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

[NickyH]

The problem with that statement right there is that, the CxxC strategies that players here are talking about rarely get to the point that hospitals are even available. Maybe with diety or sid -- I have no clue about those.

But I'm not talking about time in the game, I'm talking about real time. When you win the game, it's gonna tell you how many hours and minutes you've spent. It doesn't matter if you win the game during early middle ages or by the end of the modern era. If every turn takes 30 minutes or more, as it tends to do when you wage wars and manage lots of cities, the game is gonna take time even if you win by an early date. My latest game was won in only 7 hours 30 minutes, and I was five or six techs into the modern era. (Try to beat that time with tight city placement and domination victory!) This was a 20K game on chieftain level, so you can't really compare it to "standard" games, but that's besides the point. The point is that the availability of hospitals, or historic progress in the game, says absolutely nothing about how long a game takes to play.

Still, I'm not sure how much difference it makes to choose different city placements, but I believe that fewer, widely spaced, cities means less micromanagement, meaning that the game doesn't take as much time. One thing I'm sure of though, is that games with lots of wars take long time, compared to relatively peaceful games.

 

[Virtual Alex]

Each city you build works 2 tiles right away; the city itself and one citizen. So each settler used, automatically works 2 tiles in your territory. So in essence you spend 2 pop points to make a settler, to increase your territory and work 2 more tiles. So you don't "lose" any population making settlers. However once you have another city built, you double the growth of your empire. Two cities growing instead of one. A two city empire generate more food in total (and therefor more growth) than a one city empire.

In each game of civIII I have ever played, I always run into the limit of space. Be in coastline, enemy civs, or tundra. In my limited space, I would rather have 30 cities than 15, because I will work more total tiles. Of course late game, I will work all the tiles in my territory with OCP, or ICS cities. However as someone said before me. The early turns are much more important than the later turns. Working double the tiles in the BCs is much more important than having level 29 cities in 1990. That is probably the most important reason to use tight spacing.

 

[Nergal]

But I find actual playing time varies with level anyway. And the style of game. My shortest win was 3 and half hours, Maya stuck on an island with 8 cities, ended up with a Diplo win. Whereas Conquest or Domination can take about 8-12 hours average on Regent and I think my longest has been 32 hours or so on Emperor.

 

[brennan]

What exactly do you call a builder? If you mean a peacemonger who wins by diplo or space, few structures are to be built: markets and libs in your core, maybe a few banks/universities are more than enough.

I've always considered myself to be a 'builder'. My games have become a lot more competitive lately as I concentrate on my HoF entries and I have noticed that the main difference is not so much the ends as the means.

A 'builder' plays the game more as a simulation of history; when we say 'builder' what we really mean is someone who builds whatever improvements are available, when they are available, whereas a 'warmonger' - who is much more focussed on winning, usually as early as possible - will build only what they have to.

The focus therefore is not so much on whether or not you build x improvement as when you build them. A builder will build improvements when they do not really need to. You can look on this as sub-optimal play, or you can look on this as a stylistic preference.

Well as I said, if you play emperor, you can do as you wish. If you play even DG, you could find those towns in that second ring come under lots of pressure from either attacks or culture.

Last time I tried Emperor it was no challenge at all.

I haven't mastered Deity quite yet, but i'm pretty sure i'm going to win my current game and to be honest I don't think the deciding factor is in whether or not my core is CXXC or CXXXXC but rather a matter of judgement as to how much military is needed to absorb the first attack and then go on the offensive and precisely when to change your build priorities to meet that end.

Forget corruption it is not a factor. I do not understand why people keep bringing it up? You have one corruption free city and a couple low corruption cities. The rest do the best they can.

Corruption is certainly not going to be a factor if you just ignore it, no. I don't ignore it, so it is a factor to me.

More cities is not a factor, you are going to take as many cities as you need, eventually. Getting the most from your workers is more important and having them drag butt over lots of dead tiles does you no good.

When you've got into the habit
of churning out up to 2 workers per city I don't think this is really an issue.

 

[Aabraxan]

This is inefficient use of my gaming time!

This is definitely a valid argument. If you think it's boring to micro manage an infinite number of science farms, it's more rewarding to plan for metros.

There's nothing in the world wrong with either of the above-quoted statements. If a player, any player, chooses to lay their empire out in C-X-X-X-X-C because that's the way they want to play, so be it. It's a game. You shouldn't play it in a manner that's more work than fun.

Its a weird argument this. CXXC is an ideal, it rarely works out like that in practice. Grabbing checkpoints and resources or luxuries means cities dont always end up in a perfect CXXC config. So on average most towns end up with at least 12 workable tiles. Odd ones will end with fewer too. And whats the point of CXXXXC in tundra where a town will only grow to size 2.

You're absolutely right. For all my going on and on about the virtues of CxxC, the truth of the matter is that I don't think I've ever come up with a perfect CxxC grid. In fact, lately, I've been leaving 3 tiles on each side of my capitol and then going CxxC. I do like having a nice, large capitol. I think I even built a hospital there once!

. . . . If I play at Emperor and above I have to play as a rules lawyer rather than a role player. Which means stripped down efficient troop producing factories rather than nice places to live. I dont like playing like that so I dont play much at Emperor and above.

Me, too. I just like playing the role of a tyrannical warmonger, squeezing my peasantry for every penny!

. . . . My latest game was won in only 7 hours 30 minutes, and I was five or six techs into the modern era. (Try to beat that time with tight city placement and domination victory!) . . . . I believe that fewer, widely spaced, cities means less micromanagement, meaning that the game doesn't take as much time. One thing I'm sure of though, is that games with lots of wars take long time, compared to relatively peaceful games.

But I find actual playing time varies with level anyway. And the style of game. My shortest win was 3 and half hours, Maya stuck on an island with 8 cities, ended up with a Diplo win. Whereas Conquest or Domination can take about 8-12 hours average on Regent and I think my longest has been 32 hours or so on Emperor.

Well, I'm unlikely to beat any of those times. I'd say my average games (Monarch & Emp, continents, somewhat warmongerish) probably average ~50 hours. But I guess that's how I like them. Sometimes the MM begins to get tedious, oh, probably in the late Industrial, but the game's usually decided by then. And when my continent is cleared and filled with my own glorious empire, I start MMing cities for max shields and zero growth. Once a city hits that, though, there's usually not much MM to do.

Each city you build works 2 tiles right away; the city itself and one citizen. So each settler used, automatically works 2 tiles in your territory.

This is true as a general proposition, but I there's also a terrain element here. When I have a tundra full of farms, lots of them will be pop-1, just so I don't have to worry about growth. If the farm's at pop-1 and producing 3 food, they go into a growth & starvation cycle. That's fine if I can peel off workers, but if I have tons of slaves and don't need more workers, I find it rather annoying.

 

[The Professor]

I think perhaps the strongest argument against CXXXXC is that the AI uses it a lot, and look how much good it does them.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Each city you build works 2 tiles right away; the city itself and one citizen

I'd say the food / shields / commerce generated is 80% of city value, the other 20% being strategic value.

You always settle the MOST PRODUCTIVE city sites:
productive city = summation of produced + produced + produced + strategic value...

 

[MAS]

Actually, the AI uses CxxxC most of the time.


I'll toss Pyrrhos a bone an say this:
There is a clear strategic disadvantage to CxxC placement.

If you've got rails and the AI has 3 movement units (say: cavalry) then, if, by some fluke, the AI manage to get a hold on one of your border cities, they won't stop taking more cities until they run out of cavalry.

From that perspective, CxxxxC in combination with a strong culture is much saver.

(But from a power gamer perspective, this safety isn't worth the cost of not having the economic benefits of CxxC)

EDIT: oops, I forgot, Pyrrhos wants us the ignore the military advantages, in that case, there is no disadvantage with CxxC!

 

[Pyrrhos]

Well, you just beat me to it MAS! A loose spacement is indeed a defence in itself as even modern armor or cavs cannot get from one town to the next in one turn! With CXXC they can. But you're right, we should leave the military aspects out.

I think perhaps the strongest argument against CXXXXC is that the AI uses it a lot, and look how much good it does them.

I think that they often use even looser placement as there usually is plenty of unused tiles between four enemy cities, three tiles or more from the closest enemy town, where you can plonk a town down after capture and still retain your OCP.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Normally I stop posting in Pyrrhos' threads once he doesn't respond to my points in a previous post, but since my other post was on the bottom of page 1, he may just have missed it. The upshot:

The "obvious" military advantages are a smokescreen. There is no significant military advantage in moving a unit from city to city in the core. Cities in the core do not need defense. The supposed “ability to get troops from the core and into battle the turn they were built” is possible with any city placement. If you have a unit placed every 3 tiles along your roads, you can do the same thing whether there are cities every 3 tiles or not.

I am sorry I missed it, Chamnix! Not intentional, I assure you!

Yes, you're right, my argument assumes that you have a unit of the same type in each town on the way to the front. If you're under heavy enemy attack, there is a distinct advantage in being able to bring up more (defensive) units without leaving towns just behind the front undefended. Or horsemen for that matter to kill off enemy troops bled by one's defenders.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Gentlemen!

Thank you for your contributions! I have now a much better idea what to look for and how to test it. I shall of course submit a report once done.

Y'see, even the most hideous of trolls has a purpose with what it does. Mine here is that so many say CXXC is the best city placement, indeed the only viable one at higher levels and that OCP is for low-level, inexperienced players without saying why in a way that intermediate and low-level player can understand! The War Academy articles, though brilliant and informative, share the same failing. Being told is not the same as understanding and that is my aim - that us less lofty individuals should understand and be able to progress in skill more quickly.

 

[Chamnix]

If you're under heavy enemy attack, there is a distinct advantage in being able to bring up more (defensive) units without leaving towns just behind the front undefended.

I still don't see it. I certainly wouldn't leave a unit in a town just behind the front if I can move him to the front. So what's the difference between CxxC and CxxxxC? In CxxC, the troops perforce stop in towns on the way to the front. In CxxxxC, your troops stop outside of towns, but your towns "just behind" the front are comfortably out of the enemy's range anyway due to the wide spacing. Maybe you have an extra unit or two vulnerable if the front line falls, but certainly not a huge military advantage.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Ok, I see what you mean. The easiest way would be if you played a game with CXXC, but let me try this and see if what I mean becomes any clearer:

An enemy stack of ten knights has just moved from their town € over the border and next to your town Y, which is defended by three pikes. Bad odds, you're likely to lose town Y next turn, yes?

Now, your town Y is CXXC away from your towns M, N and O, each defended by one pike. You move those to town Y which now is defended by three fortified pikes and three unfortified ones. Much better odds. Now, if you had had a wider spacing, these pikes would be short of town Y, which would most likely fall.

Even thought town Y survived the first onslaught, more enemy knights keep pouring over the border. Fortunately, your towns M, N & O are CXXC with six more of your towns and as you moved the pikes defending those towns forward, they can now move to town Y. Furthermore, you switched production in several towns so you could replace those pikes that now have moved to town Y.

By keeping troops in towns behind the border instead of making a hard shell, you can concentrate your forces to the place/places the enemy chooses to attack - thanks to the CXXC spacing. In the same manner, you can concentrate forces in order to attack the enemy quicker and more efficiently. This is what I mean by a huge military advantage.

I hope this has made what I mean clearer, Chamnix?

 

[Chamnix]

Thank you, I do understand, but I guess I misunderstood the topic. I thought we were more concerned with core towns. There is certainly a military advantage to having your border towns closer together, but you can do that regardless of what you do with your core.

 

[NickyH]

Gentlemen!

Thank you for your contributions! I have now a much better idea what to look for and how to test it. I shall of course submit a report once done.

Y'see, even the most hideous of trolls has a purpose with what it does. Mine here is that so many say CXXC is the best city placement, indeed the only viable one at higher levels and that OCP is for low-level, inexperienced players without saying why in a way that intermediate and low-level player can understand! The War Academy articles, though brilliant and informative, share the same failing. Being told is not the same as understanding and that is my aim - that us less lofty individuals should understand and be able to progress in skill more quickly.

One important thing in reaction to this, is that most people (or so I would think) easily realize the benefits of loose city placement when they learn the game on easy levels. Then they have already understood that wide spacing has benefits on easy levels. When they move up to emperor or above, it's much harder to discover by own experience, that a tighter placement is more efficient, and they keep playing in the same manner as on easier levels.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

benefits of loose city placement [...] on easy levels

I think you raise a good question about "efficiency" on lower levels.

On low levels, you can take huge risks that will easily "pay-off" or "pay for itself".
Yes, you aren't forced to CXXC early game at lower levels.
So you can easily make choices that "benefit you in the long run".

But at higher levels, your empire has much more "downward pressure":you'll never see the benefits of wide spacing.
At high levels, you'll be wiped out / overpowered / out-teched before CXXXC truely benefits you.

 

[TheOverseer714]

If you've got rails and the AI has 3 movement units (say: cavalry) then, if, by some fluke, the AI manage to get a hold on one of your border cities, they won't stop taking more cities until they run out of cavalry.
[/B]

Had that happen once, only with tanks. It was very It helped my pride a bit that I got 75% of the captured cities back the next turn. Shell defense is fine unless the shell is cracked.

 

[ecuwins]

...which is defended by three pikes. Bad odds, you're likely to lose town Y next turn, yes?

Now, your town Y is CXXC away from your towns M, N and O, each defended by one pike. You move those to town Y which now is defended by three fortified pikes and three unfortified ones. Much better odds. Now, if you had had a wider spacing, these pikes would be short of town Y, which would most likely fall.

Pikes? Do we need to start a new thread about this?

 

[Pyrrhos]

One important thing in reaction to this, is that most people (or so I would think) easily realize the benefits of loose city placement when they learn the game on easy levels. Then they have already understood that wide spacing has benefits on easy levels. When they move up to emperor or above, it's much harder to discover by own experience, that a tighter placement is more efficient, and they keep playing in the same manner as on easier levels.

Very true.

Moving up from Chieftain to Warlord, you easily win using the same methods you learnt at first - little or no thought about city placement strategy is neccessary, build every improvement everywhere, go after every wonder, even research order is unimportant as you out-research the AI anyway.

The next move, from Warlord to Regent is a bit of a wake-up call as the AI seems to keep up with you and regularly beats you to many wonders and techs. But hone the skills you picked up previously, throw in the use of prebuilds and you still win using the same style and techniques that you learnt first.

Monarch and Emperor are a rude awakening. Unless you have a good starting position, the AI can actually - - beat you, even if you know you've played really well! Suddenly, everything you thought you knew about civ is no longer true! In order to succeed, you have to change your playing style more or less completely. It is not a matter of changing one thing, such as learning the correct initial research path for Republic. Every facet of your game needs a make-over and as NickyH says "it's much harder to discover by own experience" or as ZzarkLinux puts it "On low levels, you can easily make choices that "benefit you in the long run". But at higher levels, you'll be wiped out / overpowered / out-teched before CXXXC truely benefits you."

 

[Pyrrhos]

Pikes? Do we need to start a new thread about this?

By all means do!

I could just as easily have said warriors-upgraded-to-swordsmen, legionaries or spearmen.