Some time ago I had a different project where I tried to estimate the effect of selling Gold for Food to enhance the boom. I then pivoted to make a general Mathematical modell to estimate how good in Booming the individual civs actually are. The project orients on a FC into 4 TC Boom buildorder which I took a timestamp on the 18:00 Minute mark. From then on I use a model of exponential growth for the evaluation of economic growth. Each civ gets an idividual value for a time in which it can double it’s eco. Civs like Poles (238 s) and Hindustanis (242 s) have very short times in which they can double their economic prowess. Other civs get strong bonusses from before like Chinese with their extra Vills and cheaper techs. So they basically already start with a higher eco score. I personally set a specific economic mark where I assumed that the “pure boom” phase ends anyways as you can’t really justify adding more TCs at this stage (with 200 pop limit). But it’s a personally chosen economic state, so depending on your economic goals it may vary. It’s roughly translatable to about 120-130 vills state, depending on civ and other economic propoerties like Farm count.
It’s also only for standard starting res on a land map. Meaning 6 berries, 8 sheep, 3 deer and 2 boar. No fish.
I want to put this on an individual topic as I want to keep it up with every new update.
The newest update (78174). Put down 3 of the formerly best Booming civs in the Game quite a lot. Poles, Hindustanis and Burgundians lost a lot of Positions and are now more in the middle of the pack. Still good Booming civs, but not top tier anymore.
Interestingly Britons now claimed the 3rd Spot. The cheaper TCs allow to make more Farms supporting them. Note with Britons the optimal amount of Vills to build a TC goes down to 2. It’s a subtlie, but effective adjustment that saves you some extra vill working time. (Yes my model calculations include adjustments to builder numbers aswell) If you make the TCs with 5 Vills like you would with other civs, Britons wouldn’t be as high on the list (still quite high, but not as).
The blue bars indicate how good of a boom you can potentially achieve with the Civ if you adapt the initial Buildorder to the strength of that civ. It’s an assumption, but the assumption shoould be at the edge what is theoretically possible. The orange bar indicates what booming time you can expect when using the fc into 4 TC boom build I used as mean factor for the initial start of “free booming”. Cumans I made an own run with the Cuman boom. Therefore they don’t have an orange bar but instead only a blue one indicating the Cuman boom which is still unbeatable by any other civ in the game (though initial poles came close).
The calculations behind are very complicated as there are so many factors that play a role here. For example I tried to evalueate the “economic balance” of the state at which the free boom starts and the “load” this puts as addition on the boomers to fix it. Some civs like Poles, Hindustanis and Slavs need less farms to support their boom, others like Britons, Teutons or Celts need less on wood. I also included the affect of the market abuse (mostly for Saracens). So please understand that I can’t tell much about it here. But feel free to discuss the results and ask for explanations if there are questions, as it would be way too much to explain here and probably also either extremely boring as it would be very long explanation or many wouldn’t understand as they don’t have the mathematical background.
It’s a personal project of mine and I don’t have the claim of it being the only way to approach it. It’s just my attempt and I tried to get as much of factors in as I could.
What I haven’t included so far is the potentially different “targets” of the different civs. Some civs may want to have more eco others less. But the issue with that is that the reasons for this are different. Some migh want less eco because they have quite weak units and therefore need more others migh want less eco cause they have actually stronger individual units and want to have more of them to use the pop efficiency. Others probably just want to make use of better timings. So that varies and therefore it’s tough to include that. So I leave it at the current state of “how long until you reach a certain economic threshold” with a civ.
Again, it’s only a personal project to evalueate the currently applied economic bonusses for a pure boom scenario. Nothing else. It’s not about wether it is actually useful.
What number did you choose for the stats below? Without this info, its very hard to know what this chart is supposed to say. Is it the time it takes to reach 130 vills?
Yeah interesting. Tatars have that sheep bonus which allows them to add more TCs earlier. But it’s also harder to execute, nevertheless it’s explainable. You just can add TCs earlier with less farms which enhances your boom.
Burgundians is actually not that surprising to me. The food discount of the eco tech has been nerfed twice. They aren’t that boomy civ as they used to be. And they never were the best booming civ anyways.
I think a lot of their power on arena actually comes through their relic bonus, gunpowder and ofc the button. ofc their boom benefits from the earlier and cheaper eco upgrades, but it seems it’s not as strong as other civs.
Don’t forget that burgundians can get the eco techs just earlier but the other civs have bonusses on top of them that enhance the boom even more.
One thing I haven’t done with burgundians yet, to look if they can actually research Hand Cart earlier. With the standard cost of Hand Cart I calculated that the other civs are usually better off with only researching Hand Cart when they stopped adding TCs already. Burgundians might be the exception to this which could make them a bit better than indicated.
I also think that the Burgundian bonus likewise Aztecs, Mayans, Franks and so on synergizes better with “Eco + military” whilst the mentioned bonusses of Britons and Tatars but also Bengalis, Teutons and Slavs are better suited for pure boom scenarios. That’s why it may surprise people to see these civs so high because we rarely have pure boom games ;).
Both Tatars and Britons got bonusses to their TCs plus an early food bonus. This seems to help a lot for booming. At least according to my calculations.
I am actually surprised that chinese are so good at booming. I only see +1 villager and ~150 resources saved at early castle age (dbaxe, horse collar, h.plow, bowsaw, wheelbarrow). What am I missing ?
It is funny to see how high Britons are and how low Dravidians are. Dravidians get +400w at early castle, which is comparable to what Britons gets from the TCs bonus. The sheep bonus should be equivalent to 150w to 200w (1 vil on wood for 8 minutes). So it is like most civs eco bonus for a 4TCs boom isequivalent to getting between 400w and 600w over the first 15 minutes.
With perfect execution you can get 1.8 villagers ahead with chinese (dropping of food in TC at the perfect time required). These vills also work permanently for almost the entirety of the game, collecting a lot of ressources. And then ofc the mentioned Ressource savings in the techs.
Ah and Chinese Farms have more food and Their TCs have more garrisons space aswell.
They have a lot of little factors that add up.
As you said Britons already start with a slight advantage (equivalent to about 100 W). But they have also cheaper TCs which allows them to pull ahead later even more.
Especially for the britons there is one factor worth mentuioning again (I already did previously).
For Birtons my calcs say it’s optimal to make the TCs with only 2 villagers, but earlier. This allows you to make the Farms needed to supply the TCs while the TCs are going up and not partially before. And it also saves you villager time, whcih can just be used to collect ressources. (Also less wood cost on the TC means less floating ressources with optimal macro).
It’s true that we rarely see he Britons bonusses used that way. But if I evalueate it from a mathematical approach I have to assume a optimal booming macro. I can’t assume not utiilizing the bonusses to their full potential.
This is also the reason why Sicilians are good-ish in this comparison. The Farm Bonus isn’t that strong, it’s actually their TC Bonus that benefits them the most. Like Britons Sicilians should only build their TCs with 2 Vills.
I think an important thing to notice is how small the differences are there. The difference between Britons and Dravidians is below 30s, thats about one vill (per TC) difference. If you get fully housed once, the difference is gone. So its not actually that surprising I think, the britons bonus is clearly better than the dravidians one and the size of the difference is really not too crazy.
For further evaluation, more information would be required; so far, OP hasn’t even told us what it is that he is measuring (ie what is a full boom?), so its hard to judge the data.
Alright, then I think it mainly comes from the second free villager. I am not good enough at the chinese early game and stay at 1 extra villager (2 after loom). I feel that need my sheeps to start under TC to achieve such a result 11
The 3 TCs save 400w like what the Dravidians get. I want saying the simulation isnt optimized, just that it highlights how close every civ is.
When you say FC into 4 tc boom build order in a way to adopt the strength of the civ – Is it like khmer 23+2, Burgundians wood and mill upgrades included? Obviously for most civs its not possible to sustain 4 tc villager production if you build the tcs right away after a very fast uptime and for some civs it might be much better to go superfast, build 3 tcs and add 4th tc later instead of going slower and adding 4th tc right away. How is the ideal build and 4th tc addition point determined? Do all builds include collecting stone or extra gold to build the 4th tc?
When you say fully boomed state and the timings - is it like 24mins after the 18th minute? Because that’s just way too late for getting to 120-130 vills.
Its quite surprising and counter-intuitive to see Sicilians ahead of civs like Celts, Teutons, Franks, Ethiopians which save or gain a ton of resources earlier into the game.
Yes, these special builds for certain civs aren’t included so far. Only for Cumans for obvious reasons.
I think these civs could potetnially have a better result with a 3 TC boom:
Mayans
Tatars
Gurjaras
Malay
Khmer
All of them mostly because of the fact that they can sustain a bit of initial boom with the free food they get from the start. Khmer and Malay because of the Timing, the others cause they just have more free food to support a super fast FC 3 TC boom with very few farms.
It’s an absolute time. Don’t think too much about the Vill number. I needed to have a one variable comparison of the whole economic state of the civs. It’s then represented by when the civs theoretically reach that state. In reality the civs are still making vills then, they just don’t add TCs and Farms anymore for the boom.
It’s really about having a fair comparison, not what exactly it is. Some civs may rach that with 5-6 TCs and 40 Farms others with 8-9 TCs and 30 Farms. Some potentially boom to 120 Vills and others to 140. Really depends on the Civ. Just important that they can be considered as basically “even” at that stage.
I actually had a look on Sicilians and saw that I indeed made a Mistake.
I forgot that they now get an extra 100 S at the start. With this Change they climb to position 6 of the Boomers. Even ahead of Bengalis. Amazing.
And again as explanation: Sicilians faster building bonus of the TC saves them about 100 W worth of Villager time. And the TCs even get up 8 seconds faster than the standard 5 Vill building. Then their Farms have almost twice as much Wood (which isn’t too strong of a bonus, but it’s something.
Ask some of the pros. Sicilians are a very strong booming civ, it’s no secret. It’s only that the Bonusses they got are somewhat more hidden and not so appearant as what other civs get.
New Update with the corrected Sicilian boom with the applied 100 S bonus.
I guess many more actually - Mongols, Hindustanis, Burmese, Teutons, Lithuanians, Portugese, Franks, Dravidians, Ethiopians can up super-fast owing to their early bonuses.
Ok, for identical builds this would give them a 3 vill lead over other civs for a 4-tc build. In reality, the civ is much slower to castle age because of no dark age bonus and fall behind.
Most civs can’t perform a 23 + 2 FC into double TC boom.
Even some of the civs you listed can’t.
There are some civs also which can perform fast uptimes but then actually don’t have enough for adding TCs. I’ve seen hilarious strats from even pros trying to get to castle super fast with khmer but then can’t afford TCs.
I don’t even see why civs like Franks are upon that list, the Berry bonus is neglectible for faster uptimes.
Something like Italians would have made more sense to put there.
The 4 TC boom on the other hand allows for way more flexible utilisation of the various civ bonusses. And that’s also btw why there is this orange bar aswell. It’s indicating what is potentially achievable with adjusting the build to the specific civ bonusses. The orange bar for the Sicilians is way shorter than the ones of eg Khmer or Malay, indicating that these civs can potentially enhance their booming with an adjustment of the build.
So I already accounted for that. I only haven’t include possible 3 TC builds for these very specific civs which have really meaningful bonusses that could indeed make the 3 TC boom better than the 4 TC boom. It’s not like half of the civs, it’s really only a very limited amount for which this could apply.
Don’t forget that as I said before, the same bonusses that can be used to enhance the 3 TC boom usually apply to the 4 TC boom aswell, sometimes even more as there are less restrictions to utilize certain bonusses for 4 TC booms.
There need to be big reasons like they don’t have to add any early farms or can reach castle at least 2-3 vills earlier than any of the other civs, then the 3 TC boom can potentially outperform the 4 TC boom.
You can’t do 23+2 into 4 Tc boom but you definitely can do 23+2 into 3 tc boom with those civs. The build will change a little according to each civ’s bonus but its totally possible to do it and comfortably.
That’s more than a minute of extra work time for 5 vills or about a minute and 20 seconds for 4 vills. That’s about 140 wood. And this is apart from saving 150 on free horse collar.
That’s more like 20+2 or 21+2 restrictive builds. But 23+2 is a very comfortable build with almost all civs that get a good dark age. Its 14 min castle age timings which isn’t too restrictive to the point of not being able to add tc.
In a lot of cases it might not be the ideal build. I don’t know what exactly is your build for 4 tc right away upon hitting castle age and sustaining vill production from all but if its something like 27+2, its much better to get 3 tc fast and then add 4th later. The same fundamentals from Cuman 2 tc boom apply. Earlier you add tcs, sooner the benefits.
You can send me the different builds you want to be evalueated, just send a safegame around the 18 th minute mark. 16th minute should be enough to make a healthy economy so that I don’t need to deduct much for stuff like not having enough food supply to susutain the vill production.
Note that it has to be performed on Arabia with 2 boars, 8 sheep and 3 deer to make a fair comparison.
As far as I remember when chosing the buildoerder I calced that a 23+2 would be equivalent if it could sustain vill Production at all time. And that the orange bars are “indicators” for an adjustment of the chosen FC into 4 TC boom. This adjustments can aswell be in form of faster uptimes. Meaning if a civ can go up one vill faster for a 3 TC boom in most cases it will also go up at least one vill faster to the 4 TC boom. What I look for are Civs with have very specific bonusses that especially benefit the 3 TC up.
Example Tatars: Tatars don’t have to make any early Farms because of their Sheep bonus. With the Sheep they get from the 2 extra TCs they can support about 1 1/2 minutes of vill production with 3 TCs, giving some time to add the missing farms when the TCs are up. This could potentially lead to a super fast uptime of Tatars IF we find a buildorder for that (like 21+2 or so).
I won’t look into Civs like Franks, their bonusses are underwhealming to significantly enhance a 3 TC boom. They even benefit more for a 4 TC boom as getting the farm upgrades early is actually a part of the 4 TC boom which means Franks can go up faster than the others as they don’ have to research them.
This thread isn’t made to confirm any bias about boomings. It’s a mathematical analysis. The mathematical formulars I used don’t care about wether I or anybody thinks it gives the “right” result. And if I only wanted to be confirmed in my bias there would have been no motivation to make the calc.
Calcs aren’t there to confimr bias, they are there to give you objective analytical results.
I chose to use one Buildorder for all Civs to make it a fair comparison. The issue with adapted special buildorders is that you might find the optimal one for one civ but only a suboptimal for another. If you then put these differently otimized builds in the calcs you give sme civs advantages and others disadvantages.
And I put in the Orange Bars as indicators of how much an adaption of the initial mean build could improve the boom.
If someone finds better optimized 3 TC boom builds for these civs, I’m very glad to put that in with an accordingly shorter blue bar and longer orange one.
At some point I will probably make a new 4 TC build that I apply cause for some reason I lost the safegames of the first i did.
I also have the opinion that buildorder theory doesn’t lead to anything. Buildorders are from their nature practical. If you find a strong buildorder I can put it in my tool to calc how good it actually is. I can’t put hypothetical Builds in my tool. And it has a reason the tool only applies for “free booming” and needs the initial insertion of the economic state after a perfordmed buildorder.
I wouldn’t say that necesarily. 30 seconds difference (apart from the timimng advantage) can translate easily to about 1k5 + ressources difference. That’s almost an entire Imperial Age.
But clearly it also indicates how depending a good boom on good execution is. And whilst I think at the top level 30 seconds difference can’t be compensated anymore, 5-10 seconds of difference in Timing surely can.
So when we look at the differences between civs like Britons and Celts, whilst Britons theoretically have the better boom, a better execution with Celts may result in a better boom. And it’s also very likely this will actually turn out that way as celts boom is comparably easy to perform as it doesn’t needs any adaption from the standard. Britons on the other hand need to be used different to get that better result.
I should probably make a list of all the civs which have bonusses that need to change the boom macro for an optimal result.
what are you saying man? In your previous comment you said most civs can’t do 23+2 into 3 tc boom and now suddenly you’re countering “you can’t do 23+2 into 4 tc boom”? 4 tc villager production needs 600 food to sustain villager production. That’s 30+ farms pre-wheelbarrow. In 1 or 2 minutes, the reserves will run out even if you skip eco upgrades.
Anyways I was talking about 19 villagers produced in dark age into feudal, 2 vills produced in feudal into castle age, ~13.30 castle age. 23 pop dark + 2 fc. Based on the tatars explanation I feel like you’re talking about 23 villagers produced which is 27 pop + 2 15 min fc.
Since you’re a math person, Free horse collar is 150 resources, extra work time from berries bonus is another 130-140 resources. Upon hitting castle age free heavy plow is 250 resources. Heavy plow also improves farming rate by 4-5%. 500+ resources saved or atleast 250+ resources saved with some faster collection rate opens up the potential to get faster uptimes and boom much better compared to generic dark age civs. Its more than 10% of total resources collected in 14 mins.
Understood but it could potentially mislead people into thinking that Slavs, Sicilians have better economies and boom than civs like Franks and Burgundians. A lot of people just fail to realize that this analysis has no relevance to practical in-game situations and has been made under the assumption that the build till 18th min is identical ignoring all civ bonuses up until that point. In some other thread they might cite your analysis saying hey look Sicilians are awesome, they have one of the best booms even better than Gurjaras. Or something like Aztecs aren’t even that good of a boom civ, more than 15 civs have a better boom than Aztecs even Slavs. All wrong and mislead.
In general a mathematical model to estimate how good booming with the individual civs are, should be done with the ideal builds for each civ with standard resources instead of doing the same build for each civ. All this analysis tells you is, apart from Cumans, if every other civ remained at the same position till 18th minute, which ones will get the best amount of resources.
Disagree. Aztecs and Slavs don’t have the best boom. It’s nothing new. They have a good boom, but they are far from being top tier. Vikings are just strictly better than Aztecs and Poles are just strictly better than Slavs.
I don’t know why you can’t believe that eg Sicilians have a top tier Boom. They have 3 very strong bonusses that apply: More Food on Farms, extra Stone to add 1 more TC and finally the faster built TCs. And it’s something a lot of pro players like Viper already confirmed and also shown in games that they can make that sicilian boom work and how strong it is.
I think this is the mistake you do here. You assume that Franks would get these 250 res in their bank at that stage, but they don’t. Part of the super fast FC into boom is to delay some of the eco techs. Most of them delay at least Heavy Plow but other even Bow Saw and/or Horsecollar. That’s why I doubted that Franks can actually perform a decent 23+2 FC into 3 TC boom, cause they don’t have the res available other civs have. Like the example with Tatars. Just made a Buildorder for them here . And this BO also delays Heavy Plow.
Now show me that you can make a build for Franks 23+2 without TC idle time including DBA and Bow Saw.
Then we can discuss things.
You’re talking a lot about Hypothetical stuff here, but the reality is to make such a comparison we first would need all the “opimized” buildorders for all the civs. And who is the authority that assess which buildorders are perfectly optimized? You? Cause I will not, I don’t think I can be the judge for that. Cause every buildorder these days has some tradeoffs. Even those who hit the perfect ressource timings: Who knows if the whole concept of the build is actually optimal? Maybe there is some completely different approach that works even better?
Show me the collection of otimized boom buildorders for all civs, then I can put that in my tool.
If you don’t have that I just have dismiss your demand here as an intentionally unacheavable restriction to object any form of approach to compare the different booms. Or you just have something personal against me. But I won’t make 42 buildorders for 42 civs especially as they change stuff every 2 months only for booming. No thanks. If this is what you want me to do you’re getting a clear answer:
Forget it.
Especially as I before Hand said I think using the same BO for all civs makes the most “fair” comparison, as it doesn’t allow for difference in the ability to optimize the builds for the civs to apply here. When a civ then “underperforms” there’s no way to find wether it’s actually because of a bad buildorder or if the bonusses are just not as good as they may look.
But if you have a special buildorder that you want me to evalueate how it compares here, you can send it to me. No problem. Show me that the Franks are as good as you say.
Two of the three bonuses come in after castle age and the farm bonus pays off somewhere beyond 40 mins. In the way that you compare - identical builds till castle age and uniform 4 tc addition, its quite strong. But because of a generic dark age they can’t match the timings of many civs and do tcs sooner.
You do get bow saw in that type of build with most civs, I agree that heavy plow could get delayed which is why mentioned its either 500+ resources saved or 250+ resources saved and about 1 extra food per farm per minute until whichever point the other player gets heavy plow.
This is during the 2 months where they got 2 additional sheep in feudal age.
Its just the basic 24+2 build but with one less vill on wood. If I play Arena tg sometime I’ll share my rec. This is one I found for Malians but the same principle applies
I don’t really see the reason to get aggressive. I’m just saying that it might not be the best way to analyze boom potential of civs and the assumption that all civs are equal till 18th min might not actually be fair. I’m not “demanding” or tasking you to do something.
There’s no “most” optimized build for any civ either. In general its better to hit castle age and get tcs out faster than wait longer to get more tcs. Sotl explains this with Cuman feudal 2 tc vs Cuman regular 3 tc boom. https://youtube.com/watch?v=eEQfS_E6aDU&feature=shares
The earlier the extra tc addition point occurs the higher the resources collected after sometime. And its also a nice way of utilizing the civ’s bonuses instead of doing something that even Magyars could do.
Ehm no? I just made that buildorder. Why have I to repeat myself all the time?
Ist this the Video where Sotl in the end “forgets” that cumans collected like 800-1k res more (I forgot the exact number) and therefore can add more TCs immediately after hitting Castle age?
I don’t know exactly but he is first kind of consistant with the other civs which he all assess some ressource afvantages, but in the end forgets to apply exactly that for cumans and only looks on their vill count. Which is super weird.
This malians BO skips Bow Saw and I also think will get some TC idle time if I see it correctly. It’s not the biggest of all deals. I think it can be debated of delaying Bow Saw actually makest the build stronger. Maybe Tatars can then make a 22+2 BO actually.
Malians have a nice bonus in saving wood, but I think we see here with the Bow Saw delay that’s not enough to go up earlier without hurting your eco in some way.
I need to have a look on the Bow Saw skip. I haven’t looked this up in that detail as techs vs more vills are notoriously difficult to evalueate. Cause it’s very depending on when you again have the ressources to make the tech. If it’s probably even worth to take some idle time later for making the tech like only a minute faster and so on.
I’ve seen this more often these days to delay bow saw, but if this is in the end actually stronger than going up 1 vill later and then adding TC 4 + faster cause you just have more wood is a question to be asked.
We have the tendency atm to make buildorders just faster, but who says these faster buildorders are in the end really better?
I don’t question you can make a 23+2 with Franks delaying Bow Saw. I think it’s absolutely viable. But I don’t see why that should be better than my Tatars BO making Bow Saw. Ofc the first like 18-20 Farms with Tatars would be without Heavy Plow, but this is imo more than compensated by getting Bow Saw and the extra Sheep from the TCs that are added later. And that’s why Tatars boom is better.
And that’s when you boom… Why shouldn’t I apply these bonusses? That doesn’t make sense.
That’s not true. But yes I account for the leftover food on Farms as being some part of the “economic value” of the civs. Which also applies to the Franks Farms btw. When you stop booming it’s still advantageuos to have some food on your farms cause you don’t have to reseed them that fast and can use your wood for other stuff.
And ofc this goes in for the Sicilians. But before you complain:
It’s worth about 8 W for each of their Farms in economic value.
The video of Viper in that thread “New Tatars boom is insane” has 2 sheep popping out in feudal age.
So u get the concept right. Early tcs leads to greater eco and even though the 4th tc is a bit late, vill count and resources collected are more if you up early.
I’m not refuting that at all. Just saying that with these early bonus civs, you can tweak the build to get a bigger lead earlier and hence get a better boom compared to generic civs like Bulgarians or Sicilians.
because it STARTS after castle age. Yes you boom in castle age but you’ll be slower than the early bonus civs to castle age. The lead shouldn’t matter much against civs which get minor bonuses until that point like Vietnamese or Incas but a handful of civs will be considerably ahead.
Ok I stop this, because you don’t even ###### my explanations why I chose to make it this way.
What you are implying. And I say implying that for you basically only the Vill count “counts”. Which in my opintion is wrong from the getgo.
Ofc the Vills are a very important part of a boom, but there are a lot of variables to factor in.
The concept??? right???
Are you the boom authority or what? 11
Make your own list if you think you know it better. I tried to explain you my approach, but if you would said from the begginning you don’t even consider trying to understand than we could have saved all of us a lot of time.
