Cities: Specialize or Generalize?

[Mr_PeaCH]

I'm curious how others regard this and what they see as benefits and drawbacks.

Myself, I think I mostly generalize my cities. Meaning, I'll tend to build the same improvements in the same order more or less as they are unlocked. I'm talking about both 'buildings' built by workers on the map and the 'Civics: Projects' like Treasury, Forum, Archive, etc. Taken further I guess I should include the 'Specialists' as well.

I'm going to make an effort to play a game in which I attempt to specialize cities; make this one more devoted to Training related improvements, that one to Science, and so forth.

Obviously, this could never be black or white, one or the other; but which shades of gray do you like and why?

 

[PiR]

I like one that can produce settlers quickly and another that can produce military quickly. Otherwise I mostly generalize as well.
But pumping those units can be key to expansion.

 

[jguy100]

@PiR same! Early specialization, later generalization.

 

[Mr_PeaCH]

That's a great point; but strictly early game, correct? There is usually one city capable of pumping out settlers 3 or 4 turns quicker than the rest and I will use that one repeatedly.

 

[PiR]

That city can move to pumping workers afterwards, and militia for all (same family) cities later.
The one pumping military, if efficient, can sometimes make sure there is only an early game

 

[PiR]

For science I usually use my leader to increase my output rather than a specialized city.

 

[Urlance Woolsbane]

I prioritize training and growth in older cities, while I tend to focus more on culture in newer ones, since they have less time to spare; the only output I truly specialize cities in is civics, as it takes the most effort to cultivate.