Advanced City Relocation

  • Thread starter Thread starter moof
  • Start date Start date
M

moof

Guest
We have read some thoughts about the advanced City hut here,
but we have a very specific question about it.

Whenever we have find a Hut only a space or two from a terrific city spot,
we are hopeing for an Advanced City.

Our thinking is that we can disband the city into a settler and move over
onto the great spot much faster than making a settler in a far away city
and moving the settler to the site by the Hut.

The Pros :

1. There is the increase in research while the settler is being built.

2. There is no loss of population suffered in the city that would have had to
supply a settler for the great site.

3. Most times the settler from the Disbanded Hut city can be in place sooner than a
settler built in some other existing city.

Cons:

1. Giving up the other possible hut goodies such as a unit or money
that building a city beside a hut will insure.

2. If you are already up against the riot factor a new city can cause
unhappiness problems.

So are we missing something because the advanced city hut just one square
from a great city site looks like a good deal to us.
Especially as in a recent game where we had Mountains with Iron for the citizen
to work while we built the new settler, the settler was built in very little time.




------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein
 
Some of the other cons:

It's annoying that it is even necessary to move the city.
wink.gif


The new city makes it so other huts may create units that are supported by the city. Thus it makes it even more annoying to try and disband the city and save the units. Let alone the fact that the units could have been NONE.

Sometimes the city doesn't have the production capacity to build a settler before it adds to the population.

Sometimes the city is so far away that you wouldn't want a city there anyway. Not at that time at least.

--------
With all that said, the main reason I don't like advanced tribes is that they rarely fit within my plans for how I want my cities laid out.

As far as them not grabbing all the specials around them, another city can get those if wanted. In GOTM 6, my second hut was an advanced tribe, which was not where I would have wanted it at all, but I worked around it simply because I was trying for a 'fast' game.
 
Duke of Marlbrough,

We agree with you about the timing of the Hut being opened till other huts
close to the " great site " have been opened so as to avoid units garrisoned
to the new (temporary City) but this would not seem like to big a barrier if
as we stated the hut was within a square or two of a great city site.
On other posts you and allan have both stated that in past games you founded
new citys next to a likely Advanced city hut before opening it.
It was in this more narrow context that we were posing our question.
If it is a good enough site that you do not want it ruined by an advanced City
from a hut and it is close enough to one of your nearby citys to make a settler
and send them to the site and found a city before opening the hut, then what is
the downside of getting the Advanced city and then disbanding it and building at
the great site a square or two away with the resulting settler?
If it is a great site there should be no problem having the resources to build the settler without much rush building.

On your last point about a far away advanced city, while it was not the main point
we were asking about here we still like an advanced city in a remote area if the nearby huts have been cleared out,as a Non-Nomad/settler result is almost certain
when the city is disbanded.

------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein
 
Have you considered the down side of building a city right next to the hut? They're red and they ride white horses (so much for the good guys only riding white horses). Also, by opening all the other huts in the vicinity before the one nearest to your ideal city site, aren't you risking the fact that another one of these huts could be an advanced tribe and then you could have an even worse position and the units you find will still be attached to the new city. I think that you can only find one advanced tribe per island but I'm not entirely sure of this. Since opening the hut to check it's an advanced tribe then reloading to pick up all the other goodies is cheating, I think that you presume too much that the hut of your choice is a new city. I'd open it straightaway. It could be a new settler and allow you to have your ideal city site without any hassle. There is an equal chance that you will find either. Oh, and barbarians as well.

------------------
in vino veritas
 
In my experience if you save prior to opening a hut then go back if you don't like the outcome then you cannot guarantee the same outcome next time you open the hut.
 
Update as of Aug.9 /01

ferenginar,

We apologize for orginally misreading your post.
--------------------------------------------
Original Reply

As duke of york pointed out many players would consider that cheating.
We are talking about playing the odds and intuition.
--------------------------------------------
------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein

Edit to make two posts instead of one the next one was so long already.


[This message has been edited by moof (edited August 09, 2001).]
 
OK what duke o' york said about the barbs got us to thinking & rather than
guess around and speculate about it we did a few experiments.

What originally started us on this Hut deal was the start of the game we are
playing right now. Here is the the background.

Civ II SP-AI, Deity , Raging Hoardes, 7 civs

We had the best starting position we ever got in a game (two whales & silk ).
We waited to build the first city till after the first move with the other settler &
that moved revealed a Hut. We waited to build the first city so that we could try for
a Non-unit on the next move. We got a horseman and then built the our Capital.
The Horseman's first moved revealed a river so we had the remaining settler head
that way. Now we have two great citys the first of which became our SSC. The
Horseman got to the next hut and got an advanced city. We had the horseman
open up the territory around this third city and found that a very good site
was only one square away so we went into the disband & relocate mode.
Next the Horseman finds another hut and this time a coveted Nomad.
As the Nomad makes their way to a site with a whale the horseman finds another
Hut and Hut's position from our past experience leads to think there is a good
chance it will be another advanced city.

Now this is very early in the game (3300B.C.) and with 3 citys already and the Nomad
on the way to Build a fourth this will make a fifth city if it is an advanced Hut.
We did not really think about it at the time but we did get the Advanced City.
A few huts later we got another Advanced city making 6 and putting us into the
riot factor and one of our citys went into Disorder.

This is where we asked our Question about "saving a hut for later" because we thought
if we had waited to pop the suspected Advanced City hut till later the other cities
would have had enough time to make units enough to keep the disorder from happening.

Now to make a long post even longer, We save all our Games at the beginning and
every 500 years so we went back and reloaded the Game and saved the game at the
huts to get the game as it was the first time round when the Hut question came up.

We had our Nomad go to the great site by the hut instead of by the whale as in the
original game so that we could test out the ideas mentioned above in duke o' york,
Duke of Marlbrough , & allan's post.

Sorry there are so many tests of the same idea but as we said the first advanced city
we found was set to be disbanded & relocated in the mist of our experiment so we
repeated the experiment three times with a hut,
both in a city square and not in a city square.
--------------------------------------------
First
A. We did not allow the Third city to disband at all.
B. The Nomad stood by ready to build a fourth city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs 10

Chariot 1
Archer 2
Horseman 1

Adv. city 5

Horseback R. 2
Mapmaking 1
Masonry 1

50 Gold 5
100 Gold 2
--------------------------------------------
Second
A. We did not allow the Third city to disband at all.
B. The Nomad builds a fourth city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs zero

Chariot 3
Archer 10
Horseman 5

Adv. city zero

Horseback R. 1
Mapmaking zero
Pottery 1
Warrior code 1

50 Gold 3
--------------------------------------------
Third
A. We disband the Third city.
B. The Nomad stood by ready to build a third city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs 4

Chariot zero
Archer 7
Horseman 3

Adv. city 10

Horseback R. 1
Pottery 3

25 Gold 1
50 Gold 6
--------------------------------------------
Fourth
A. We disbanded the Third city.
B. The Nomad builds a Third city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs zero

Chariot 1
Archer 10
Horseman 9

Adv. city zero

Horseback R. 3
Mapmaking 1
Pottery 1
Warrior code 1

Gold None
--------------------------------------------
Fifth
A. We rebuild the Third city.
B. The Nomad stood by ready to build a fourth city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs 10

Chariot zero
Archer 4
Horseman zero

Adv. city 5

Horseback R. 1
Map Making 2
Bronze 2

25 Gold 1
50 Gold 3
--------------------------------------------
Sixth & Last
A. We rebuild the Third city.
B. The Nomad builds a Fourth city in the great spot
one square away from the suspected Advanced city Hut.
C. We saved the game and went into the Hut until some event had happened ten times.

Here are the results:

Barbs zero

Chariot 5
Archer 10
Horseman 7

Adv. city zero

Horseback R. 5
Pottery 1
Warrior code 4
Bronze 3

25 Gold 3
50 Gold 1
100 Gold 4
=============================================
We freely admit this is only our experience and may in no way indicate a result
that could be relied upon for life, limb or amounts of money pass a dollar.

In conclusion we feel

1. There is almost no chance of getting a barb out of a hut within a city square.

2. There is almost no chance of getting an Advanced tribe from
a Hut within a city square.

3. There is a very good chance you will get a defender from a Hut in a city's squares.

4. So far we have been very lucky getting Advanced citys when we wanted them
as it is not as sure a thing as we felt it was.

5. It takes lots longer to type out the results of an experiment than it takes
to do the experiment & gather the info.

& as Always This info may be worth less than you paid for it.

------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein
 
I think the pros outweight the cons of disbanding the city and moving the resulting settler over the one or two *&%^$! spaces for better resources - if it's early in the game. Later in the game, Advanced Tribe cities start popping up with granaries, markets, libraries, etc. and already-expanded populations. Reducing the population with these cities has greater consequences (unrest, happiness, etc.).

As far as building a city near a goody hut that may potentially become an Advanced Tribe (and as we've mentioned in another thread the AI sometimes generates strings of barbarians or Advanced Tribes), I do it with one addendum: I build a defending unit in the city before I enter the hut. I've had it happen on occasion that I'll build the new city (which usually negates the possibility that an Advanced Tribe will pop up, as someone here mentioned) and immediately enter the hut - only to have a lovely batch of barbarians right next to my undefended city. Yes, usually when within a city's radius the goody huts will give you a military unit, but not always....

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/viking.gif" border=0>


------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."
<IMG SRC="http://www.donlinke.com/images/Vlad/vlad_bevel.jpg" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Vrylakas (edited August 07, 2001).]
 
Just a couple of thoughts on two of your conclusions. First, I would bet the game is designed so that you can't get an advanced city within another city's radius for the same reason that you can't build a city in another city's radius. Second, I can think of an abstract (though not a technical) reason why you wouldn't get barbarians from a hut within a city's radius -- that area is, well, "civilized."

Good work, I must say. I always find the most important results come from work that started out seemingly useless.
 
Recently, in mid game, I discovered an advanced tribe which gave me a city of size 4. I always though they were only of size 1. Has this ever happened to anyone else?
 


Recently, in mid game, I discovered an advanced tribe which gave me a city of size 4. I always though they were only of size 1. Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Yes, if you find an Advanced Tribe later in the game (anyone know the exact date?) you'll get cities with populations up to 5 (as big as I've received, anyway), and some city improvements as well.

------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."
<IMG SRC="http://www.donlinke.com/images/Vlad/vlad_bevel.jpg" border=0>
 
True, my observations were of a more general nature. I don't hatej advanced tribes, but just as I said, I prefer to follow my plan of how I was going to lay out my cities.

The only times I have really ever built a city before going into a hut is when:

a. I have the settler there and getting an davanced tribe from the hut would really mess up my city placement (ie leaving a couple good terrain squares that won't be able to be covered very well if another city is placed)

b. If I don't have the troops around to cover the chance of Barbs. As you noticed in your tests, a hut within the city radius did not produce barbarians.

Admittedly advanced tribes are one of better things you can get from huts, especially early in the game. It just comes down to preference as they can spoil some well laid plans if they come up in the wrong spots, but can also give a large jump on expansion.
 
Indeed after a certain point in the game, say after the year "0", I give up and keep any Advanced Tribes I find. By that point I'm very focused on growth and can't afford the luxury of picking city placements. In the early years if I've got a decent number of cities, I will take issue with placement - but there comes a time when you have to take what you get.

Besides, when I start conquering my neighbors, I am likewise stuck with the placements of the conquered cities. The AI has a habit of plopping cities down in what seems to me to be a rather random way. (Can anyone prove otherwise to me?) No point in liquidating an entire conquered empire's cities for convenience's sake.



------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."
<IMG SRC="http://www.donlinke.com/images/Vlad/vlad_bevel.jpg" border=0>
 
moof, i am aware that many people consider it cheating, and i would not disagree. i was simply trying to say in a very short message the basic point of your long statistical analysis.
 
ferenginar,

We are sorry for being a "Skimmin Idiot"
& misreading your orginal post
from Aug. 7 on this thread.

Originally posted by ferenginar:
In my experience if you save prior to opening a hut then go back if you don't like the outcome then you cannot guarantee the same outcome next time you open the hut.

While we agree on the very next outcome not being guaranteed,
once anyone has saved a game before entering a hut it looks to be
only a matter of patience to guarantee the desired outcome.

Also let us know if you feel anything needs to be added to our
apology/edit on our orginal reply to you to make it right by you.




------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein
 
In the interest of as much acuracy as can be attained, we wanted to be sure
everyone reading this understood the proximity of the hut to the
" Great Site " where a settler was positioned for this experiment,
so we have added an image at the end of this post.

Also for the same purpose we wanted to speak to Odin's comment:
Originally posted by Odin:
First, I would bet the game is designed so that you can't get an advanced city within another city's radius for the same reason that you can't build a city in another city's radius.Second, I can think of an abstract (though not a technical) reason why you wouldn't get barbarians from a hut within a city's radius -- that area is, well, "civilized."

In our experience you can built a second city in another citys squares,
just not in the 8 squares immediately adjacent to the main city square.
A second city can be built on any of the 12 outlieing city squares.

We had not thought of it before but we do agree wholeheartedly with
Odin's excellent second thought. Now more convinced than ever
that you can not get a Barb out of a Hut located within a City's squares,
We stand ready to bet amounts of money up to twenty dollars that it can not be done.

The image below shows a potential city site. In our example
the settler would have been standing where the settler in this image is standing.
The Hut would be located in the grassland square with the Shield on it
in the upper right hand square of this image.

<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com//images/start.gif" border=0>
------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein

Edit typos


[This message has been edited by moof (edited August 09, 2001).]
 
Until recently, sites of advanced city infuriated me.

I have now read that all advanced cities have hidden specials in their city squares.
You must mine grassland, I believe.

woke, can you further enlighten?

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293
 
SlowwHand,

very interesting SlowwHand, where did you read this?
The way the map is seeded a Hut is always going to be no more
than one square away from at least one potential or existing special Square.
The most Specials a Hut can be within as far as a Advanced city is
concerned is two. Of the sixteen possible Hut/Special placement locations
a little over a third have two potential or existing special squares
available in the potential Advanced city's radius.
By our count 10 Huts will have one potential/existing Special and the
remaining 6 Huts have two. Since the percentage of Specials that are hidden
seems very small in our experience we fail to see how someone could conclude
that all Advanced Citys have hidden special squares within their radius.


------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein
 
I think he means that they can have hidden specials in them.

Based on exactly what you mentioned moof, there is always at least one, with a possiblity of two, special squares within an advance tribes city radius.

Slowwhand,

Sometimes they are hidden, so they need to mined out of the grassland terrain to be shown. This turns the grassland (which can never have specials) to a forest (which can have specials), from there you can then irrigate the forest to make it a different special that is associated with a plain.

I think they can even be terraformed into hills or mountains with specials also (I've never done it, so this is just based on what I've read).
 
Back
Top Bottom