Am i building the right things?

[citizen001]

hi, i just started another C3C regent game, this time focusing on building enough worker and military units which i don't usually do. i've posted a save below. any feedback would be appreciated. the game is on a tiny map pangea with 2 opponents and i'm playing as the americans. C3C patch v1.22. thanks

 

[Jon Shafer]

Some tips here for ya:

Don't use Entertainers. Avoid them at all costs. Use the luxury slider instead. If you use entertainers, you lose food, shields AND gold. If you use the luxury slider then you just lose gold, but maintain food and shields... and you keep growing, which gives you more of those AND gold. So it balances out in the end. To summarize: Entertainers are evil.

You should only build Settlers and Workers from larger cities. Right now Washington is only size 1, and produces very little food, shields or gold. If you only build Settlers and Workers from cities that are larger you get more of these even after you lose population, allowing you to produce more and faster... including Settlers and Workers. So ironically enough, if you wait until your cities are larger to produce Settlers and Workers, you'll be able to produce MORE of them FASTER.

Your cities are probably a bit too far apart. As a rule of thumb, I generally build all of my cities either 2 or 3 tiles apart (though there are a few exceptions). Since cities won't work all of the tiles in their radius until much later in the game you won't need cities so far apart. By the time your cities CAN use all the tiles in your radius, you've already built enough units, improvements, etc. to win the game. It also reduces corruption in cities that are closer, allowing you to produce more.

Your # of Workers is pretty good, might be able to use a few more though. Should definitely have more military units though... especially since most of your army is obsolete Warriors who won't do you much good in a war. Shame you don't have any resources though... but that's an invitation to build lots of Archers and find some.

For more tips (mainly on economic development) check out my article in my signature entitled "Case for Food." It gives lots of tips that are very useful for players trying to make their economies stronger.

 

[Cataphract887]

Trips Case for Food

Spotting settler factories



edit:and then i see u linked it in your sig :shakehead

 

[Willem]

Some tips here for ya:

Don't use Entertainers. Avoid them at all costs. Use the luxury slider instead. If you use entertainers, you lose food, shields AND gold. If you use the luxury slider then you just lose gold, but maintain food and shields... and you keep growing, which gives you more of those AND gold. So it balances out in the end. To summarize: Entertainers are evil.

That's not really true. There's always the odd city that grows faster than the others where using an Entertainer would make sense. The Luxury slider should only be used if you have a number of cities that are experiencing Unrest. For isolated cities, you'd just be wasting money.

 

[citizen001]

Thanks for the feedback. ive just been a bit scared to try the lux rate, but with your arguments you have definitely convinced me again. as for the city placement, i've seen in SGs that players place cities like that and i usually try to win my games in the Industrial age. is that a bad way to go about?

 

[Chieftess]

That's not really true. There's always the odd city that grows faster than the others where using an Entertainer would make sense. The Luxury slider should only be used if you have a number of cities that are experiencing Unrest. For isolated cities, you'd just be wasting money.

Some would argue that is due to lack of micromanagement, and that if you micromanaged correctly, you wouldn't have that problem.


If you DO have to use a specialist, use anything BUT an entertainer.

 

[Jon Shafer]

That's not really true. There's always the odd city that grows faster than the others where using an Entertainer would make sense. The Luxury slider should only be used if you have a number of cities that are experiencing Unrest. For isolated cities, you'd just be wasting money.

As CT said, if you're managing your cities properly then this shouldn't be the case. If you have a city that grows this fast, then it should be a Worker or Settler pump anyways.

Thanks for the feedback. ive just been a bit scared to try the lux rate, but with your arguments you have definitely convinced me again. as for the city placement, i've seen in SGs that players place cities like that and i usually try to win my games in the Industrial age. is that a bad way to go about?

Not good. Tighter spacing is better, particularly if you plan on winning before the Modern Age. You only just get Hospitals in the early Industrial Age, and by that point in time the game is already decided. If you have your cities too far apart, then you're wasting a whole bunch of tiles that other cities could be working! The key is to have every city at size 12 and have barely enough tiles to work. If you do that, then you can almost always have the game wrapped up before you even build Hospitals.

 

[Tomoyo]

The one exception to the thing about managing your cities well to avoid that high pop city: If you really really (yes, really) really need a wonder, you might need one city to zoom past the others. However, in that case, you want all the citizens in that city working anyways.

 

[citizen001]

Yeh my micromanaging is pretty bad at times. i really need to reread those war academy articles. anyways i continued playing the game and i actually won domination victory!!! i just kept building military units and conquered japan. total time played was about 2.5 hours and i got the second or third rank on that rank machine thing which the warrior hits. thanks for the advice!!

below is the save:

 

[JoeBas]

If you do that, then you can almost always have the game wrapped up before you even build Hospitals.

With the ubiquitous "If you're a warmonger" caveat, that people who win that early always seem to forget... some of us peaceful builders actually need to prepare ourselves for life after hospitals.

 

[punkbass2000]

As a dedicated a peacenik I can tell you that cxcxcxc or at least cxxcxxc spacing is still generally optimal even if you're not planning to conquer the world or even a single city.

 

[JoeBas]

I've gone to a loose spacing that allows for about 15-16 or so total tiles per city to be worked... the least useful (mountains/marsh/etc) don't need to be touched until after hospitals, when there's enough workers to handle it... still and all usually wind up with city sizes of 18-20 with a few engineers/scientists thrown in for good measure.

I was referring more to the "Wrapped up before you even build hospitals" comment.

 

[punkbass2000]

That can (and, IMO, usually will) still be true for the peacelover, even if the actual victory condition is not officially met. At least for the peacelover who places one's cities close enough that they're useful as Trip describes

 

[Jon Shafer]

Punkbass is right. I play most of my games where I'm now allowed to attack any AI civs (because that would be too easy, no matter what the spacing), and I still use the tight spacing to maximum advantage. By the time Hospitals roll along, you already have a tech lead and have a large number of cities that have all improvements and are highly productive. The only issue is when it comes down to a space-race when you need a few very productive cities, but you can usually beat the AI handily there anyways. And even if it's close, you can shrink the population of some cities to allow others to grow larger.

 

[Willem]

As CT said, if you're managing your cities properly then this shouldn't be the case. If you have a city that grows this fast, then it should be a Worker or Settler pump anyways.

Provided you play that way. I don't use the "Settler Factory" approach. I have each of my cities build 3 Settlers w/escorts, then start building troops/improvements. So if I happen to have a city on Floodplain or with some extra food, it's going to grow faster than the rest of them.

 

[Tomoyo]

Willem: Such a systematic approach will not work for all games. If you have a high-food flood-plain city, you should be using it to its full potential by building workers and settlers.

 

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, it's not really fair to criticize a strategy if you're deliberately setting yourself back. I think Trip is generally assuming fairly optimal play.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

*Rarely, Entertainers are worth it, to keep a city in WltKD while building important stuff (mainly the FP). And, in outlying cities an Entertainer saving 3spt is better than a Civil Engineer...
But for the core, never.
*City spacing: Read the terrain. Don't follow strict patterns; I do prefer wide spacing in the core. Doesn't have to be exactly 20, but more than 12 very well; Metros save a lot of unit support.
In the boonies: What do you need? As many towns as possible to help with unit support, or as few cities as possible claiming most of the land (for domination)? I'm no fan of any spacing rules; too much personnal choice; a core of 10 cities producing a Cav/Inf a turn is worth more than 20 cities needing 3 turns for units.
The only rule that really applies is cxxc for movement.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Provided you play that way. I don't use the "Settler Factory" approach. I have each of my cities build 3 Settlers w/escorts, then start building troops/improvements. So if I happen to have a city on Floodplain or with some extra food, it's going to grow faster than the rest of them.

Well, you use that and I'll use Settler factories and we'll see who has the most cities in the end.

 

[JoeBas]

I think the key thing to note is, there's more than one right way to skin this cat.