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

[Spoonwood]

[The wasn't really necessary, meisen. In spite of your apparent opinion of me, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.]

Strawman doesn't technically mean you tried to mislead anyone. It just means you misrepresented the argument.... that your argument attacked a weaker version of it than what the other person meant... that you attacked "straws" instead of "flesh".

[I think the most accurate comparison would probably be the fully outfitted metro and several (maybe 5-6?) science farms, including tiles worked. If that comparison is to be run, though, I think we'd need to start with comparable pre-improvement corruption.]

That seems like the best comparison put forth so far to me.

 

[Aabraxan]

Wrong. More like 2-4, depending upon how the built up cities are spaced.

Unless my math skills (weak though they may be) fail me, a size 20 metro will work 20 tiles plus the city square, for a total of twenty-one tiles. Science farms, using 1 tile for the city center and with 2 citizens working the fields each (not an uncommon arrangement), would use 3 tiles each, right. So 21 tiles (the amount used by the metro) divided by 3 tiles (so that each science farm gets 3 tiles) would put 7 science farms in the same are as a size-20 metro, right?

In the time it takes you to make the settlers, position them and then build up all those science farm exploits, another player could easily build up the captured cities into fully mature, outfitted metros. It generally takes me less than 25-50 turns to get a captured city fully functional again, depending on the amount of rushing I do. Usually the captures are not ideally situated, but at that late stage in the game where additional cities are 90% corrupt, it's a waste to raze and rebuild.

The underlined part leads me to believe that I may hit 90% corrupt long before you do. I haven't opened a game in a while, but I usually hit 90% corrupt before I get rails, and I'm almost always at tech parity, if not the leader. That means that, most of the time, nobody is building metros when I hit the 90% cap. By the time I can build metros, my science farms are up and running.

. . . . Strawman doesn't technically mean you tried to mislead anyone. It just means you misrepresented the argument.... that your argument attacked a weaker version of it than what the other person meant... that you attacked "straws" instead of "flesh".

I'm familiar with the term. Strawman arguments are typically used to mislead, to make others believe that your argument is stronger than it really is. While my comparison was certainly not the best, neither was it intended to be dishonest.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I think there are a lot of apples and oranges being compared here. In my civ3 experience, an unmodifed game, the only way any metro is worth anything is if it is close to the core. 15-30 tiles, depending on map size, skill level, government, and size of empire, and several other factors. If you have a small empire, 15 wide spaced metros and that's it, sure those are nice and productive, builders dream, yada yada. You might launch in 1600-1800 with some good trading and skillful management. Satisfactory for this builder who isn't concerned with score. Your inner metros might have 70-100 spt and 30-80 bpt and your outer ones having half of that. We'll call this an apple. It is a fruit, has a peel, and it's sweet. Large war-monger empire, has 150 settlements, maybe 10- 15 cities, tightly packed with CxxC core and CxC specialist farms. Core cities have 50-80 spt and 20-60 bpt. Specialist farms(exploitative only by some opinions) with 100 towns with 3 scientists each on average. That's 900 bpt, resulting in 4 turn tech from mid Medieval onward. Skillful trading and management results in launch from 1400-1700AD. Higher score, because this person cares about that stuff. Satisfactory to this player. We'll call this an orange. It is a fruit, has a peel, and it's sweet. Now which is better, an apple or an orange? It doesn't actually matter. Orange lovers prefer oranges, apple lovers prefer apples. No orange lover is going to convince an apple lover that oranges are better. And vice-versa. They are still fruits, still have a peel, and are still sweet, but tastes vary. My point is this: Hurtful things are being said, mostly to convince everyone about their "rightness", when there is no provable right answer
Or there is no proof strong enough to convince the other side of the argument. It is just a game, and there is no sense in hurtful words over a game.

 

[Pyrrhos]

In my civ3 experience, an unmodifed game, the only way any metro is worth anything is if it is close to the core.

This science metro is not too bad, is it? As you an see from the name, it is located some way from the capital. Yet it is quite a good production centre too. Just out of curiosity - how many beakers (and gold + shields) would be produced if I had gone for those pop 5-6 science farms instead?

 

[Aabraxan]

Nothing in the world wrong with that one, Pyrrhos. Any idea what the base (pre-improvement) corruption was? I ask because it looks to be about . . . a guess here: ~15% corrupt? Assuming that you've got PS and CH, base corruption should be ~35%. I wouldn't put science farms in that area, either.

 

[Chamnix]

@Chamnix

As I said before you produced good evidence that having more smaller cities (smallpox or C2C) along with not necessarily relying on the GL can produce a greater science output. However... once I thought about it I realized you had wars with the Iroquois and the Americans. Will "building small" work better than "building metros" for games where you fight no wars, only fight a defensive war since you got attacked, or only fight a GA war to trigger your golden age? I don't know myself.

I don't know either, but I suspect building small would still be better. Building small would definitely still get you a faster start and should still get you to the Industrial Age faster. Given the exponential nature of growth, I think building small would be able to maintain its lead.

The problem you might have is what Pyrrhos has pointed out a number of times - building small will often get you less territory in the initial land grab phase, and you may be missing a luxury or strategic resource that a loose build would have claimed for you. I don't particularly worry about it because most games I'm going to own my neighbor's land anyway, but if you are playing a variant (or just a style) that doesn't let you start wars, then I really don't know.

 

[Spoonwood]

"You might launch in 1600-1800 with some good trading and skillful management."

That's quite late for me. Granted I don't launch as early as Chamnix did in his Portugal game... but 1600-1800 comes out as wayy late.

[Your inner metros might have 70-100 spt and 30-80 bpt and your outer ones having half of that.]

I don't know about the bpt exactly... but unless I have a lot of mountains 70-100 spt comes as quite high. I irrigate everything to maximize population asap and specialists after I've railroaded up generally.

[My point is this: Hurtful things are being said, mostly to convince everyone about their "rightness", when there is no provable right answer
Or there is no proof strong enough to convince the other side of the argument. It is just a game, and there is no sense in hurtful words over a game.]

Well put. I think what comes as interesting here comes as that even though the "warmongerer" might have a faster finish space launch *on average* than a "builder"... or at least *can* have a faster finish space launch than a similarly skilled builder on average.. the warmonger seems to have longer games in real time than the builder who mostly moves his workers, changes his build orders, fortifies or paranoically upgrades his/her units, selects tech to research, makes some trades, and clicks next turn... or just clicks next turn... will generally spend less time playing than the warmonger who does most of that and sends units to the front, has to change more build orders, bombards with artillery, attacks enemy towns, moves ships, builds armies, negoitiates alliances/mutual protection pacts, etc. In this way, the "builder" plays more games than the "warmonger", and one might even claim that a "builder" learns more about the game in terms of scope (more maps played implies more different conditions) since he/she plays more games, while the "warmonger" learns more about the game in terms of depth. Although... then again since the "builder" knows more about different victory conditions and probably also prebuilding wonders... one might argue the "builder" learns more about the game in terms of depth *in that way*. This, of course, doesn't imply "warmongers" as deeper thinkers and "builders" as superficial thinkers... I meant in terms of *learning* the game.

 

[Spoonwood]

That science metro seems off-the-hook. How in the world do you have that many resources? Did you mod the game? I'll guess that as a huge map... but still. Also, I think you have to acknowledge that as an untypical metro... 10 flood plains???

 

[Pyrrhos]

That many resources? Well, at this stage I owned my own continent + a bit and it is a huge map. It is a mod - as should be evident from the government. What affects the corruption here is that I've modded temples and barracks to lower corruption. The flood plain actually was that way on the generated map. It used to be celt territory but I autorazed their little pop 1 towns.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Also, skill level, map-size and government are factors. In a Communism, I can get a city like that on any part of the map where conditions are favorable. On a huge map, corruption is lower due to a higher OCN. Corruption is also lower by skill level. Those factors might allow super metros like the picture. But rarely does one get a place like that on any map. Out of curiosity, what was your VC in that game? Seems like some serious warring is necessary to get to that city name.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I think there are a lot of apples and oranges being compared here. In my civ3 experience, an unmodifed game, the only way any metro is worth anything is if it is close to the core.

Your picture proves nothing to me, since you admit you have modified the game it came from. At least you were honest. As for Meisen, I guess it's funny to try to figure out which insults he will trot out next to downgrade his opponents and puff himself up.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . It is a mod - as should be evident from the government. . . . .

I wondered about the government. I thought that maybe it was in one of the Conquests.

Another strawman argument. Only this time using misrepresentation of what I said to create the strawman instead of inventing a bogus comparison between apples and oranges. This is what I wrote:

How is that a strawman? I saw what you wrote. Somewhere in this thread, you mentioned a size 12-20 metro. I had mentioned comparing 5-6 science farms to the metro and you wrote:

Wrong. More like 2-4, depending upon how the built up cities are spaced.

Looked to me like you think I can only get 2-4 specialist farms in the same space as a size 12-20 metro. I think I can get more in there. I understand that the cities won't all be the same size, nor take up the same tiles. They won't all be 21 tiles. Depending on food and terrain, not all of my specialist farms will take up 3 tiles, either. But I can get 2-4 science farms in a 12 tile area. If you want to debate metros vs. specialist farms, you tell me how many tiles are at issue.

Are you really certain that you understand what a strawman is?

Unfortunately, the poster has a past history of using strawmen and misrepresenting others' arguments to benefit his pov. The strawman he used was deliberate and as you can see right above, he continues to do so.

No, but I do have a history of being accused by you of using strawmen.

The sad thing with people like this is they make intelligent, honest discussions impossible. One is forced to waste their time debunking their distracting strawmen instead of arguing the points being made. I see this behavior on current affairs and political forums all the time, but for someone to do this on a game forum is pathetic.

No, meisen, the sad thing is that I keep trying to have an honest discussion about this with you. You have repeatedly accused me of strawmen, but you have yet to offer up anything for comparison.

 

[Spoonwood]

If you draw a 5x5 grid (that's 4 vertical lines and 4 horizontal lines) and put Xs at the corners you have the amount of territory claimed by an ideal C4C metro (not a C3C metro). You can fit 7 Cs in this grid without any of them touching. This doesn't mean 7 cities per metro though (given all grasslands), since the metro space in any other direction can only have 6 Cs. So, *given all grasslands*, you have something like 6x4+7=31 specialist farms per 5 super-metros. 31 specialist farms will give you 31x9=369 beakers (again... given all grasslands and you can get them all to size 6 with 3 specialists)... while 5 super-metros... the center has an extra commerce square, right?... will give you (20x2+3)x5=40x5+3x5=200+15=215 base commerce. So, if you have 100% research you'll get 215 beakers from those metros. So, 215+214=429 beakers with a library and a university... given no corruption. Corruption might lower science output quite a bit. But... you simply won't have that much grassland... you'll inevitably have some hills and mountains.

Consequently, I would guess it comes out as something like 3 or 4 specialist farms packed tight as possible per metro. 4 specialist farms will give you about 36 beakers. 5 specialist farms give you 45 beakers. 6 specialist farms 54 beakers. 1 size 18 metro will give you 3+2x17=57 base commerce before corruption... probably around 30-40 after on average. Then 30-40 more for the library and university. So, 60-80 beakers for 100% science. Adding on research labs gives you another 30-40 beakers. If you add on rivers and coastal areas (especially with commercial docks), the metro gets even more beakers/commerce since extra commerce goes towards the base rate. In this way a metro on a river, I would think, almost always works out as more productive in the long term than specialist farms (given that it doesn't have too much corruption). These sorts of comparison doesn't work as fair since you have to consider them both over time. The metro strategy also has the advantage that one can get money out of one's metros merely by changing the science slider, instead of mass-changing specialists. Then again, maybe you can lower your research rate *in general* and get more cash overall for specialist farms.

 

[Othniel]

^^ good analysis, Doug. I think your numbers work out pretty good in theory, although I'm unsure what a metro city center produces commerce-wise.

The big flaw, though, and you allude to this, is that you are assuming that specialist farm people actually put farms in non-corrupt areas. As a farmer, I personally do not and I don't think anyone else does either. My farms don't start until I get in the 80% corruption range. When that happens, a single pop 5 science farm can produce just about as much uncorrupted bpt as a size 20+ metro with full city improvements. I know you can use Communism, courthouses, etc to extend out your "mildly corrupt" areas, but the fact remains that specialist farms are vast superior to metros in fully corrupt areas. Metros ARE superior to farms in low-corruption areas but no one is arguing to the contrary, I think.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Again this is all theory math. You gotta look at the game itself.

PRE-CONDITIONS
Any difficulty, but non-spaceship victory

TECHNICAL-SUMMARY
For all non-spaceship games, you can usually see if you win / lose before the Industrial period. You just bee-line cavalry, get map control, and win.

So the best way to get cavalry is:
- science farms everywhere in non-ideal sites
- plan other cities for size 12 or less
- sanitation does not "win you the game" because the game is "won" by the Industrial period

CXXC applies more to the above than CXX-XXC
- Higher difficulties -> the sooner the advantage, the more likely you are to survive
- Mid difficulties -> you can probably still use "point-stick" to win
- Lower difficulties -> why wait for Industrial period to win??

CONCLUSION
You cannot compare "late-game" decisions to "early-game" decisions. You have to examine the "time-till-payback".

Many forumers play games:
- Metros are never reached till "cleanup" time in game ie when game is "won"
- Only "core" cities hit size 12

So CXXC has more "payback" during the typical "non-spaceship game" than CXX-XXC

 

[TheOverseer714]

In a recent game, I realized that my early farms were actually able to be productive, so I started building courthouses and other infrastructure in them. I think the OCN is very different according to map size and level, and I was playing at a lower than usual level on a larger than usual map. I was not 90% corrupt until nearly 40 tiles from my capital. Only sloppy farmers build farms in the suburbs

 

[Chamnix]

Out of curiosity, do those who play against human opponents use the farm exploits in those games?

Yes .

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Since I haven't posted this in a while, I think I will post it again:

90% of games are "won" before sanitation or Shakespears come into play.
The above CXXC grid uses this fact. Yes there are exceptions, but the general idea stands:
Plan cities size 12 or less.

Look at the grid above. Even if CXXC doesn't fit due to terrain, just CXXXC.
4-tile spacing is never needed except as a strategic city ie to snag a certain tile(s).

Your cities don't ever grow large enough to need 4-tile spacing. It's gameover by then.
And of course, apply this at all difficulties for non-spaceship games.

Edit: I applied an edit

 

[ZzarkLinux]

And here's the best CXXXXC vs. CXXC diagram I could come up with.
Tiles that are missed by CXXXXC are marked with X
Tiles missed by CXXC are just plain white

And remember, total corruption doesn't affect the science farms above, whereas the CXXXXC cities are crippled by corruption on a "commerce per tile" basis.

Also, I remind people that if you aren't winning your (non-spaceship non-variant non-sid) games by the end of the middle ages, you're doing something wrong.

So for ~90% of games, Size 13 cities never come into play until after gameover. To plan your cities for size 12, see the picture above this one.

EDIT: I applied an edit

 

[Spoonwood]

Sure Othniel... but then someone almost want to argue for metros in the core and specialist farms elsewhere. On an archipelago map on some levels that can work. But, on a continents or a pangea map you'll have trouble since you'll need to take territory by force and doing that with pre-metros works out harder than with a tight spacing.