Cities: Specialized vs. Well rounded

[Vatec]

Hmm. I've never played Terra, to be honest. Maybe I should. Not because of this, but just to play around with it.

It's my favorite map because, if you get a tech lead, you can have the New World all to yourself. Land two galleons of grenadiers and the barbarian cities fall almost a quickly as you can march to them. My idea of fun ;^)

In my games usually coastal cities will have no water resources. Probably about 50/50 whether it'll have one or not. Often, the resource will be out of reach, i.e., 3 spots away. You can sometimes get to it if you put two cities 2 spots away from each other, but that's no good. I usually play Pangaea or Continents, Monarch, Standard size.

Playing on Huge I think gives you more "choice" in city sites. Also, I think each person has a skill level where they can barely win. Playing on a level less than that, for that person, will allow you to spread out and have less cities, and still be competitive. I guess it would be like dropping down a level in order to allow yourself the luxury to spread out. Not that that's bad! It's just different than I usually do. Might be interesting to try, though.

Might be one of the other settings, like water level or climate. Not sure. I vary those from time to time.

What I have noticed is that there are some superb water-based cities. In my latest game I just rushed Madrid. It has something like 3 fish and 2 crabs. Who cares if all the land is forested tundra? Just poprush whatever you want from this monster.

That's actually one of the problems I have with playing on higher levels than Monarch. It requires me to Rush. If I Rush on Monarch, I find myself so far ahead by midgame that the game is effectively over. If I don't, the game is competitive and enjoyable through the middle ages or modern era. If I plan to Rush, I'll usually pop the game up a level.

I do not normally rush. I like building (another reason why I frequently have lots of well-rounded cities), but lately I've been playing a lot of Inca and Roman games, just to get a feel for what it takes to execute a successful rush.

I would agree with that, based on my experience. I started on the lowest levels, and slowly built up as I beat each level a couple of times. One of the things I learned helped my game was specializing the cities. There may be other ways to do well at the same level I am now (Monarch), but that's one of the reasons I participate in the threads here. Pretty much every game I play, I'm trying something new. Either with something like city specialization, or unit mixes or tactics.

The great thing about Civ4 is that there are generally several viable strategies. Not necessarily optimal (there is almost always an optimal strategy for any particular situation, though you may not necessarily have sufficient info before having to choose), but viable.

Don't you find the AI settles those sites you don't settle?

Sure, but since I consider them suboptimal sites, I have no problem with the AI putting in the effort to develop them. At some point they'll be mine, either through culture or conquest. A human player can often pull off planting a city in the middle of an AI civ and having it survive, but I don't think I've yet seen an AI that does what's need to succeed (rush cultural buildings, import enough defenders, etc.

In fact, I have often toyed with the idea of developing a purely coastal civilization, letting AIs settle the interior, and then crushing them. But I've never quite developed the strategy to such a pure level, mostly because you can't always count on finding Copper, Iron, and/or Horses near the water. And you need at least one of those to make it out of the Ancient Era in one piece. And you =must= have Iron to make it much further than that. So I =will= settle the closest Iron I find, no matter how badly the site sucks ;^)

My pleasure. I feel the same. It's been enjoyable, honestly.

Wodan

Likewise.

 

[Wodan]

What I have noticed is that there are some superb water-based cities. In my latest game I just rushed Madrid. It has something like 3 fish and 2 crabs. Who cares if all the land is forested tundra? Just poprush whatever you want from this monster.

Capitols don't count... player starting spots ALWAYS have good resources, because the map generation algorithm specifically seeds them there.

Wodan

 

[LaDeSiDia]

Just a (little) thought...

Buildings don't have an upkeep now, you pay for number of cities and distance from (nearest) capital... One of the main points of spezializing cities with Civ3 was to avoid paying the high building upkeep costs. That upkeep doesn't exist in CIV. Yes, i know i could spend my hammers with units or research (or culture/money) but i can't understand why... i would like to have a forge on my commerce city in order to get the university or the observatory built sooner when the tech arrives. I would like to spend a few turns at my prod city to get the marketplace or the university to get extra beakers from the commerce that city gets... I just lose the hammers to build it, but it will bring much more profit on long term...
So, my question is Why to specialize cities? I'm not paying upkeep for buildings... My own concept about specialization is related to the order i get the buildings and the kind of terrain improvements i build rather than avoiding to build some of them...

 

[Wodan]

A production city will have little to no commerce generation. Thus, building a Bank there is useless and a waste of hammers/time that could be spent, if nothing else, making military units.

Wodan

 

[LaDeSiDia]

A production city will have little to no commerce generation. Thus, building a Bank there is useless and a waste of hammers/time that could be spent, if nothing else, making military units.

Wodan

I usually play on small to standard maps, rarely on bigger ones, but i can't see how a city can get none or so few trade to make the bank unuseful. ¿No rivers near? ¿no sea? Ok, if that's the situation i probably wouldn't build a bank, sure. But i would build the market anyway for the health bonus...

Anyway, my intention on last post was to point that the specialization was almost a main on Civ3, but the main cause for that, IMHO, was the building upkeep, that has disappeared with Civ4... I think that a so small saving of hammers is not enough reason to force specialization. On the other side, the skill to switch strategies when the need comes is enough for me to play balanced cities (unless the terrain is really umbalanced, then i specialize...).

But i haven't played enough yet to come to true conclussions, all this are simply some reasonings...

 

[Wodan]

i can't see how a city can get none or so few trade to make the bank unuseful. ¿No rivers near? ¿no sea?

Right. No river, no ocean, no cottages = 0 trade. Thus, you can save Hammers by not building a Bank etc.

Ok, if that's the situation i probably wouldn't build a bank, sure. But i would build the market anyway for the health bonus...

You mean a Grocer. Market provides Happiness bonuses.

Both of these depend on what Resources you have available, as they only provide Health or Happiness for certain Resources.

Also, they depend on how many health or happiness you have otherwise. Could be you have tons of fish or whatever, and thus you don't need the health, etc.

Anyway, even if you had a few commerce, the Bank will only provide minimal benefit. Say you have a river through 3 tiles. You're only getting 3 commerce. A Bank is going to raise that to 4.5... big deal.

Anyway, my intention on last post was to point that the specialization was almost a main on Civ3, but the main cause for that, IMHO, was the building upkeep, that has disappeared with Civ4...

And a good point that is.

Keep in mind, though, that with Civ4 it is much more the case that your cities can't build everything, and of the things they can build, it can have a HUGE effect as to what order you build them in.

e.g., If you build a Market before a Forge. If this city is making 50 hammers and 5 commerce, compared to a city making 5 hammers and 50 commerce.

Wodan

 

[Innawerkz]

So, my question is Why to specialize cities? I'm not paying upkeep for buildings... My own concept about specialization is related to the order i get the buildings and the kind of terrain improvements i build rather than avoiding to build some of them...

My thoughts on this are that you stand to gain more through specialization. If you are researching at a good clip, presumably you have enough improvements to keep your Science/Commerce cities busy with Libraries, Markets, and the like.

In theory, they are too busy with this task to develop a meaningful contribution to national security. This is where the trade-off is within your Production/Troop cities. In general, they have less relevant buildings to establish which permits them to heavily focus on Wonders & defending/attacking.

That is not to say you should never build anything but related buildings. One of my favourite changes to the game is the ability to switch between projects. Slowly develop that forge or whatever until a technology arrives that will allow the creation of a more suitable building for that city... and then back to the original project. Eventually you may have all the improvements available built in most of your cities. The real question is: Did you build them when they were needed most? Were they the best choice and provide the most benefit for your Civ at that time?

 

[carn]

My thoughts on this are that you stand to gain more through specialization. If you are researching at a good clip, presumably you have enough improvements to keep your Science/Commerce cities busy with Libraries, Markets, and the like.

In theory, they are too busy with this task to develop a meaningful contribution to national security. This is where the trade-off is within your Production/Troop cities. In general, they have less relevant buildings to establish which permits them to heavily focus on Wonders & defending/attacking.

That is not to say you should never build anything but related buildings. One of my favourite changes to the game is the ability to switch between projects. Slowly develop that forge or whatever until a technology arrives that will allow the creation of a more suitable building for that city... and then back to the original project. Eventually you may have all the improvements available built in most of your cities. The real question is: Did you build them when they were needed most? Were they the best choice and provide the most benefit for your Civ at that time?

Take care, hammers on forge are probably gone, by the time you build a library.

Carn

 

[Innawerkz]

Take care, hammers on forge are probably gone, by the time you build a library.

Carn

That is true & sound advice. I've lost some production in stand-by projects when switching between two, but have yet to lose all of it unless consciously deciding to because of some newer priority.

It definitely isn't perfect unless you have trees, extra population or gold to hurry your necessary buildings so you can quickly switch back to the less-essential, but it is a suggestion to diversify your cities while preserving the specialized approach to developing them.

This is presuming that the forge (or whatever improvement) is not really necessary to begin with but is more of a nice-to-have.

 

[eric_]

This is a VERY helpful thread. A lot of questions I have after winning my first noble victory (won overwhelmingly, but just by points...Got rated as Warren G. Harding ) are being addressed here.

I do have a couple of lingering questions (may yet be answered in here, but I'm too impatient to read through ).

For GP farms, would your focus be specifically on population growth so you can maximize how many specialisits you have, and then you create wonders that boost specialist allowance and GPP/turn?

Second: Is a science production city just a specialized Commerce city where you build wonders that will boost Science output?

Or would your GP city and you Science city be the same city?

 

[eric_]

And one other question:

Do you have workers build improvements only as they can be worked, or do you just build improvments in advance of city growth?

 

[Artanis]

And one other question:

Do you have workers build improvements only as they can be worked, or do you just build improvments in advance of city growth?

Initially, when I have relatively few workers and a lot of unimproved terrain, I'll try to keep just barely ahead of the growth curve. Later on when most of my cities' terrain is well-developed and I have an army of Workers, though, I'll sometimes just go ahead and build everything that a city's going to use in advance just so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

 

[Yzen Danek]

This is a VERY helpful thread. A lot of questions I have after winning my first noble victory (won overwhelmingly, but just by points...Got rated as Warren G. Harding ) are being addressed here.

I do have a couple of lingering questions (may yet be answered in here, but I'm too impatient to read through ).

For GP farms, would your focus be specifically on population growth so you can maximize how many specialisits you have, and then you create wonders that boost specialist allowance and GPP/turn?

This will greatly depend on what resources are available. Wonders are nice to get in GPP cities, but some of the best GPP cities have production that is too low to really crank out the wonders, and frankly, a single specialist generates more GPP than a wonder anyway. The only wonder that is really a must for a good GPP farm is the National Epic.

Second: Is a science production city just a specialized Commerce city where you build wonders that will boost Science output?

Yes.

Or would your GP city and you Science city be the same city?

It's not possible to do both optimally.

I'll give a concrete example. Say you're looking at two cities, both capable of high food output but little production. One of them has 3 food resources and is inland, with no river. The other has a preponderance of flood plains, and one food resource. Say for the purpose of our example that the total amount of food that can be worked by either city at max population is equal if everything is built with farms. Which one should be a commerce/science city and which one should be your GP farm?

Because those food resource produce no commerce, the first city will never be as good at producing commerce and Science as the second, and the second city will never be as good at supporting great people, because the flood plains square produces less food. If you try to do both, you won't be making optimal use of the city.

Comparing the numbers (I won't include leader traits or later techs, to keep the comparison simple)

One food resource produces 5 food and no commerce, which is enough to support the populace working it and one-and-a-half specialists (Or it can be used to subsidize a high production square, but we're talking only commerce vs. GPP cities and leaving production cities out).

One flood plain can be either 4 food and one commerce with a farm, enough to support the populace working it and one specialist,
or it can be 3 food and 6 commerce with a cottage, which is enough to support the popluace working it and half a specialist.

Grow both cities to size 4, and here is what things look like:

City 1: 20 food, 1 commerce, 4 specialists, 4 surplus food for growth.

City 2: either: 18 food, 5 commerce, 3 specialists, 4 surplus food for growth with farms, or:
14 food, 25 commerce, 1 specialist, 4 surplus food for growth with cottages.

See why the first city is better as a GPP and the second one is so much better as a commerce city? It's not even so much that the first city produces a superior number of GPP; it's that the second city's potential is so wasted by trying to use it as a GP farm.

 

[eric_]

That makes perfect sense, Yzen, thanks!

Artanis, that's kind of what ends up happening for me...but I need to remember to pull (a) worker(s) from one city to develop the next when the first has been developed to the population's potential (or just beyond) and the other one has few or no improved squares.

 

[Vatec]

That makes perfect sense, Yzen, thanks!

Artanis, that's kind of what ends up happening for me...but I need to remember to pull (a) worker(s) from one city to develop the next when the first has been developed to the population's potential (or just beyond) and the other one has few or no improved squares.

I have a simple method that works for me: I usually build two workers right at the beginning. When I send out my first settler, I usually send the two workers (and their military escort) with them (usually building a road to the new city as they go). Then I build a new worker at the capital (if any plots remain to be improved). The two-worker team generally keeps moving on to the next newest city and the older cities build replacement workers behind them.

That way I rarely have a city with no worker and the newest cities that need the most improvement get it quickly.

 

[aviator99_uk]

I have followed most of this thread but seen little comment on map size and type so:

Is size of map, type of map, significant?

I normally play small size and seem to win higher levels on island type maps. Placing a City so that specialisation can be chosen doesn't seem to be high on the list of things to consider in these games, if you can get a city to 'specialise' it seems to be more of a bonus than a design goal.

Is my failure to win higher levels on larger more land based maps related to not specialising citys? Quite probably. However my experience seems to be that there are always 'other' reasons why a city gets placed in a sub-optimal position, like the AI spamming citys like shelling peas, and to keep up my economy just visited the toilet.


Aviator

 

[Aardvark Fury]

As an experienced Civ player I always used to play with generalised cities and wondered why I rarely won. This time, my fourth 'Marathon' game of Civ4 I decided to try city specialisation, as Catherine (Russia). I have to say specialisation is definitely the way to go. In this game I am at the top of the league table, and have been throughout the game. I am now at least 400 points clear of my nearest rival and increasing (in about 1700AD). I believe this change in fortunes is entirely down to city specialisation. I believe its advantages lie in a number of factors:

1. Reduced city maintenance due to less buildings being built
2. Layered "enablers" focusing on the city's inherent strengths, e.g. located near gold, specialise with market, grocer, bank, Wall Street etc. etc.
3. A strong military to defend your civilisation because of cities specialising in production. These allow you to pump out military units without ******ing economic growth, as the city is "specialised"
4. I have tasked my capital, Maximopolis, to specialise in Wonders. It has been busy almost all throughout the game and has generated fully 50%+ of the Wonders in the world, again acting as a major "enabler" for my civilisation and my game

In a sense this reflects the "real world" anyway. New York, London, and Tokyo: financial centres. Paris, Milan: culture. Detroit, Sheffield: manufacturing (production). Boston, Cambridge, and Oxford: Education (science). Rome, Mecca: Religion. You can argue with my selections, and of course there are many cities in between, but specialisation in Civ4 is something I will be "specialising" in!

 

[aviator99_uk]

I have a great deal of dificulty deciding what 'specialised' actually means.

For instance:

A city which produces no hammers cannot build anything so it'll never get the rewards from library/university/etc or market/bank/grocer
If a city is producing enough hammers to produce those buildings then it needs farms to make up for the mines leaving few tiles to cottages.
A city which is all cottages can produce so few hammers it cannot build anything nor can it grow quickly.

I see a lot about specialised citys but rarely if ever see the oportunity to allow a city to specialise.

Aviator

 

[eric_]

Specialization is about emphasis on the accumlation of one thing over another (hammers, commerce, or food), not on exclusive accumulation of one resource to the exclusion of the other two. Obviously you need some hammers and food in a commerce city, and you will need some hammers in a food city (AKA GP farm). In your production city, however, you can pretty much ignore commerce, near as I can tell, and only create farms to the extent necessary to work your production tiles.

Also, specialization will guide what buildings you build first in what city.

 

[Madingo]

I'll give a concrete example. Say you're looking at two cities, both capable of high food output but little production. One of them has 3 food resources and is inland, with no river. The other has a preponderance of flood plains, and one food resource. Say for the purpose of our example that the total amount of food that can be worked by either city at max population is equal if everything is built with farms. Which one should be a commerce/science city and which one should be your GP farm?

Because those food resource produce no commerce, the first city will never be as good at producing commerce and Science as the second, and the second city will never be as good at supporting great people, because the flood plains square produces less food. If you try to do both, you won't be making optimal use of the city.

Comparing the numbers (I won't include leader traits or later techs, to keep the comparison simple)

One food resource produces 5 food and no commerce, which is enough to support the populace working it and one-and-a-half specialists (Or it can be used to subsidize a high production square, but we're talking only commerce vs. GPP cities and leaving production cities out).

One flood plain can be either 4 food and one commerce with a farm, enough to support the populace working it and one specialist,
or it can be 3 food and 6 commerce with a cottage, which is enough to support the popluace working it and half a specialist.

Grow both cities to size 4, and here is what things look like:

City 1: 20 food, 1 commerce, 4 specialists, 4 surplus food for growth.

City 2: either: 18 food, 5 commerce, 3 specialists, 4 surplus food for growth with farms, or:
14 food, 25 commerce, 1 specialist, 4 surplus food for growth with cottages.
---------------

Hello All,

could you please clarify as to how you come up with these numbers? i feel like i failed math class

i am just confused as to how with a pop of 4 you get that total.

thanks for the help.