Traits and city spacing

Spoonwood

Grand Philosopher
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,269
Location
Ohio
In a thread here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6886290#post6886290 Abraxan says "Wider city spacing allows more of your cities are able to become metros (cxxxxc as opposed to cxxc). Unfortunately, this means that more tiles go unused during the early to mid-game, and metros require hospitals (or Shakespeare's), and may also need temples or cathedrals."

So, consequently, should one consider civ traits when thinking about city spacing? Should commercial tribes favor cxxc since they end up with more cities? What about desired victory condition? Wouldn't cxxc work as better for medieval/early-to-mid industrial military games, while space race/late industrial modern age games work better with cxxxxc? Should religious tribes favor cxxxxc, as well as possible agricultural ones? If religious tribes should favor cxxxxc and commercial tribes favor cxxc, what should India do? If agricultural tribes should favor cxxxxc and commercial tribes favor cxxc, what should the Iroquois do? I'll assume that rivers, luxuries, etc. help determine city spacing. But, given equal rivers, luxuries, etc. should one start with a cxxc spacing for the first ring, and then use a cxxxxc spacing for a game where one can settle a lot of cities (like COTM 48), or stick with cxxc if one sees neighbors nearby?
 
Well for space race wouldn't it make sense to have a few large cities and a lot of science farms?
 
ok let's see...
commercial : cxxc definitely.
medieval/early-to-mid industrial military games: also cxxc
space race/late industrial modern age games: cxxc works well for this
religious tribes: when i play religious i use cxxc
agricultural ones: same here
India: india is a really good tribe for cxxc :)
Iroquois: well of course these guys too!
rivers, luxuries, etc: well if rivers are abundant i usually use cxxc
the first ring: always cxxc, usually
lot of cities: cxxc .... oh ... wait ... science farms are more typically cxc
if one sees neighbors ... cxxc

best way to win the space race is by conquering everyone, and that is best done with cxxc spacing.
culture race: do cxxc until you get to the science farm period. when you are near the domination limit then spam cities first (including your core, turning it into cxc) and then spam culture.

always war is cxxc or a little closer ... which begs the following question: if cxxc is considered a bit wide for AW then isn't it a bit wide for everything else too?

... just a few rambling thoughts :)
 
The problem with space race, unlike domination or even UN is that the variables you have to control is both the same and very different.

Most players achieve space race victory by making everyone else weak, this means a massive middle age, industrial and early modern war to remove threats. The ramp up to space race is pretty much the same. Control or at least dominate your immediate land area. If on pangea, you need to have a large enough pie to be able to funnel funds into research while defending yourself against the larger AI civs. Pangea games also happen to the the ones where once an AI runaway starts rolling, it could potentially conquer most of the continent in less than 50 turns.

Very rarely is there a real race in a detante cold war situation. Though a similar situaiton did arise in my first emperor game/win. I was just big enough to prevent an AI runaway from winning domination outright and we raced for the spaceship, with neither side wanting to start a war. Even with all my human advantages, the AI was so massive I don't think I have enough artys to blow up all of his units had it come to a total slugfest.
 
I can't think of any reason to not use CxxC, unless on a tiny island and you need to use some CxC. Space race is for far down the road, you have to delay winning to get it.

Really when people talk about getting along, they are talking about carry the AI, so the game last till you get the launch. If you want to do that, fine. Do it how ever you please.

You do not have to have early wars to do CxxC. On low levels like Emperor, you can play quite peaceful for much of the game. Eventually you either have to feed the AI or they are furious and you have to kill them.

I say kill them when it suites you, no rush.
 
I can't think of any reason to not use CxxC, unless on a tiny island and you need to use some CxC. Space race is for far down the road, you have to delay winning to get it.

Really when people talk about getting along, they are talking about carry the AI, so the game last till you get the launch. If you want to do that, fine. Do it how ever you please.

You do not have to have early wars to do CxxC. On low levels like Emperor, you can play quite peaceful for much of the game. Eventually you either have to feed the AI or they are furious and you have to kill them.

I say kill them when it suites you, no rush.

I'm of the opinion cxxc is a very strong starting build up until the starting continent/landmass is filled. But on a more practical level, if you're going for overseas conquests, or expanding on the immediate neighbour(s) do you still stick to cxxc?

More of the debates have revolved around the first 50~80 turns. And without a doubt I agree cxxc is superior.
 
My scores have improved since I started using cxxc Now some of it is that I am more experienced and knowledgeable about the game, but better spacing gives me more cities, more people, and a better military, which lets me win faster with more territory. Some object to the micromanagement needed, but without that you will struggle to win at higher levels. You might give more space to your 20k city if you are trying for that VC, but that is an exception.
 
C4C need an heavy industry because they are harder to defend. If you manage to get it, the money, culture and units flow is worth the work, i think.

Actually, I'm in war with five other civs, one of them ranting first in power and culture, and two directly in contact with me. Their alliance have litterally the size of CCCP and mine of Nazi Germany.

But they can't hope to invade a line of frontier cities 18+ with Civil defense backed by a production of around 20 tanks, mechanized infantry, arty and bombers (modern armor in one turn, guys) EACH TURN flowing the line by railroad or airport (i have one isolated city, plus one they managed to cut of)... And i can probably product three times that.
90% of my cities fully upgraded (power of money flow !).

With my new allie the Incas (and, i hope, with my 3000 years commercial partner Lincoln - selling him the same luxury all theses years can create links, no ? 500 years he want ally with me. I feel as i can make him this pleasure), it's russian-style on all the front (around 8-9 cities) in two-three turns max.
Forgot Pearl Harbour, i show them what bomber-armaggedon is).

Well, i have been helped by a capital put in Dreamland : More or less 5-7 grassland with bonus, two cows, nearly all tiles with rivers...

I go directly for Republic and pump setlers as crazy in the same time.
And then, i find Abu is my foreigner. And by foreigner, his Capital is at, what, 20-30 tiles max from mine ! On a huge map, and nerfed with that...

Then i think : Abu is very warlike, is really close, and also "close" the peninsula where we are.
Only one thing to do : Make him before he make me.

I go for something i have never considered in a Civ3 game, and rarely before : Attacking early.
More often, i wait for tank or, at least, cavalry.
Yes, some guys tried to explain me Civ is not a Sim City with entire countries. They horribly failed.

I think : Why not use theses tactics i read in Civfanatics forums from others, more seasoned, warriors ?
Early attacks, combined arms with archers and spearmans ? I need to attack now, before he got powerfull... and attack me where and with what he want.

My capital begin to pump archers and spearmans as crazy, more or less at a ratio of 3-1. I make a little troop of around 10 units near my frontiers, and build roads until i it his frontier.

The first battles are a cakewalk, I take one city, destroy a second, and then go for the third with workers building the roads needed by the renforts for reaching quickly the combat zones : His capital. I want to be fast : I just see he has iron, but i don't think he has already Iron Working. It's now or probably never.

But the bad guy, in the same time answer by attacking my northern and newly founded cities : Mostly undefended, they take the full force of his warriors, and then archers and spearmens too.
One fall quikly and, been level 1, is destroyed.
The second fight furiously : As level 2, she's better defended (Spearman in place of Warrior) and draw a line of blood in the attacking forces. But the C4C take his price and no renfort can join her in time, the workers failing to build a road for join the poor doomed defenders to the rest of my empire (i was a little slow on that).
And worker also fell under the wave of archers that surround the city in few times.

I have no fear : Others cities joined the capital in the unit-building craziness. The battle will be blooded - after all, i'm not an hardcore general -, but if he can't defend his cores cities, i know i can re-take a city that is only at 12 tiles from my capital.

Two cities join their forces to build archers and spearmens and launch them against the evil invaders. On a C4C, distances are huge, and since i am still in the early game, my empire lack roads in sufficient number.
For units with 1 movement engageds in a war between too literally parallel empires (mean the ennemy can attack where he want), that mean HUGE distances. I know now something : In C4C, building as quickly as possible an big and redondant road system is a priority. You have no time for go around by others ways, because other ways are too long or don't even exist.

That mean also, at least in the beginning, road control is entirely part of the strategy. My attacking force (the units that go against the evildoer Arabs capital) need a road litteraly build under their foots and covered from flank attacks. Good use of surrounding hills for spearman (with an archer for dangerous positions) is important.

The battle for the conquered city doors is a bloodshed. Lot of deaths, but i learn quickly, in the hard way, than alone archers are easy pick.
The Arab Evil Empire begin to show is power as, without stoping to attack the reinforcing army laying siege around my conquered city, begin to attack my first army that has reached, at least, the ennemy capital. Lot of skirmishs near the renfort road, the Arabs seeming to try to cut it by the north.

And then, Gods remember France is the First Daughter of Church.
As i discover Philosophy (and got Republic as gift), a leader appear in my capital.
A leader for my sixth tech. Isn't it nifty ?
...
What can do with th... him ?
Saving him for what ? Pyramids, maybe (i'm a builder more than a warrior, remember) ?
And then i look at the Mausoleum.
+3 happy faces ?
And then i look at my capital.
Fully builded (thank to the heavy choice of good tiles in the 20 tiles around), with ivory roaded ? Mmh... :D
Archers in one turn look good, for me... Let's go insta-build a mausoleum in my Capital.

The next years are not war. As the Daleks say, it's pest control.

I build/research Mathematics and HorseRiding, and since, even better, i have horses under one of my roads, my cities stop the archers and begin to pump horsemens and catapults.
Since they are C4C with 20 tiles for a lot (yes, you need to build temple if you want the C4C be an use early), they produce really fast : Units, buildings, money, culture, you name it.

After catapults joined the armies sieging before my conquered city, there is nothing the Arabs can do : The city was re-taken in one turn after heavy bombardment, and the Arabs troops slaughtered by the numerous troops.
In the other combat zone, the fightings was hard, and i lost a lot of archers, but Abu has nothing to answers to my horsemens. All his cities fell in one assault. The conquest only accelerate after the second army joined the first in the pond and attacked the evil empire.
After the loss of their capital, their was nothing the ennemy can do against the insane production of my cities.
Well, the Capital was probably capable to conquer the entire Arab empire (20-30 cities, maybe) all by herself, but that's probably the more lucky city i have had since a moment.

Now, i have in my possession all the French-Arab peninsula. Arabs was destroyed when their two last colonies, far away from me, attacked foolishly the Portuguese Empire, the big power of this game.

And i'm happy to not have let the Arab live : In their former territory, i found ALL the strategic ressource save Salpeters (but i have managed to keep happy the Portugueses by trading ivory with him. I think i have monopoly on ivory) !


My conclusion is C4C is really efficace if you can overcome the distance problem. each city can choose in a bigger pool of tiles, and then produce far more quickly, build what construction she want very fast.

The distance mean you need to look after your road with more acuity, and probably put more workers on the task.
The distance problem can be overcome in part by fast units (horsemens joining local garrisons of catapults and spearmens, for examples) or bombers, and disapear when you have a good railroad system : Then, you have overgrown unit-producing machines that can react instantly how diverse the menace can be and immediately direct what and how much renforts where you want.

Now, with the Traits...

Religious :
Cheap temples mean you can use faster the numerous tiles each city has. And that mean "snowball" : You build quickly more units, grown faster (more tiles used, more food), build settlers more early, then more often, and build more cities...
The temple is THE building you can't overlook in C4C, because it's the one who give you the second ring of tiles early.
The "no anarchy between governments change" can be a good thing for you in the second half of the game. With C4C, you can put, maybe less little units on the road on the long run, but you can create far more biggests shockwaves. Use production-friendly governement for prepare the wave, and insta-change for a warlike governement the exact moment you finish the wave for use them immediately.
No waiting, no war-weariness, capacity to use ALL calm periods for quickly rearm...
Not necessarily simple to master, but devastating.

Expansionist :
C4C mean more place needed, and also 4 lost tiles by cities (the four corners). Know what tiles you can lose and what tiles you can't before building the city is not a bad thing.
Even if i build more or less in rows, personally :blush:

Seafaring :
Not really difference. As you have less cities, you probably can launch simultaneously less little ships, but you can launch bigger ships far more quickly. The Seafaring can help your fleet to defend more easilly your scattered cities (don't forget coast bombers for help to take away the zerg-rush that probably attack them).

Militaristic :
Probably not big difference, but if you need to put down early a foreigner, the faster battlefield promotion can be of use (because C4C is a long-term strategy, and then often less powerfull in the early game. Well, if you don't have a gifted capital, that's it.)
The reduced building cost is not really important : You build already faster and grow so fast you probably don't need ramparts.

Agricultural :
The food bonuse in center tile is not an advantage here, because in C4C you have less cities, but it can help greatly for put your city in the "growing side" when in areas as tundras (even cities in tundras can be powerhouses in C4C if they have the sea nearby).
But the bonuse in desert is a advantage, because your cities cover a lot of lands and with this trait can use entirely a desert.

Industrial :
Workers working faster IS a really good thing for you.
1° Your cities are far of each others : That mean this trait reduce the distance problem for build your vital road system.
2° By micromanaging you cities, you can easilly make them growing as lightning, thank for their high choice of tiles (the majority get probably good tiles for what you want). Fast workers mean each new tile used can be put at his maximum efficiency quickly, making the already powerfull city even more productive.
3° Big cities mean big pollution. Fast workers can be of great help here.
The production bonuse in the center of the city is so-so ; Not an advantage after a while because you have few cities, advantage early because your scattered cities are alone and in danger and need to defend and build themselves quickly : A production ressource can help.

Scientific :
The random free tech is not an advantage nor a disadvantage here.
The reduced science cost, same thing.

Commercial :
The reduced corruption is maybe of less use (you have less cities, after all).
Same thing for the bonus of commerce in center tile.
 
sk8boardbob2

"Well for space race wouldn't it make sense to have a few large cities and a lot of science farms?"

Sure, why not? I usuallly use just large cities with massively irrigated land (1 or 2 turn growth with a granary in the late industrial age/early modern age doesn't seem uncommon) and pile in workers. This way I have many worked tiles in cities with rather low corruption and a bunch of science specialists (with lots of luxuries traded for, a temple, a cathedral, and a marketplace).

vmxa,

"Space race is for far down the road, you have to delay winning to get it."

That might work out as true more often than not.

"Really when people talk about getting along, they are talking about carry the AI, so the game last till you get the launch."

Sorry, but I simply don't understand what this sentence means.

"On low levels like Emperor, you can play quite peaceful for much of the game. Eventually you either have to feed the AI or they are furious and you have to kill them."

I don't get what you say here. Look, I just finished my fourth or fifth attempt at COTM 48... a demi-god game with raging barbarians... and I DID play peaceful most of the game. I had an early skirmish with the English where they razed an undefended city of mine (I focused on trying to clear the barbarians) and pretty much nothing else in that war. And I had a short "golden age trigger" war with the Spanish and that's it! Oh... Lizzie threatened me for Fission and I gave it to her. I had stopped selling much tech at that point, so maybe that's why it happened. She had a gracious attitude and might have not even attacked me, but I gave her fission anyways. It didn't matter. She built the Manhattan Project a turn or two before the game ended. It didn't matter. Retrospectively, I had a rather big tech lead, and you can check some of the saves out at the final discussion thread for COTM48 and my tactics. I know I didn't play it perfectly in many ways, as I left a food-rich open square or two near my capital (check the save and you'll see it) and lost I think two settlers along the way, along with not settling a city where I should have when I had the chance.

Not too long ago I also played a demi-god game with the French with the most agressive setting on where I won diplomatically and had enough of a tech lead I feel sure I could have launched the spaceship. I had a final Firaxis score of 7700 in that one. Wars? I had ONE war with the English where I ATTACKED ONCE with a musketeer against a spearman in their town... won that battle, and then retreated back to my lands. The English didn't counterattack and in fact I saw English horsemen run right past my musketeers the turn before I attacked their spearman. That's right... one attack and no defense against attacks the entire game. The dominant AIs all lay pretty close to each other. I don't remember any outrageous demands through much of the game. I'll post the final save below. If you check the replay you'll see Brest got captured... I lost it on a cultural flip.

I've also checked out Drakan's saves and the replay from his Sumerian Deity game which he won diplomatically, which you can find here http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3885925&t=2384#post3885925 He didn't seem to war all that much. He also talks about he's done it a bunch of times. From his description his Sid game seems a bit different.

So, I don't get what you mean by the AI getting furious.

[Some object to the micromanagement needed, but without that you will struggle to win at higher levels.]

Um... well... I don't know if you mean to emphasize micromanagement or spacing. I think you have a point about scoring for sure. But, check out the French save at the Achtung Panzer succession game here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=263213&page=11, the Byzantine final save at COTM 48 which you can find here (unless the moderator clips it out) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274997, and a Korea Deity (archipelago) game below I started and check out my spacing. I don't know if I'll win the Korea game or continue to play it... but it shows promise (or does it?). "Micromanagement"... pretty much any way you define it... works as required for higher levels for sure, but cxxc? Maybe it works as better, and maybe most of us will need it for a pangea deity *with maximum opponents*. But do we absolutely need it for a standard size pangea deity with just three opponents? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.

For maximizing score one might always want cxxc, but then again not everything goes towards maximizing score does it? And a maximized Firaxis (I don't know about the Jason score) score doesn't necessarily mean a better played game, does it? I mean... cultural games *tend* to have lower scores than spaceship games which *tend* to have lower scores than diplomatic games which *tend* to have lower scores than conquest games... or some sort of fuzzy ordering like that. I don't think that means a conqueror necessarily played better than the 20k builder given relatively equivalent conditions. After all, they probably had different goals in mind and consequently had different sets of plays which worked as best/suited to their game.
 

Attachments

"The next years are not war. As the Daleks say, it's pest control."

Someone needs to do a Doctor Who mod of civ 3.

Vampiloup et alia,

I usually use C4C with terrain considerations kept very close in mind. I think you have an interesting analysis of the traits here. I would say that the scientific trait comes out a little better than you might think here since it allows for faster libraries and if you have luxuries hooked up or use specialists as needed or the luxury slide and don't have a religious tribe also (aka you don't play as Babylon) you can build libraries faster than temples. So, scientific works out as rather helpful (though less so than religious or industrious, I would think) for c4c. So, if I understood you correctly you might rank the traits something like the following (the bottoms ones seem hard to judge) for c4c (or maybe this is just me here)
1. Religious
2. Industrious
3. Scientific
4. Expansionist
5. Agricultural
6. Seafaring
7. Militaristic
8. Commercial

Maybe agriculutural should come a place higher since cheap aquaducts and hospitals help a lot for the C4C.

This would make Egypt, Babylon, the Ottomans, and the Persians as the top civs for the C4C. With consideriation of UUs, the Egyptians get a bonus, as I would say do the Ottomans with their fast Sipahi (immortals can help too), and even the Babylonians UU can both attack and defend equally well (in principle) when you need a better military most. The "worst" tribes come out as the Romans (no wonder why I've never played them... so far.. and *felt* their combo awkward) England (o.k.... I've played them... but I've played a lot of Archipelago games), and the Vikings (one game as an experiment of sorts). The UUs also don't suit builders... a Legionary comes as not ideally suited to trigger a golden age after the GL expires... a Berzerk DOES work well to trigger a well-timed GA... but why play as militaristic as a builder other than as an experiment??? England's UU seems nice for builders though since you can use it at sea with someone neighbor not on your continent.

For C2C, I would rank the traits as something like this (by all means take issue with this... point out reasoning flaws!)

1. Commerical-more cities implies more corruption, and the commercial trait offsets corruption.
2. Agricultural-more cities in more cramped living quarters... but you have faster growth so your reduced tile selection matters less to your growth.
3/4. Expansionist-better knowledge of the map early on results in better placed cxxc cities for faster growth.
4/3. Seafaring-more cities implies more commerce... thus lessening the greater corruption than in C4C.
5. Industrious-faster workers implies more tiles irrigated or mined in more cities for faster growth and more production. But, you don't need as many roads or to develop as many squares and you don't have to move your workers as far to find a useful job.
6. Militaristic-this really depends on game play and desired win condition... but with respect to JUST city spacing and ignoring city spacing it seems relatively mild in effect... I don't know where to put it really.
7. Scientific-you'll only need culture at your tribe's borders and maybe some other selected locations. You also have more cities with more commerce, so early on you'll probably have a few more beakers than a C4C. Although, you'll have more corruption, so you'll need more libraries to offset this somewhat.
8. Religious-again you don't need as much culture as in the C4C. You also have smaller cities so you don't need many temples or cathedrals if any. But, you do have more cities, so if you didn't play as religious your anarchy period will last longer than if you did play as religious. So, it provides some benefit.. though I think scientific provides more... maybe not... hard to say.

So, for the C2C the Iroquois (started playing with them... never finished yet), the Hittites (never really played them), the English (played them), the Inca (never played them), and the Dutch... well everyone loves the Dutch... don't they??? The Iroquois UU comes as an early offensive unit. The three-man chariot also comes early as an offensive unit, so the Iroquois and the Hittites get bonsues... although perhaps offset by coming too early. The Dutch I'd say about the same, since they have a defensive unit (though it still works out as a rather nice unit in my opinion), and the English Man-O-War doesn't seem to due much here. The Babylonians, Japan, and the Germans come out as the worst for this ranking of the C2C characteristics. Panzers certainly come rather late for a C2C player and bowman come as a mixed blessing... early GA but better defensive archers, while Samurai seem rather well-timed.

Of course in terms of the general game, agricultural always (*ahem* almost always) works well no matter what spacing you use... so again... I tried to evaluate the traits with respect to just city spacing. The traits almost come out *vaguely* like a mirror image of each with religious at 1 for C4C and 7/8 for C2C, commercial at 8 for C4C and 1 for C2C, and scientific at 3 for C4C and 7 for C2C... not a perfectly "flip" but close. I think more lies at play here... and one more comment on this...

If one builds the Great Library and then sets research to 0 and can maintain peacefully relations with the AIs until at least education and then triggers a golden age soon after it expires (or gives it away for a bit... then takes it back and then triggers a golden age), and uses a C4C spacing... hasn't one basically offset most of the *commercial* difficulties of the C4C spacing and gained use of its benefits?
 
Looking at that Korea save, that spacing is not too far off of what I would do. How are you describing it? I would say it's CxxxC. I would have gone a little bit tighter further away from the core. Looking at Cheju and Haeju; that's too spacious.
This was a game of the month map? I once attempted one of those, but quickly got bored because of the amount of space that needed to be filled. The maps I play are a lot tighter. There would have been two more civs on that Korean subcontinent; one northwest and one southwest.

I've got one main concern when diciding where to put my cities: how do I grab the most space, and how do I keep it away from the AI? I want to know where my nearest neighbour is. He's often something like 10 tiles away. Then I'll usually put my first city inbetween my neighbour and myself, in a way that makes it difficult for him to put a city in. Say, between my and my neighbour it's like CxxxxxxxxxxC. The first C is my capital, the last C is my neighbour's, Ok? Then I'll probably put my city so that it becomes CxxxxCxxxxxC. I won't do CxxCxxxxxxxC, because that gives him the chance to put another city there. If it becomes CxxxxCxxxxxC, he'll go looking elsewhere.
In the Korea map, I would have put my first city where Wonsan is, inbetween Seoul and Mecca, and I would likely have put it one tile closer to Mecca, to steal space away from the Arabs.
That doesn't mean CxxxxC is my principle. It all depends on how the map is looking. Say the coast is 5 tiles away, and it's CxxxxxCoast. Then I'll go CxxCxCCoast. That's tight for my liking, but otherwise there will be tiles that i won't be working, a bit like the Cheju and Haeju situation in your Korea game.
Traits I never think about when deciding where to put my cities. I sometimes ponder about it before I start up a game, and go like: 'I'm religious now, I'll have my border expanded quicker, maybe I can go wider.', but as soon as I'm in the game, other considerations are taking over.
 
For maximizing score one might always want cxxc, but then again not everything goes towards maximizing score does it? And a maximized Firaxis (I don't know about the Jason score) score doesn't necessarily mean a better played game, does it? I mean... cultural games *tend* to have lower scores than spaceship games which *tend* to have lower scores than diplomatic games which *tend* to have lower scores than conquest games... or some sort of fuzzy ordering like that. I don't think that means a conqueror necessarily played better than the 20k builder given relatively equivalent conditions. After all, they probably had different goals in mind and consequently had different sets of plays which worked as best/suited to their game.

For maximizing Firaxis score, you must either win the game very early (think pre 1000 BC), or you are best off playing the game until 2050 instead of triggering a victory condition. You should try to expand up to the domination limit as quickly as possible, then spend the rest of the game maximizing your population and happiness without actually winning. Personally I find it very tedious.

What the Jason score is designed to do is make it unnecessary to “milk” the game until 2050. It attempts to adjust your score to what it would have been if you had not triggered your victory condition but had opted to milk the game. It also makes adjustment for the victory condition reached – for example, conquest and domination are generally the easiest conditions to reach early, and a space victory should always take more turns than a diplomatic one, and 20K is generally going to take a lot of turns to reach. It makes an estimate for the “Jason date” of each different victory condition, and awards bonuses based on the turn you finished compared to the Jason date for that victory condition.

This was a game of the month map? I once attempted one of those, but quickly got bored because of the amount of space that needed to be filled.

The GOTMs have a variety of setups – sometimes they have a lot of land, sometimes they are 80% water; sometimes they have more civs than normal, sometimes they have fewer. Hopefully, you’ll keep an eye out for maps that fit your preference, and maybe we will see you in a GOTM sometime :).
 
I'd describe the Korea save as CxxxxC or C4C instead of C3C (why you see wider spread cities far away from the core). Although, I adapt my spacing according to terrain (rivers and luxuries mostly... and why you see a tighter spacing closer to the core). It was NOT an XOTM map.

Thanks for the informative info. about the Jason and Firaxis scores Chamnix.
 
To be honest, I don't really consider traits when deciding how to space my cities. My criteria for picking city locations stays the same, regardless of which traits I've got. (Which may or may not be a good thing, I guess.) With that said, here's my quick rundown on traits and spacing, or at least a couple of them:

1) Agricultural -- Certainly a strong contender, regardless of wide or tight city spacing. For tight city spacing, faster growth means settlers get out faster. For wide city spacing, faster growth means that tiles remain unused for shorter periods of time.

2) Religious -- While I rarely think much about the religious trait, I think this one may have the strongest impact on city placement decisions. For wide spacing, cheap temples mean faster border pops, opening up more tiles to work. Additionally, cheap temples and cathedrals will help keep all those metros happy. Probably nice for space race & histographic games. OTOH, if I were going for conquest, tighter city spacing has its military advantages. If I'm going for 100K, tighter city spacing means more places to put temples.

3) The rest -- I'm not entirely convinced that the rest of the traits really have any impact on how well cxxxxc does when compared to cxxc. Then again, I haven't thought about it much, so I may change my mind on this.

. . . . Maybe agriculutural should come a place higher since cheap aquaducts and hospitals help a lot for the C4C. . . . .
Does agri get cheap aques and hospitals? I may be wrong, but I didn't think so. (Maybe I'm thinking of granaries?)

. . . .If one builds the Great Library and then sets research to 0 and can maintain peacefully relations with the AIs until at least education and then triggers a golden age soon after it expires (or gives it away for a bit... then takes it back and then triggers a golden age), and uses a C4C spacing... hasn't one basically offset most of the *commercial* difficulties of the C4C spacing and gained use of its benefits?
No, I don't think this would count as an "offset." It may allow you to amass a nice pile of gold, but that's true whether you've used CxxxxC or CxxC. And if you played CxxC, you'd have less distance corruption and, consequently, a larger pile of gold.

Now, even if that is what you'd call an offset, look at the cost involved. I'd have to:
1) Build a 600-shield wonder;
2) Maintain peaceful relations with the AIs until at least Eduction; and
3) Hold off on my GA until after Education.

That's an awful lot of cost involved, just to be able to have metros. (Admittedly, for me, #2 is a tough one. Apparently, I don't play well with AIs.)

I have a question: In several of the recent city-spacing threads, I've noticed that some players make reference to building a tighter core and spacing cities more loosely as they go outwards. Why would you do this? Is there any advantage? On my "home continent," I do exactly the opposite, with my core being the widest-spaced region and the specialist farms the tightest. Once I start invading the other continent, well, it depends.
 
I have a question: In several of the recent city-spacing threads, I've noticed that some players make reference to building a tighter core and spacing cities more loosely as they go outwards. Why would you do this? Is there any advantage? On my "home continent," I do exactly the opposite, with my core being the widest-spaced region and the specialist farms the tightest. Once I start invading the other continent, well, it depends.

I agree with you. The reasons I can think of for getting looser away from your core:

  • As a temporary measure to claim territory. I'm not going to have a productive third ring in despotism so it becomes less critical to get those cities ASAP and be able to share tiles among them. Once my core is set up, I may leave spaces between outer cities to claim the territory, but then I would add more cities later.
  • In PTW only, to prepare a second core for a palace jump. Your initial core will be relatively tightly packed around your Forbidden Palace, but you want your second core to be relatively loose around your new palace location. I very rarely jump palaces in C3C, and even if I did, I don't think I would want loose placement around my new palace anyway.
Neither is a real reason over the course of the game :dunno:.
 
The FAQ here http://civfanatics.com/civ3/faq/ reads

"Agricultural: Only available in Conquests. Start with Pottery. Provides one bonus food in the city square in all governments except Despotism. In Despotism, the bonus food only appears if the city is by fresh water (river or water body less than 22 squares). Half-price Aqueduct, Hospital, Solar plant, and Hydro plant. Irrigated desert produce 2 food instead of 1."

"It may allow you to amass a nice pile of gold, but that's true whether you've used CxxxxC or CxxC. And if you played CxxC, you'd have less distance corruption and, consequently, a larger pile of gold."

I'll give you that, but I don't consider that the offset. With the GL you don't need to research at least until Education (and possibly not for a while thereafter if you give it away skillfully and take it back carefully). The "offset" comes in not having to research through much of the "weaker" period for C4C and really having the brunt of your research come when the C4C has its advantage.

[Now, even if that is what you'd call an offset, look at the cost involved. I'd have to:
1) Build a 600-shield wonder;
2) Maintain peaceful relations with the AIs until at least Eduction; and
3) Hold off on my GA until after Education.]

I agree with 1) as a definite cost, for sure. But, 2) and 3) I almost always think of advantages. For a space race or diplomatic or even a 20k game when do I want my GA and why? Pretty much after education, since I have better infrastructure possibilities for fast researching (meaning libraries and universities) after that and I want as many of Copernicus's Observatory, Newton's University, Smith's Trading Company as possible for diplomatic and spaceship games. For a 20k game a faster bulid on Shakespeare's Theater also seems nothing to sneeze at.... and squeezing in Sistine Chapel or J. S. Bach's Cathedral also seems nice... though getting all these wonders at higher difficulty levels seems impossible. Also, if I were to play a "wait to attack much until cavalry" game, a faster built Military Academy and possibly a faster built army or two seems nothing to sneeze at either. For a "little to no war until tanks and/or bombers game" I think you'd want at least one of the science wonders to accelerate your research rate.

"I have a question: In several of the recent city-spacing threads, I've noticed that some players make reference to building a tighter core and spacing cities more loosely as they go outwards. Why would you do this? Is there any advantage?"

I don't know myself. I guess that if you have the cxcxxc around your core you can disband the middle cities shortly after you get sanitation and have metros. You might not want to build that spacing everywhere since you'll need many more settlers and this can slow down your growth at perhaps the wrong time. Also, cxcxxc everywhere borders on ICS which might mean too much corruption.
 
The FAQ here . . . . "Agricultural: . . . . Half-price Aqueduct, Hospital, Solar plant, and Hydro plant. Irrigated desert produce 2 food instead of 1."
OK. Looks like I was wrong.

"It may allow you to amass a nice pile of gold, but that's true whether you've used CxxxxC or CxxC. And if you played CxxC, you'd have less distance corruption and, consequently, a larger pile of gold."

I'll give you that, but I don't consider that the offset. With the GL you don't need to research at least until Education (and possibly not for a while thereafter if you give it away skillfully and take it back carefully). The "offset" comes in not having to research through much of the "weaker" period for C4C and really having the brunt of your research come when the C4C has its advantage.
Part of this is purely semantics, but when I think "offset," I think of something that directly counters an effect. For example, I might consider the reduced corruption of commercial civs to be an offset to the increased distance corruption of cxxxxc empires.

I don't think I phrased my last post very well. I understand where the "offset" comes in: Shut down research and build up gold. I don't think that really offsets CxxxxC's weaknesses, though. It may provide more of a cushion, but it doesn't reduce the corruption problem, it doesn't alleviate the wasted tile problem, etc.

I have no doubt that the strategy outlined works, mind you. But I don't see that it would work any better with cxxxxc than with cxxc, or help alleviate any of the special problems that come with cxxxxc.

. . . .
[Now, even if that is what you'd call an offset, look at the cost involved. I'd have to:
1) Build a 600-shield wonder;
2) Maintain peaceful relations with the AIs until at least Eduction; and
3) Hold off on my GA until after Education.]

I agree with 1) as a definite cost, for sure. But, 2) and 3) I almost always think of advantages.
OK. We agree on 1. No. 3, maybe. I frequently have an early Medieval GA, but there's nothing wrong with having the GA after education. As to Number 2, I don't consider that an advantage. As long as I mind my manners and don't bust my rep, I don't need peaceful relations with the AI to continue trading. I can still buy and sell luxes, resources, techs and alliances.

. . . . For a space race or diplomatic or even a 20k game when do I want my GA and why? Pretty much after education, since I have better infrastructure possibilities for fast researching (meaning libraries and universities) after that and I want as many of Copernicus's Observatory, Newton's University, Smith's Trading Company as possible for diplomatic and spaceship games. For a 20k game a faster bulid on Shakespeare's Theater also seems nothing to sneeze at.... and squeezing in Sistine Chapel or J. S. Bach's Cathedral also seems nice... though getting all these wonders at higher difficulty levels seems impossible.
You're probably right. I've never had a 20k victory, and almost never build any of those wonders. Of the ones named, the only one I shoot for with any regularity is Smith's. Then again, that one still works if you capture it, too. ;)

Also, if I were to play a "wait to attack much until cavalry" game, a faster built Military Academy and possibly a faster built army or two seems nothing to sneeze at either. For a "little to no war until tanks and/or bombers game" I think you'd want at least one of the science wonders to accelerate your research rate.
I'll grant you that a faster MA is nothing to sneesze at. However, the fastest way to build it is with an MGL. As to playing a "wait to attack much until cavalry" game or a "little to not war until tanks and/or bombers" game, . . . well, I've never tried one. I don't think I've ever made it to the middle ages without at least one war.

"I have a question: In several of the recent city-spacing threads, I've noticed that some players make reference to building a tighter core and spacing cities more loosely as they go outwards. Why would you do this? Is there any advantage?"

I don't know myself. I guess that if you have the cxcxxc around your core you can disband the middle cities shortly after you get sanitation and have metros. You might not want to build that spacing everywhere since you'll need many more settlers and this can slow down your growth at perhaps the wrong time. Also, cxcxxc everywhere borders on ICS which might mean too much corruption.

Here's how I view corruption when I get to the point of science farming: Once I hit the 90% cieling, where every new town is going to be 90% corrupt, there is no downside to putting down more towns. They'll all be 90% corrupt, and none of the new towns will be more than that. After a certain point, it doesn't seem like you increase corruption any more, whether you've got 130 cities, or 175.
 
I had ask this question earlier but it may have been lost.

Outside of the strating landgrab phase, how do the c2c advocates manage their city spacing when they go into expansion/war mode when they move into claimed terrirotyr.
is c2c still kept"?
 
I'd say "mostly, yes." I stick with CxxC until I get out into what I call "the farmlands." Then I shorten up to CxC and start building my specialist farms.

Interesting, do you plaster all conquered territory with cxc spaced cities? and what size would these cities be?
 
Back
Top Bottom