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

[PaperBeetle]

I think the OCP lobby is fighting back strongly!

Perhaps tighter placements are allowed more settlers because they build them while OCP cities have to build culture to claim tiles not adjacent to towns? Once one pattern gains a lead in the number of towns, that lead should become exaggerated, since the crucial resource needed to build settlers is food (i.e. food surplus is harder to come by, in the expansion phase, than shields) and founding a new town increases your empire's total surplus fpt by 2 (on average).

 

[Gosnork]

Those rolleyes aren't necessary.

The real advantages of CXXC are not those you claim. (Read my test report!) In fact, what you say is simply not true:

1. To be able to work any tile, it must be a) within your cultural borders & b) within two tiles of a town

2. Because OCP uses culture, every town once it reaches CV 10 will have 20 tiles to choose from (minus overlap, ie 18-20 tiles per town)

3. Because of the tight spacing of CXXC, each town will have only the immediately adjacent tiles available plus the closest, unused tiles of its neighbours. Mathematically, it works out at eight (8) tiles per town

4. As the OCP towns have more tiles to choose from, they can work the best tiles and ignore the worst tiles until the advent of Medicine and hospitals. Rarely do you have to irrigate bonus grassland or mine grassland. That only 12 of the 18-20 available tiles can be worked is not a disadvantage, it is an advantage!

5. With CXXC you have little choice but to improve and work every tile, even if it is "only" grassland or mountains. Some towns may have no other option but to irrigate BG just to get enough food so the mountains can be mined and worked. Other towns will have no choice but to mine grassland to get more than one shield. For science or worker farms, this matters little. For everything else, it is bad news

6. Given the same number of towns, OCP will cover more than twice the territory

7. Given the same number of towns, OCP will have access to a larger number of resources, luxes, hills and bonus grassland - as well as marginally useful tiles such as desert, jungle or swamps.

8. The two food of the town has zilch to do with the need for irrigation. Think of it as a domino brick! It allows the town to work one more tile even if it is a foodless mountain. As long as that tile produces at least one food, it will grow to work one more tile and if that too yields at least one food, these two tiles can be worked indefinitely. If the first worked tile yields two food, and the next, and the following ones too, the town will eventually grow to size 12. It is if you need to work mountains or several hills that you have need of irrigation in order to allow the town to work those tiles, even more so if you want it to grow!

1.) Exactly why CxxC is more effecient than OCP, ALL tiles in CxxC are within 2 tiles of a town, actually all are within 1 tile of a town.
2.) OCP has to use culture, meaning OCP has to BUILD culture. If you have 10 citizens working 20 tiles, you AREN'T working 10 tiles!
3.) Yes, but every tile will be used, again the cities will be less productive, but the EMPIRE will be more productive!
4.) Now you are claiming that it is an ADVANTAGE to waste part of your empire!?! What would the harm be of dropping down another city and working those tiles?
5.) ALL TILES ARE BEING USED, so of course the bad tiles will be be used as well, but getting something from bad tiles and using the good tiles is better than JUST using the good tiles.
6.) DUH! That is why CxxC builds settlers and OCP builds culture.
7.) Again, DUH! See number 6.
8.) Yes it allows the town to work 1 more tile, but if you have 50 cities in CxxC that is 50 tiles you don't have to irrigate. If you only have 15 tiles, you have to irrigate more. Take a desert for example. Place 1 city in it. That city will produce a total of 42 food once it is irrigated and railroaded, which means it can mine 1 tile. But if two cities are placed CxxC in the desert, they each produce 18 food once railed and irrigated, meaning TWO tiles (one in each city) can be mined.

Here's an idea, during the expansion phase place your cities CxxxxxC, and play it as if it was a CxxxxC game. Once the culture is built, place the middle city inbetween to give you CxxCxxC.

 

[Aabraxan]

Ok basicly this is the largest argument aganst wide spacing, but what I see is that Aabraxan answered the question himself.

In a 6*6 map smaller spacing will always win, actually CCC wouldn't do so bad.

Granted, civ is not a 6*6 grid. I've never claimed otherwise. It is, however, a game with a limited number of tiles. The number of cities that I can get is limited:
First, by the amount of land I can grab before the AI gets to it;
Second; by the amount of land on my continent.

Once I control my continent, the dynamics of expansion change. But all of my core and semi-core will be settled by the time that happens.

Unfortunly civilazation has more tiles that you will ever build on or even has under your cultural influence. So aside from curruption (which is your CxxC's best point yet least argued one) CxxC has only detriments

Even if this were true, however, why would I worry about city placement aside from corruption? I don't play without corruption. I disagree, though, in that a tighter build allows me to actually work a much higher percentage of the tiles under my cultural control for longer periods. Even if (& when) they're not the best tiles on the map, they're tiles and they produce food, gold and shields, too.

-All cities except your border-most cities will not be able to have more than 8 worked tiles

Until they exceed size 8, they don't need more. Until sanitation, no city needs more than 12.

-If mountains, grassland, hills, forests, and bonus resource terrain tiles are few and far between than you will be forced to spread to reap the benifits, staying to a rigid pattern (even somewhat true with CxxxxC) will have less production.

I've never argued for a strict CxxC, nor do I use one. Your city layout must be adapted to the terrain.

-You will have much less land using CxxC under your cultural influence

No, I won't. But I will claim that land in a different manner. Rather than building a 60-shield temple, I'll build a settler, a worker and an archer. Only when it contains a resource or lux, or when I get near the domination limit, does an unworked tile under my cultural control do me any good.

here is the math:

xXxxXx
xCxxCx = 2 cities in 18 tiles = 1 city/9 tiles
xXxxXx

xxXxxxxXxx
xxXxxxxXxx
xxCxxxxCxx = 2 cities in 50 tiles = 1 city/25 tiles
xxXxxxxXxx
xxXxxxxXxx

that means that if you have the same amount of cities the proportion for the amount of cultural influence if they were both cultural level would be 9/25=2 7/9. That means for total world domination and cultural overload CxxxxC if superior.

If you have the same number of cities and if they were of the same cultural level . . . Perhaps on a per-city basis. First of all, if I were going for a cultural victory, I'd still go CxxC to give me more places to put cultural buildings. Second, if I use CxxC, there's no reason to have the same number of cities. That'd sort of defeat the purpose of CxxC.

Fianally next time you argue against CxxxxC remember to give CxxxxC the same amount of cities as CxxC. In the actuall game fiting as many cities in a 6*6 square doesn't improve production

Why would I do that? The whole point of CxxC is to increase the number of cities in a given area. Civ is a game of finite tiles. I've never said it was a 6*6 square. But if I can fit more cities in a 6*6 square, can't I fit more on a 60*60 square? And yes, having more does improve production. The next time you argue against CxxC, remember to give CxxC more cities than CxxxxC.

Could you please explain just HOW CXXC manages to produce TWICE the number of settlers during the expansion phaze?

I haven't tested it, but I'm not sure that it will produce a full twice as many. I do think will produce more, however. Look at the process for a minute. Regardless of your city placement, the first city will produce its first settler after X turns. It is only at "X+ [a few turns]" that your placement pattern is really decided. However, in CxxC, the second city becomes a city 2 turns prior to the one in CxxxxC (assuming no roads at this stage of the game). Now CxxC has 2 cities growing and building, while (for 2 turns) CxxxxC has only 1. Maybe CxxC also gets the second settler out 2 turns before CxxxxC gets its third, but maybe there's an extra 4 food in the bin somewhere. Plus, just like the first settlers, the second settler for CxxC doesn't have to walk as far as the settler for CxxxxC. These tiny advantages add up over time and, by the end of the expansion phase, may well become a number of extra cities in the CxxC empire.

 

[chuckiferd]

That's totally wrong!
Unless you are playing chieftain, civilization has a limited number of tiles you can get before AI civs. OCP will use some of those tiles, CxxC will use all tiles.

really I have never experianced this, and I haven't played on chieftan in years. I can't find it in the manual either

EDIT: Sorry I misread that wrong, however that is the exact reason WHY to use CxxxxC get as much territory as fast as you can. If the AI builds in the gaps simply take the city and spare your cities population from building settlers. (my favorite method is to distract the soon to be defender right before they reach the destination and then taking the open city)

Next time you argue against CxxxxC, remember to give CxxxxC the same amount of cities as CxxC

Next time you argue against CxxC, remember to give CxxC the same amount of territory as OCP. And yes, getting 3 times more cities does somewhat improve production.

Did you not read the quote you used. CxxxxC has the same amount of cities (or more based on production increases or less based on waste) but is spread out over a larger area. I think you are forgeting the biggest factor here, the settler. While using CxxxxC you are not limited to a small box but limited to the amount of settlers you produce which CxxxxC has been tested and proven to provide more because you have more choice land to use the further apart you are.

Please explain why CxxC has more cities? It is utterly wrong.

Ok here is the only place I would use tight placement, when all available land is used up, then I would go back and build cites inbetween my older cities, I say it is a little backward to start off as cramped as you can go, you would be condemning all your cities to 8 workable tiles, meaning the city probally would ever even reach metropolis.

I am retiring from this thread because all that is happening is we are pushing the same points at each other and no one is listening when there is a test already done that proves or disproves all these facts

 

[Mursi lives]

Could you please explain just HOW CXXC manages to produce TWICE the number of settlers during the expansion phaze? Do you only need ten food and fifteen shields per settler...

Not even the best civ players would manage to produce twice the number of settlers in the same number of turns using CXXC than they would using OCP! Any player will manage to produce a similar number of settlers under OCP as they do under CXXC and thus OCP will result in, roughly, twice the territory as measured in tiles.

To claim that you cannot compare the two unless you give CXXC the same size territory, ie twice the number of settlers, is (to speak plainly) either the result of the stupidity of the claimant or his/her belief that others are so stupid they will fall for such a blatant lie!

Could you please explain WHY CXXC should prematurely limit its own expansion phase JUST AS OCP DOES? Using tight city placement doesnt forbid to overextend oneself in the areas AI is about to grab, then come back to fill the holes.
Add to this that CxxC does indeed produce its settlers faster (new cities quicker founded, less coruption in the first cities, no culture to build) and yes, CxxC players get more or less the same territory than OCPs.

Ok here is the only place I would use tight placement, when all available land is used up, then I would go back and build cites inbetween my older cities,

Here we agree.

I say it is a little backward to start off as cramped as you can go, you would be condemning all your cities to 8 workable tiles, meaning the city probally would ever even reach metropolis.

In my games, my core cities get an average size of 10-11.
Metropolis? Some players would say that it is an advantage to skip sanitation and hospitals, but more imporant, 90% of the games are decided before IA.

 

[Tribute]

Okay, if it's between CXXC and CXXXXC (OCP, since true CXXXXC wastes so many tiles), I know that CXXC will be able to outproduce CXXXXC earlier and make more settlers. Maybe not double, but definitely more due to lower corruption, workers able to reach worked tiles faster, and since settlers walk less before settling.

But I don't see why CXXC beats CXXXC. If you're claiming that CXXXXC is SO bad because it needs culture, why not choose CXXXC since it doesn't. It also allows you to work all tiles like CXXC simply by virtue of its cultural border overlapping all of them.

9 tiles for CXXC (too few for good selection in the long run but early game is good)
15 tiles for CXXXC (enough for size 12 and metros and early game has more variety)
21 tiles for CXXXXC (OCP) (enough for metros and uses only the best tiles late game but early game is just as good as CXXC with more resources/luxes claimed)

CXXXC with CXXC diagonals looks like:
-----E-------
---------E---
-------------
--E----------
------E------
----------E--
-------------
---E---------
-------E-----
(of course, this is more vertically stretched than it really is. But you can see that there is one set of CXXC cities, all diagonal. The above shows 6 cities (E) around a center city, the hexagonal pattern)

I don't see any need for culture here, and you can work all tiles. I think that this wins over CXXC, personally since it shares most of the advantages of both builds and takes very few of each them.

Also, there's yet another alternative. Mix CXC and CXXC, for the early game advantage. Then gradually disband some of the temp towns in the mid game for size 12. Then make metros. I feel it's such a waste to do this, but it would probably trump most builds.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

CXXC / OCP are both rigid concepts.

The actual game is:
a) settle the best tiles first
b) fill in the rest

Settling the best tiles implies mixing:
- Going the extra square to get that wheat (OCP)
- Settling next to your starting worker (CXXC)
- Settling close to capitol cause you're fighting too early: Sid / Always-War (CXXC)
- Blocking (directly relates to neither)

It depends heavily on the terrain, and usually ends up as CXXXC...
Right smack in the middle of "tight" and "wide"

 

[Nergal]

But thats what most people do, isnt it. CXXC for the core, then use CXXXXC on the outer fringe, or cities taken from the AI. Then maybe fill in with some extras. CXC in tundra. The argument is daft because it never works like that in practice. You cant rigidly stick to a pattern. Mountains and coasts break it up.

 

[Tribute]

Basically, which is better probably doesn't apply so much in practice. Get the best, fill the rest is a great strategy. And one that I use too. I do NOT actually settle in any fixed patterns at all.

However, I think this thread is arguing about the theoretical best strategy if we must settle in a rigid fixed pattern. At least, I hope so, otherwise, this is a huge waste of everyone's time....

 

[Aabraxan]

But thats what most people do, isnt it. CXXC for the core, then use CXXXXC on the outer fringe, or cities taken from the AI. Then maybe fill in with some extras. CXC in tundra. The argument is daft because it never works like that in practice. You cant rigidly stick to a pattern. Mountains and coasts break it up.

Actually, my empire is usually the other way around, with ~CxxxC around the capitol, dropping to CxxC after the first ring and maybe second ring, then going to CxC in the farms. I raze lots of AI cities, so their placement isn't all that important.

 

[Mursi lives]

Settling the best tiles implies mixing:
- Going the extra square to get that wheat (OCP)
- Settling next to your starting worker (CXXC)
- Settling close to capitol cause you're fighting too early: Sid / Always-War (CXXC)
- Blocking (directly relates to neither)

Also:
- Getting fresh water whenever possible.
- Avoiding jungle/marsh zones.

Of course we dont follow rigid patterns. CxxC, CxxxC, OCP basically mean the average number of tiles your cities get.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Gosnork, excuse me for being blunt, but you seem more interested in winning an argument than to achieve a higher level of understanding of the game. You seem absolutely desperate not to yield one inch as if you fear if you did, you would be seen as "a loser". While I must give you full marks for inventiveness, I must also warn you that displaying such intractability and inflexibility does not look good and is not seen as the marks of a clever person.

1.) Exactly why CxxC is more effecient than OCP, ALL tiles in CxxC are within 2 tiles of a town, actually all are within 1 tile of a town.

At the best, that is stretching the truth a bit too far if it is not an outright lie. If that statement really is true, it means that you build temples in the outermost ring. How quaint, below you indirectly claim that temples (culture) isn't neccessary...

2.) OCP has to use culture, meaning OCP has to BUILD culture. If you have 10 citizens working 20 tiles, you AREN'T working 10 tiles!

Are you not able to understand English? That is utter rubbish and to suggest what you do is offensive to boot!

3.) Yes, but every tile will be used, again the cities will be less productive, but the EMPIRE will be more productive!

Ditto!

4.) Now you are claiming that it is an ADVANTAGE to waste part of your empire!?! What would the harm be of dropping down another city and working those tiles?

Ditto for the first sentence.

5.) ALL TILES ARE BEING USED, so of course the bad tiles will be be used as well, but getting something from bad tiles and using the good tiles is better than JUST using the good tiles.

Wrong.

6.) DUH! That is why CxxC builds settlers and OCP builds culture.

DUH yourself! It does not quite work out that way as you have to build population as well before you can build settlers.

7.) Again, DUH! See number 6.

You obnoxious, offensive, rude child!

8.) Yes it allows the town to work 1 more tile, but if you have 50 cities in CxxC that is 50 tiles you don't have to irrigate. If you only have 15 tiles, you have to irrigate more. Take a desert for example. Place 1 city in it. That city will produce a total of 42 food once it is irrigated and railroaded, which means it can mine 1 tile. But if two cities are placed CxxC in the desert, they each produce 18 food once railed and irrigated, meaning TWO tiles (one in each city) can be mined.

To which purpose? To make the empire look good on the screen because it is railroaded and irrigated? The only reason to place a town in a desert is to nab oil or salpeter. You only need a pop 1 town to do that and work that tile for the commerce bonus! If the town has two resources, you road and irrigate those for a pop two town that works both tiles - quite likely that you would have to irrigate two more tiles to get the water where you want it before RepParts, but then again, you'd only see the salpeter.

Here's an idea, during the expansion phase place your cities CxxxxxC, and play it as if it was a CxxxxC game. Once the culture is built, place the middle city inbetween to give you CxxCxxC.

Wow! You can create new tiles during the game! I did not know that! CXXXXC to CXXCXXC! In fact, what you'd end up with would be:

XXXCXXXXCXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXMXX
XXXMXXXXXXXX
XCXXXXCXXXXC

This is a mix that results in some CXC spacings and some CXXC. But it is a possibility and I believe MAS pointed this out earlier.

grrrrRRROOOWL!!!

 

[Mursi lives]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gosnork
8.) Yes it allows the town to work 1 more tile, but if you have 50 cities in CxxC that is 50 tiles you don't have to irrigate. If you only have 15 tiles, you have to irrigate more. Take a desert for example. Place 1 city in it. That city will produce a total of 42 food once it is irrigated and railroaded, which means it can mine 1 tile. But if two cities are placed CxxC in the desert, they each produce 18 food once railed and irrigated, meaning TWO tiles (one in each city) can be mined.

To which purpose? To make the empire look good on the screen because it is railroaded and irrigated? The only reason to place a town in a desert is to nab oil or salpeter. You only need a pop 1 town to do that and work that tile for the commerce bonus! If the town has two resources, you road and irrigate those for a pop two town that works both tiles - quite likely that you would have to irrigate two more tiles to get the water where you want it before RepParts, but then again, you'd only see the salpeter.

Placing a city on a desert tile will make that tile produce 2 food and 1 shield. In other words, it is turning a poor tile into a fair tile. Of course settling right in the midlle of a desert is wrong, but there is often isolated desert tiles in your empire.
Same for G and BG tiles: settling on BG is a waste, but settling on G is getting a shield from this tile without mining it. That's another advantage of tight city placement.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Placing a city on a desert tile will make that tile produce 2 food and 1 shield. In other words, it is turning a poor tile into a fair tile. Of course settling right in the midlle of a desert is wrong, but there is often isolated desert tiles in your empire.
Same for G and BG tiles: settling on BG is a waste, but settling on G is getting a shield from this tile without mining it. That's another advantage of tight city placement.

"That's another advantage of tight city placement"



So you believe that if you settle a desert tile, you get 2 food, 1 shield & 1 commerce from the town only if you use CXXC or CXC?

So you believe that if one choses a loose placement one must settle on BG?

In the famous words of Gordon Ramsey - F**k me! The Python gang had nothing on some of you!

But let's be charitable: Could you please rephrase that, because at present understanding eludes me?

 

[Mursi lives]

Actually yes I believe that putting more cities in a given territory turn more poor tiles into good ones

 

[Gosnork]

Pyrrhos, it is simple, if there is a desert, it is best to settle the desert with a tighter city placement. Irrigated desert produces 1 food, so you want as many city centers (2 food) in the desert as possible! If this simple concept is too hard for you, I'm sorry.

 

[Gosnork]

Wow! You can create new tiles during the game! I did not know that! CXXXXC to CXXCXXC! In fact, what you'd end up with would be:

XXXCXXXXCXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXMXX
XXXMXXXXXXXX
XCXXXXCXXXXC

This is a mix that results in some CXC spacings and some CXXC. But it is a possibility and I believe MAS pointed this out earlier.

grrrrRRROOOWL!!!

You might want to check what you quote, I stated you should try CxxxxxC, not CxxxxC. CxxXxxC easily converts to CxxCxxC, if you can't figure it out. Since one of the main complaints is that it is too hard to grab land by placing cities CxxC because it requires too many settlers. If you place them CxxxxxC, the cities will grab land like CxxxxC does, but allow you the production of CxxC once you can afford to build the settlers.

 

[Tribute]

CXXXXXC is rubbish. I'd just build CXXC straightaway. There's no way you can build culture and then fill in the gaps without having the AI alternate a whole bunch of your cities. Even if you do manage to do some CXXXXXC'ing, overall, CXXC will net you a larger advantage (essentially because you negate the point of expanding far). Besides, since we probably are comparing this to Monarch/Emperor level, we're not going to get much past 1 ring of CXXXXXC'ing before having to fill in the gaps (or risk being swarmed by AI settlers).

Oh, and CXXXXXC does NOT grab land like CXXXXC does. That's simply BECAUSE you can fit another city in the middle. The AI will never do CXC (unless it has 0 cities and only 1 settler, since it will settle immediately, if it can). CXXXXXC allows the AI to settle because of the gap is big enough, but CXXXXC does not. Hence, that is why it is used and can grab land.

Please understand that you can only fill in gaps by having some CxC involved. If you do a pure square CXXXXC (not OCP), then yes, MAS is very, very correct. You should put a little tiny town to work at least the other three inside tiles of the gap.

CXXXXC
XXXXXX
XXNNXX
XXNOXX
XXXXXX
CXXXXC

O can work on the N tiles without stealing from any of the other towns. While the other towns aren't working the suboptimal tiles, O can use them. Later, when hospitals come about, the O towns can spam workers down to size 3 and fill up the C's surrounding them. (Each C has 4 O's surrounding it except for border towns. Each O has 4 C's surrounding it. Thus, each C is fed by 1 O town during the population transfer.)

You all amuse me by arguing like this. Who really is the more childish on the nets?



How about mixed strategies?

Everyone's being so mean to OCP since it needs culture. Well, how about the first ring around the capital? That doesn't need culture. You could go CXXXXC for the first ring and then continue on outwards in whatever style you want. Because for sure, your capital is going to be a powerhouse later on. Plus, you want your nearby cities to be strong too. So take the best land nearby even if it's CXXXXC away. Take advantage of the reduced corruption.

Finally, about those many cities in deserts. Gosnork's right, more cities can fit in CXXC. They definitely can turn more bad tiles into decent ones. Which is why if there are no better alternatives, settling on deserts is good, especially if the other tiles nearby. But please, don't waste 2 population in a town just to settle in a vast desert! Please, only waste one and do CXXXXC! Please, for my sake! Please, I beg you all!

You'd be crazy to just build a settler to try and take advantage of a desert tile. Yay! 1 unit support, 1 gpt, and a free road! Nice! Let's waste 2 people from one of our actually productive towns and go build an extra town CXXC in a desert! I don't think so. I'd go CXXXXC here. I'm gonna have to agree with Pyrrhos here too, Gosnork.

 

[Nergal]

You have to use mixed strategies anyway. As you have pointed out, CXXXXC doesnt tessalate anyway, so it always leaves gaps. Unless the terrain is totally flat, like all plains or desert or grassland or something, CXXC isnt going to able to lay down a complete pattern anyway. I had one game, which I abandoned, where a good 20 city span of terrain was marsh interspersed with the odd hill. I've played others where there was enough marsh to botch any plan. And its not just marsh, its mountains that are impassable as well.
The desert is a weird one though, I think tundra is just as bad. I've never had a game where desert was a big problem. I've always been able to build on the coast, or on the edge of the desert, or tundra, so CXXC got enough productive tiles to make a workable city. With big areas of desert/tundra, it makes sense to go CXC, later in the game and get some towns producing something. A small town covering a huge cultural area is wasteful. Early on its ok for a land grab, but later on you can pump out settlers quite happily with little loss.

 

[MAS]

if there is a desert, it is best to settle the desert with a tighter city placement. Irrigated desert produces 1 food, so you want as many city centers (2 food) in the desert as possible!

While this is factually true, settling desert isn't a priority, even if its close to the capital. If there are flood plains or oasis around, then I wouldn't treat it as pure desert.

If the (pure) desert is close to the capital, I may even refrain from ICS there to keep the rank corruption in the non-desert cities on the other side of the capital low.