I am not ignoring it, I am saying that the arguments used in favour of C-X-X-C quoted above are based on economic factors rather than military, therefore we should look at those claims from an economic, not military point of view.
What you have stated is:
. . . .
Therefore, if we disregard the military aspects, C-X-X-X-X-C is preferable, at least on normal to large maps, because: . . . .
Apart from the obvious military advantages of the tighter formation . . . .
. . . . I do believe I began the topic by saying "Apart from the obvious military advantages of the tighter formation". . . . .
Yes it is (a lot of disregarding). But then the arguments I refer to have little or nothing to do with military aspects!.
You say that you're not ignoring them, but you keep reiterating that your conclusions are drawn, based on factors
other than the military advantages. If you like wider spacing, more power to you. But even if we assume that a case can be made for C-X-X-X-X-C spacing
if we disregard military advantages of C-X-X-C, why do so? How much difference does that really make in gameplay? And I would argue that in Civ, your military and your economy are too closely intertwined to safely disregard one aspect or the other. It's a bit like saying, "If you disregard the additional defensive points, Hoplites are no better than spearmen." In a theoretical vacuum, the statement might be true, but why would you disregard the extra defensive points?
You see, one cannot say "because C-X-X-C is better militarily it is automatically better in every other respect as well". That is about as smart as saying "because I am stronger than you, I am more good-looking than you and more intelligent"
Not quite. In real life, my strength, my intelligence and my good looks may be more or less independent of one another. In your example, I cannot increase my intelligence by increasing my strength. In Civ, I can directly increase my economic strength by increasing my military strength.
Depends on which tiles you improve! Grassland and plains, wooded or not, plus hills should be improved. But to spend nine worker turns to road a mountain without iron or gems, then eighteen to mine it is poor economy during the early game. To spend sixteen (or is it 24?) worker turns to clear a jungle or a dozen to clear a swamp before you even begin to road and mine/irrigate is poor economy during the early game. To irrigate and road a desert for one food and one shield is not very clever either. . . . . With C-X-X-C, the chances are that quite a few of your towns leave you with no choice but to improve such tiles.
We both know that results will vary according to the map. With that said, I'd agree that the above statements, as long as you're in despotism, would constitute poor economy of worker moves. So why in the world would I do them? Those things are just as big a waste of worker moves at CxxxxC as they are at CxxC. Once you're out of despotism, how is mining a mountain a waste? It's labor-intensive, but not necessarily a waste. Irrigating grassland in despotism -- that's a waste.
Part of your argument seems to be that you only want to improve the easily improved tiles. I detest marsh as much as the next player, but having my cities spaced further apart won't keep me from having to clear it. It may only delay it. Besides, if a citizen is going to use it, I need it cleared regardless of my city spacing. If no citizen is going to use it, it doesn't matter if it's cleared.
With OCP, the chances are that you have enough grassland, plains and hills within the 20 workable tiles to ignore those worker-intensive tiles and set up a viable town.
Only if you're willing to put up with lots of unworked tiles for a long time. I contend that unworked tiles are more wasteful than worked ones. Until you've got the citizens to work the tiles, they're no good to you.
Look again at the example from the core of my most recent game:
As for the six cities closest to the capital in the previously reffered to game, true, there was no corruption with C-X-X-C. However, they only produced between 13 and 16 shields (roaded, mined, rep). With C-X-X-X-X-C, they would have produced 17 to 24 shields with a loss of one to two from corruption (no CH or PS) making it C-X-X-C 13 to 16, C-X-X-X-X-C 15 to 22.
Now, which of these two cores is most productive and utilises the advantage of proximity to the capital best?
Again? I don't recall seeing this in any of your other posts. With that said, I can't tell how many cities you're talking about, nor how many tiles the are in question takes up. Can you post a screenshot? I need more information before I can tell which one is most productive or utilizes the advantage of proximity to the capitol the best. 20 cities at 16 shields each (total of 320 spt) is still more productive than 15 at 22 spt (330 total spt). In this case, you sound like you're focusing on the productivity of each individual city, rather than the productivity of the core as a whole.
On a somewhat tangential note: No matter how many shields you produce, or how much gold you've got, each individual city can only produce one item per turn, whether it's a city improvement or a military unit. If you are cash-rushing items, twice as many cities means that you can rush them twice as fast (given enough cash, obviously).
And you seem to ignore that in order to do so, one would have to produce about twice the number of settlers and improve all tiles, not only just the "easy" ones such as grassland, plains and hills that require few worker turns to improve, but also mountains, jungles and swamps that take huge amounts of worker turns to improve.
Twice the settlers, yes. But my example was about specialist farms. I don't improve mountains or hills in the farmlands unless they contain a resource or lux, and then only a road. I do, however, clear the jungles and swamps. Granted, I didn't think much about the additional settlers, but by the time I'm setting up specialist farms, coming up with additional settlers isn't a big deal.
Again you ignore the fact that your "
Twenty (20) size 1 specialist farms, each housing one (1) scientist, C3C:" require twenty settlers @ 20 food & 30 shields each = 400 food & 600 shields and take, roughly, 100 turns for a settler factory to produce. Furthermore, those 20settlers could have been used to build 20 potential size 30 specialist farms, each giving 10 gpt and 15 bpt or a total of 200 gpt 300 bpt to your grand total of 20 gpt and 60 bpt.
easy to compare apples and pears, eh?
I don't think I'm comparing apples and pears at all. You are partially correct in that I didn't think much about the additional settlers, as noted above. However, your example above isn't quite right.
First of all, what version are you playing? In C3C, each size-30 specialist farm, assuming 20 specialists, ought to produce 1 gpt, not 10, and 60 bpt, not 15. Is that just a typo?
Second, the 20 settlers could only have formed 20 potential size 30 specialist farms assuming (1) that they had enough available land tiles to support them; (2) that each one has built, at a minimum, an aqueduct and a hospital; and (3) the time for each one to grow. With 20 specialists, that leaves 10 citizens to work the land. How many size-12 or smaller science farms do you think I can fit in the area required for 20 size 30 specialist farms?
Growth time. Each of my hypothetical 20 size-1 will each produce its maximum (for better or worse) on the same turn its founded. Each of the hypothetical size 30s will require ~100 turns after founding to reach full capacity, even assuming: (1) a +5 food surplus at all times (just to make the math easy); (2) no slowed growth while the aque and hospital are being built; and (3) that you never peel off a worker or settler. Obviously, those farms built on fresh water won't require aques, but they'll all require hospitals, which will cost upkeep.
Again, apples and pears. The interesting part is what the same amount of settlers can grab for you!
* The first six settlers C-X-X-C will grab 90 workable tiles for you (provided you expand the cultural borders) or 90 / 7 = 12.8 tiles per town. The same first six settlers OCP will net you 136 workable tiles (again, provided you expand the cultural borders) or 136 / 7 = 19.4 tiles per town.
I don't care about workable tiles. I care about worked tiles. You need 46 additional citizens for those additional workable tiles before they do you any good beyond denying them to the AI. In order to achieve this, each and every one of your initial six settlers must found a city that builds an aqueduct or be on fresh water, because each and every one of those initial six cities will require an additional 46 / 6 = 7.67 citizens before those tiles can be worked.
* The first eighteen settlers C-X-X-C will grab 204 workable tiles for you (provided you expand the cultural borders) or 204 / 19 = 10.7 tiles per town. The same first eighteen settlers OCP will net you 366 workable tiles (again, provided you expand the cultural borders) or 366 / 19 = 19.3 tiles per town.
No city can work 19.3 tiles until hospitals. Until then, that's a lot of wasted tiles.
The odds are that the much larger of number of workable tiles per town of OCP will indeed be workable and that at least some of the much smaller number of tiles available per town with C-X-X-C will require a lot of work to become profitable.
Unless it's polluted, every tile produces something. Some will require more work. Why let them lie there producing absolutely nothing until late game?
Or place one MP in every town. As MPs only work under despo and not rep/demo, that is not an issue, especially as you're allowed a certain number of units per town free of upkeep cost under despo but every unit costs under rep/demo.
Good debate!
Granted, not an issue under republic or demo. But, again, what version are you playing? Not every unit costs upkeep under republic in C3C.
