to mention the many benefits early Currency brings.

Darrell

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

This is simply a case where we need almost every commerce we can scrounge up to get math on time if I understand correctly. So, if we can make our commerce goal on time by working the lake but not if we work the 2/0/1 cottage, this is an easy call. If this is about something else, I'm not sure what that would be.

Scouting: I'm going to be on the side saying that the warrior needs to be close-ish to HF. We're constrained on units right now for garrison. IFF (if and only if) we are able to properly garrison with no economic loss/delay then I support keeping the warrior away from HF, but I would feel much more comfortable sending a unit back. If we had to whip a defender, that would be a more significant cost than the lost scouting turns, IMO. Also, this whipped defender would certainly delay the workboat going to the clams city and delay or prevent the possibility of using that unit for coastal scouting. All things considered, I think playing it safe with the unit is best.

[kalin]

I also think that we should return with the exploring warrior towards HF as we are going to explore with the spear. However, I wouldn't do that if it impacts settling the bananagem city.

Another thing I'd like to mention, is to try and have some wiggling room with respect to the Oracle plan. For example, if working the lake over the 2/0/1 cottage gives us 2 extra gold/beakers that we may not need, I see it as some insurance against a small mistake or divergence between the real game and the sandbox.

Kalin

[kjn]

We probably can't avoid working the lake at times during this run, but it's more important to get away from working the coast (and I think we've managed to identify the turn when we can skip that).

I view securing HF as more important than settling a future city 1t sooner. HF is a real investment we have made, while Bananagem can only be delayed.

[kalin]

I view securing HF as more important than settling a future city 1t sooner. HF is a real investment we have made, while Bananagem can only be delayed.

Thinking more about this... and I agree with the above.

Kalin

[zakalwe]

I certainly agree we should protect our investments. Though I would argue that Horse Feathers is safer with a warrior fortified 3N of the city than with a warrior inside the city. The only reason to put the warrior inside the actual city would be for military police.

[pindicator]

I certainly agree we should protect our investments. Though I would argue that Horse Feathers is safer with a warrior fortified 3N of the city than with a warrior inside the city. The only reason to put the warrior inside the actual city would be for military police.

I'll echo this. Warrior 3N of the city will increase the time we have to react to any military threats from the north. A warrior in the city isn't going to reliably stop any resource unit that comes looking for trouble.

[SevenSpirits]

"now much worse" - you mean "not much worse"?

Yup.

I remember your discussion about exponential growth rates, that the present value of a baby cottage is around 2.5 commerce/turn, exponentially discounting its future production to present value. So the Financial lake beats it; the compound productivity from the commerce now beats the cottage's raw production later. Not sure how the Fin bonus figures into the value of the cottage, absent for the first 10 cottage turns then kicks in.

Right.

By my estimation:
Lake: 2
Dry Cottage: 2.5
FIN lake: 3
FIN dry cottage: 3.3
(The extra $1 is discounted to $0.8 because you don't start getting it until 10t in.)

This is complicated by it being a capital cottage which will probably end up with amazing science multipliers later on. For this reason I'd value the cottage a bit more. Anyway the lake is only a fraction of a beaker worse in the abstract than the cottage, yet gains us 2c in the short run per time we prefer it. So compared to our other options for working some tiles over others (coast over cottage, cottage over resource...) to generate extra short-term commerce, it's quite efficient.

[NobleHelium]

I certainly agree we should protect our investments. Though I would argue that Horse Feathers is safer with a warrior fortified 3N of the city than with a warrior inside the city. The only reason to put the warrior inside the actual city would be for military police.

Yes, please station the warrior there. We need to be specific and precise when thinking about these things. "HF is more important than 1t sooner on the new city, so the warrior should be in charge of protecting HF" is very vague and leads to intuitive jumps like "the best way to protect HF with the warrior would be to send it back to the city ASAP."

(I was guilty of some of this earlier when I vastly underestimated how quickly we'd be ready to settle a jungle city.)