C-X-X-C or C-X-X-X-X-C?

[Pyrrhos]

Maybe I've missed something, but why is CxxC bad for building wonders?

Because, on average, each town gets 8-9 tiles and even if you give the wonder-building town the best 12 tiles, it's at the expense of the other six low-corruption town so one town alone will have a reasonable shot at a wonder. With CXXXXC, at least the capital plus the first six, low-corruption cities will have a choice of the 12 best out of on average 19 tiles per city. Chances are with CXXXXC that the wonder-producing town(-s) will produce substantially more shields per turn, = have a better chance of actually completing the wonder, even if you use prebuilds. Their production won't be tied up for as many turns either.

Early MA. The CXXC-player has the choice of which of Sun Tzu's, Leonardo's, Knight's Templar, Sistine or Bach's to go for. The CXXXXC can attempt at least two if not three of them. At least at levels below deity.

Ah. Of course! You could always let the AI build them for you! But what if the most distant AI is the one that completes the wonders you want and need and won't be able to conquer until late IA?

 

[Spoonwood]

"Next to useless for a wonder game unless you plan on capturing the wonders or razing those not your own."

I wouldn't quite say this. C2C comes out "next to useless" for a 20k city, and if you have multiple wonder builds going for the industrial/modern age era it comes out even less useful. For a 20k game you'll need a wide spacing around your 20k city. C2C could theoretically work around the 20k pre-metro, but then the hamlets around the 20k pre-metro end up with production and commerce more like smallpox after Shakespeare's, since they won't use squares around the pre-metro after Shakespeare's. Also, since we very much tend to have slower expansion in almost all 20k games, because you have a city building early wonders, you'll probably want a wider spacing, at least, initially to grab as much territory as possible. Oh... that's right... I forgot... only idiots play the 20k game.

Also, C2C or smallpox (ICS) works out better for 100K (I'd think... I haven't finished one) than C4C. With the metro, as previously mentioned, on average you'll have to clean more pollutoin and/or build a mass transit system.

 

[Sashie VII]

This has been an interesting and somewhat humorous read.

Silly question deleted.

Personally I believe CxxC is more efficient, but is more troublesome to players like me who, unless absolutely necessary, dislike micromanagement et al past a certain point.

 

[Spoonwood]

Othniel,

"The mental heavy-lifting from trying to play a highly efficient game of Civ can be wearisome and unfun."

Don't get it wrong (you probably didn't... probably just a language problem here). You do have to some "mental-lifting" in such a game... at least to do it as well you could at the time. But, it certainly doesn't require anything like or as much "lifting" as most civ games, so your point basically stands.

Chamnix,

"Here we go again – nobody is telling you that you must play a certain way or must like playing a certain way. "

Not you, but zzarklinux basically has said so, and others in the thread at some points seem to have alluded to such also.

"Granted, this is just my definition of “better”. There may be alternative definitions, but I have yet to hear one advanced."

How about in terms of learning the game more fully. Don't metros teach you more about how city improvements work than cities? Also, don't metros teach you more about the importance of controlling/managing AI behavior since you have less of an early military to crush them and/or you have a slower rate of research early on... so you have to either learn the trading system better or learn to ensure you build the Great Library? Don't they also teach you more about great wonders since you can build them more easily? For instance, I recently saw someone advise to "never build the Sistine Chapel." But, for an empire of metros this wonder can do A LOT of good.

Lord Emsworth,

"CxxxxC placement isn't so good at any of the cultural victory conditions at all. For a 20K game, the way I see people play it in C3C, what is needed is one super city while the rest of the empire is delegated to mere helper status that supplies troops, workers, settlers etc. That one super city will be a metro (thanks to Shakes) and work 20 tiles as soon as possible, while the rest doesn't matter all that much."

See my previous post. With the 20k game and tighter spacing, given some surrounding tribes, you'll end up with a territory and general expansion handicap compared to metros in at least two ways... 1. you have a tighter spacing and thus you don't cover territory as fast you could with a wider spacing 2. you have your 20k city building early wonders, pre-building early wonders, or building a temple during your ReX phase... and this happens in a core-city... so you end up with fewer settlers/workers/military early on... all of which inhibits your expansion no matter how much troops spill blood on the continent. Maybe CxxC still somehow will work better for a 20k game, but with these early handicaps I certainly don't see it. Also, if you don't use your capital as your 20k city, you certainly wouldn't want to raise your rank corruption and lose a shield in your 20k city by building one too many towns.

"In a Diplo game what matters is only how fast you research your self through the Ancient, the Middle and the Industrial Age."

Only the late medieval and industrial ages, or the industrial ages if you build the Great Library.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

well, sure - if you use STRICT CxxC placement, then a 20K city can get cramped - when I play 20K cities, I'll have cities at CxxC, but it's the 2nd city that gets cramped

I often build 5 hospitals in a 20K game, depending on when/if I get sanitation, cause battlefield medicine is a culture build (and is useful in itself)

I rarely have a civ full of metros, but it's not all that uncommon for me to have a few, particularly on the coast.

The main problems with relying on the GLib for techs are;

1) You get important improvements (aqueduct, market, uni) and units (knights, cavs) late
2) The AI often doesn't research efficiently (all of them research feudalism and take a while to get engineering, for instance).

if what you want is the fastest research, you will, on nearly any level, be better off being a research leader once you catch up to the AI. That gets tough on Sid, especially pangea Sid (well, it's tough on any level you aren't used to, but its' tough on Sid for anyone)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Lord Emsworth,

"CxxxxC placement isn't so good at any of the cultural victory conditions at all. For a 20K game, the way I see people play it in C3C, what is needed is one super city while the rest of the empire is delegated to mere helper status that supplies troops, workers, settlers etc. That one super city will be a metro (thanks to Shakes) and work 20 tiles as soon as possible, while the rest doesn't matter all that much."

See my previous post. With the 20k game and tighter spacing, given some surrounding tribes, you'll end up with a territory and general expansion handicap compared to metros in at least two ways... 1. you have a tighter spacing and thus you don't cover territory as fast you could with a wider spacing 2. you have your 20k city building early wonders, pre-building early wonders, or building a temple during your ReX phase... and this happens in a core-city... so you end up with fewer settlers/workers/military early on... all of which inhibits your expansion no matter how much troops spill blood on the continent. Maybe CxxC still somehow will work better for a 20k game, but with these early handicaps I certainly don't see it. Also, if you don't use your capital as your 20k city, you certainly wouldn't want to raise your rank corruption and lose a shield in your 20k city by building one too many towns.

Of course a heavily hampered expansion comes packet and parcel with your best town tied up at building wonders and culture like mad. What I don't see though is how this is overcome by CxxxxC (apart from your wonder city).

"In a Diplo game what matters is only how fast you research your self through the Ancient, the Middle and the Industrial Age."

Only the late medieval and industrial ages, or the industrial ages if you build the Great Library.

Of course that is correct. But holds true mainly for Deity. I can't say anything about Demigod as that level is absent from Vanilla. On Emperor or lower the GLib is either just no/not much help or even harmful (opportunity cost). At least that is my experience with Diplo and Spaceship games.

 

[timerover51]

However, if we are talking about which strategy is “better”, I define “better” in this context as:

• Reaching a victory condition in fewer turns, or
• Getting a higher score, or
• Winning a higher percentage of games on whatever level you happen to play at.

Granted, this is just my definition of “better”. There may be alternative definitions, but I have yet to hear one advanced. If you tell me what “better” means to you, then I may completely agree that metros are better based on your definition, but based on my definition (which is the only definition I’ve seen), it is my opinion that scientist farms are better than metros in corrupt territory.

By all means, convince me otherwise! I wasn’t born saying this is the best way to play civ. I used to build metros. I also used to have less than 1 worker per city, revolt every time I got a new government, and struggle beating Regent. My method of playing has evolved and will continue to evolve, but the numbers and my experiences do not support the claim that metros are better.

Agreed, when it comes to spacing CxxC, I will not change. That is not my style or how I enjoy playing. You want to play that way, and it is fun for you, fine. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to change, or even try a different way. Just stop it with the "my strategy is better" claim.

My definition of "better" strategy.

Beats the AI.
You have fun doing it.
Works fairly consistently.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Really? CxxC useless for wonders? Seems I built a bunch in my India game with that spacing. I do agree with one thing, though. The sides in this argument are polarized to the point that this thread is useless verbage. The truth is, either way works for those who use them, because when one gets a reward that satisfies them, a behavior continues. So enjoy the game, and know that your way is best for you, and if someone has a different way, then that's what is best for them. Where I am at in this mess is I used to build metros always and now I rarely do. I still enjoy the game, and that's all that really matters.

 

[Aigburth]

Chamnix

Jun 07, 2008, 03:23 AM #230

In that post you basically beat the same dead horse you have been beating all along. You did not disprove my points, nor prove your own. There's no point in arguing with you further as others have noted, it's just so much verbiage now.

I thought it was an excellent post

 

[Rodent]

What spacing i use depends on the mood i am in. I am in the nice builder style neat looking empire mode , CxxxxC looks Beatufiful

I am in the destroy all civs mode, CxxC, for power!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

My definition of "better" strategy.

Beats the AI.
You have fun doing it.
Works fairly consistently.

OK, fine. CxxCxxxC wins hands downs over CxxxxC for me on each of those points. You can strike out the "fairly" though.

 

[Spoonwood]

AutomatedTeller,

[if what you want is the fastest research, you will, on nearly any level, be better off being a research leader once you catch up to the AI.]

I'd think you'd want to qualify this by saying that this holds once you know how to navigate the tech tree and trade for techs intelligently.

Lord Emsworth,

"What I don't see though is how this is overcome by CxxxxC (apart from your wonder city). "

I don't mean to say that it gets "overcome". I DO mean to say that the difficulty gets mitigated against since you grab larger swaths of territory more quickly, even withou cultural improvements right away. Three cxxxxc cities in one direction cover 11 tiles where the AI won't settle, as we have cxxxxcxxxxc. Three cxxc cities cover cxxcxxc cover 7 tiles. People here have argued that since cxxc has military benefits it can overcome this by taking territoy from the AI. In regular games I can see that. But, in a 20k game, since you have a core city building culture like mad instead of units, it works out harder... on average... to take that territory from the AI or raze their cities. So, that part of the argument either goes out or loses force.

Overseer,

"CxxC useless for wonders? Seems I built a bunch in my India game with that spacing."

I don't think I said that... or at least I didn't mean useless. After all, cxxxxc does NOT work out as useless for conquest. It just makes things harder. Also, you played that game on Monarch. In my experience, in a 20k game, I can fairly easy cherry-pick 3 or 4 of the wonders in the Ancient Age, and built all the rest of them on Monarch. To give you an idea of how many wonders you can build on Monarch with just one city check out the game here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=277691 I even built TOE before Universal Suffrage and nailed both. Also, if you notice I tried to talk about the 20k game... not just wonders overall. In the 20k game you'll want Shakespeare's Theater usually as soon as you can get (or after Copernicus's Observatory). As Lord Emsworth admits, a wider spacing around that 20k city at least comes as desired. Whether using wider spacing empire-wide, at least at the start, generally comes out as better since you have more territoy overall, I think the more interesting question.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Lord Emsworth,

"What I don't see though is how this is overcome by CxxxxC (apart from your wonder city). "

I don't mean to say that it gets "overcome". I DO mean to say that the difficulty gets mitigated against since you grab larger swaths of territory more quickly, even withou cultural improvements right away. Three cxxxxc cities in one direction cover 11 tiles where the AI won't settle, as we have cxxxxcxxxxc. Three cxxc cities cover cxxcxxc cover 7 tiles. People here have argued that since cxxc has military benefits it can overcome this by taking territoy from the AI. In regular games I can see that. But, in a 20k game, since you have a core city building culture like mad instead of units, it works out harder... on average... to take that territory from the AI or raze their cities. So, that part of the argument either goes out or loses force.

OK, I can see the point. However, what about simply settling a little loser with your very few first settlers, and then later to simply "backfill" the grabbed territory?

 

[Aabraxan]

For what they're worth, my thoughts on some of this, in no particular order:

. . . .
My thoughts so far on a test setup, in a nutshell:

Map and Setup Rules:

• Standard continents, 70% water, temperate, normal, and 5 billion years. all the most standard settings
• No barbs
• Monarch or Emperor Difficulty again, median difficulty so the AI provides some challenge but I can easily impose my will on the AI civs
• Preselected AIs, no Science opponents
• Preserve Random Seed OFF so if others play the save after me, they can see how a different RNG result may have affected the outcome
• Culture Flips ON? I will still probably try to keep captured cities, no razes, at least in the metro game because meisen says keeping such cities helps make the metro case stronger
• SGLs off
• All VC's enabled except wonder this is standard
  
  Since I'll be knowing the map ahead of time, I want a 4-turn settler factory possible in the capital. I also want Iron in the near vicinity. For both my CxxC and Metro starts, unless this is disagreeable to folks, I intend to conquer my starting continent as fast as possible.
  
  The continent should be generally good terrain with lots of grass. This is favorable to both styles.

These settings look good to me. I think having barbs & SGLs off lowers the likelihood of one game getting a fairly serious & unexpected boost, skewing the results. Culture flips on, I'd say.

Why the "No science opponents," though? Why not random?

My Civ:
My goal is to pick a Civ that doesn't favor one settling style over another, if Civ choice matters. I'm considering:

• China
• Netherlands
• America
• France
• Maya
  
  I chose these civs first off all because none are SCI. Secondly, except for Maya, none have Ancient Age UUs. Thirdly, they have one or more of the all-around good traits: Industrious or Agriculture.
  
  I'm trying to avoid Ancient Age UUs because I wonder if getting an early Golden Age might skew results toward the fast start of CxxC style. If I chose Maya, I might forgo building Javelin Throwers. I might eliminate Golden Ages entirely from any civ I choose, just a thought.
  
  I really think France is the most median choice: Middle Ages UU, good all around traits. I'm just not sure if the Commercial trait would skew things at all. Thoughts?

I think France probably is the most median choice. Commercial is going to reduce your corruption, but both the metro-style game and farm-style game will benefit from that. I don't know if one will benefit more than the other.

As for AA UUs, seems to me that both styles will benefit from it. I'm not certain that the farm-style game will benefit more from it, but I'm also not certain that it won't.

The problem child in the above list is the Maya, and it's because of the enslave ability of the JT. There's the risk with them that one game will wind up with a whole lot more slaves than the other game. As much as I like the Maya, I think they should be taken out of the running.

. . . .
Aabraxan, . . . .
"Mostly off-topic: Are you referring to wartime mobilization?"

Maybe, but I thought it applied when your capital got attacked or lost a troop or something like that... I don't recall when I've seen this happen... but I know I've seen in 20k games I've played before.

I'm unaware of any effect that having your capital attacked has on culture. Mind you, there may be one, but I don't recall hearing about it. OTOH, if my capital is attacked, I think I've probably got bigger problems on my hands.

. . . .
"The proponents of wider city spacing and larger metros frequently point to a city and say "Look what my city can do!," while proponents of tighter city spacing frequently respond with, "It doesn't matter what one city can do! Look at what my empire can do!""

Excellent way of putting it. For a 20k game, I think there exists no question that you want *at least one* metro. So, even if the metro-advocates end up "conceding" or "losing", there still exists a "non-variant" use to knowing how to work a metro and what a metro can do.

In any of the XCC variants, OCC, 5CC, you'll most likely be using metros, as well.

. . . . It's actually an interesting question: what to do with towns that are in the 50-70% corruption range before any city improvements are added. I assume an FP has been built and the Republic government is being used for this question. . . . .

Those are usually the lower end of my semi-core. More corruption than that and I start farming. FWIW, my 50-70% corrupt cities will usually get a rax and, at some point, courthouse. I say "at some point," because I usually don't build them immediately. I usually start building them when I see that tech is about to put a new unit "on the assembly line," & I need a few more shields out of them. I usually find myself building: (1) offensive units in the core; (2) defensive units in the semi-core; and (3) artillery, settlers, and workers in my farmlands. Semi-core may or may not get things like markets and libraries.

. . . . Can I build farms and metros on the same map, or reserve farming for my CxxC try? I'll think about this rules questions further, but shout out anyone if you want to see a "test" and have ideas. . . . .

For the CxxC try: No metros. Don't even research Sanitation.
For the CxxxxC try: I'd say no farms. Should every city be required to have at least one improvement?

 

[Othniel]

"Granted, this is just my definition of “better”. There may be alternative definitions, but I have yet to hear one advanced."

How about in terms of learning the game more fully. Don't metros teach you more about how city improvements work than cities? Also, don't metros teach you more about the importance of controlling/managing AI behavior since you have less of an early military to crush them and/or you have a slower rate of research early on... so you have to either learn the trading system better or learn to ensure you build the Great Library? Don't they also teach you more about great wonders since you can build them more easily? For instance, I recently saw someone advise to "never build the Sistine Chapel." But, for an empire of metros this wonder can do A LOT of good.

(bold added)

So, metros are better because they teach you by handicapping you?

j/k

My definition of "better" strategy.

Beats the AI.
You have fun doing it.
Works fairly consistently.

The problem with having fun as part of your "better" definition is that it is relative and unquantifiable.

Someone can say to themselves, Strategy A is better than Strategy B because it is more fun for me. That is valid. They can then come on these boards and say that they prefer Strategy A over Strategy B, that is also valid.

They shouldn't, however, come on these boards and say to other Civvers that Strategy A is "better". It is a logical fallacy. IMO, though, people do this all the time, touting a strategy as better because it's more fun to them (I'm not saying you, timerover, have been doing this just because I'm quoting you above...). And when people make such claims and have nothing to back themselves up besides their opinion, it really annoys me.

 

[TheOverseer714]

No scientific civs eliminates the random factor of Freebie techs at the beginning of each era. Say in game 1, russia gets Monotheism, you trade Feudalism even up for it. In game 2, they also get that tech and you already have it, no extra tech, that makes another tech to research, slowing you down. Maybe there needs to be no tech trading at all. Since the GLib has been discussed as a CxxxxC advantage, it should be allowed, in fact I would say it should definitely be built in that game.

 

[Othniel]

I've started a new thread for the game tests.

I've included some of Overseer, Aabraxan, and timerover51's suggestions in the setup post.

EDIT:

Maybe there needs to be no tech trading at all. Since the GLib has been discussed as a CxxxxC advantage, it should be allowed, in fact I would say it should definitely be built in that game.

I'm trying to create an "average" game, not play in some funky way for fear of favoring one side over another. I don't think that eliminating tech trade helps the validity of the test for this reason. Of course, if you see the other thread, I've eliminated Golden Ages (for now ), etc, so there are some average game things I'm cutting out. I'm still debating on what to cut and what not to cut.

My first reaction to the GLib idea was to say no. But it might be worth some more thought...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What's up patooie-boy. Done sulking?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

AutomatedTeller,

[if what you want is the fastest research, you will, on nearly any level, be better off being a research leader once you catch up to the AI.]

I'd think you'd want to qualify this by saying that this holds once you know how to navigate the tech tree and trade for techs intelligently.

That is what I meant - or, more precisely, I meant that the fastest possible research route through the ages includes the human being the tech leader. This is especially true once you hit the IA and the AI goes off to research nationalism/communism/fascism.

Obviously, if you don't know which techs the AI will ignore and which they will research, then it's tougher to research the other ones

 

[Spoonwood]

Lord Emsworth,

"However, what about simply settling a little loser with your very few first settlers, and then later to simply "backfill" the grabbed territory?"

Right... and I think I mentioned this before... that would imply something like cxxxxc before "back-filling" which mutates into cxcxxc or cxxcxc. With such spacing you can stick with it for the rest of the game, or abandon the middle city in the industrial age. In other words, *in principle at least* (I haven't done this yet myself), first settling out to a "full cxxxxc" (or a "looser version of cxxxxc based on terrain" instead of a tigher version of such) and then "back-filling" gaps would seem to satisfy both those who want metros and those who want cities.

Aabraxan,

"Commercial is going to reduce your corruption, but both the metro-style game and farm-style game will benefit from that. I don't know if one will benefit more than the other."

You'll have more cities in a cxxc game on average than a cxxxxc game, so empire-wide commercial has a greater effect on a cxxc game. I wouldn't use a commercial civ. The Maya seem a better choice to me... although admittedly I will have to say I don't know how the results of your tests would affect my spacing, since I don't go around taking other's territory and rather actively try to avoid it. Sure, I'll take cultural flips... but I won't take territory when someone has to spill blood... at least not usually.

[The problem child in the above list is the Maya, and it's because of the enslave ability of the JT. There's the risk with them that one game will wind up with a whole lot more slaves than the other game. As much as I like the Maya, I think they should be taken out of the running.]

Just don't build them. Find a game where you have iron and stick to swordsman.

[OTOH, if my capital is attacked, I think I've probably got bigger problems on my hands.]

LOL... in a OCC 20k game you should almost expect your capital to get attacked at some point.

[More corruption than that and I start farming. FWIW, my 50-70% corrupt cities will usually get a rax and, at some point, courthouse.]

Since I've already discussed this and provided an example, I'll refer to Charis's micromanagement article here: http://realmsbeyond.net/civ/mmguide.html He wrote this for Vanilla, so maybe they changed something for conquests that I've missed in my conquest games. He wrote "What if you could build a factory in your best expansion cities in the ancient era? Would you build one? Hmmm, to expensive, not a good value? What if this 'factory' also increased revenue *100%*. Still not convinced? What if I throw in a "Solar Plant" for FREE?! Ready to buy? Wait!! There's more!! This magnficent factory- plant-economic center is yours for just... 80 shields!! Order TODAY and we'll throw in protection vs propaganda at no extra charge!

Such a ridiculous building doesn't exist you say? Think again! It's called a... Courhouse."

Othniel,


"So, metros are better because they teach you by handicapping you?"

I guess you might read it that way, but you've REALLY missed the point. Metros can provide an advantage in terms of gameplay in that they come as fun enough and viable enough to build while also helping you to learn more about the game faster. It seems to me that you do need to know trading better/ensure you build the Great Library and not go beating up the AI as early on as you might have done usually when you go up a level or two, because 1. the tech pace moves faster and 2. the AI has more units to defend and counterattack. Even though I don't do it, how many people can win a conquest game on Emperor before military tradition and how many people struggle winning a similar conquest game on Demi-God even after military tradition? As perhaps a better point, SirPleb thought he might have a chance at a mounted warrior rush in his HoF Sid game with the Iroquois. He later admittedly that idea as basically naive. Building metro-style might help players understand that such changes can arise when you move up a level.

Overseer,

"Since the GLib has been discussed as a CxxxxC advantage"

A CxxxxC advantage only??? No. I meant to say that the GLib can help *mitigate* against some of the early disadvantages of a wider spacing. You don't need such a mitigation with a tighter spacing.

Concerning tests,

I'd like to see how cxcxxc or cxxcxc fares vs. both cxxc and cxxxxc, of course even cxcxcxc might also seem interesting also... but then again three games with the same civ on the same map seems more than enough to ask already.