City Specialization tip confirmation

[Knowltok]

When setting up to specialize a city, once you decide what a city will be, and once you have the tech for gold or research, make use of these options instead of building buildings that you really don't need.

Is this correct? If I'm making a science city, I shouldn't bother with a barracks just because I have nothing left to build, but rather I should build lightbulbs or cash.

Please confirm if you think this is correct, because I think this is a factor not covered in many of the strategy articles, and one I have struggled with.

 

[GuitarHero]

Build the barracks anyway. That way, your science city is well-defended.

 

[DarkFyre99]

Usually, there's only three buildings every city of mine has: granery, courthouse, and forge. Granery to speed population growth, courthouse to cut maintenance costs, and the forge for happiness and to speed the production of buildings.

IMO, barracks are worth building in every city if you're playing an aggressive leader, since they're half cost, but otherwise I'd say "no." Normally, if I don't have any buildings to build, and I'm not at war, then I'll build gold (to move the science slider up) rather than units.

 

[JBossch]

Keep in mind that the gold or science that you build does not go through the modifiers. For example, you are building science in a city with a library but the beakers converted from hammers do not get the +25% library science bonus. Building science or gold is generally inefficient I rarely do it except when a) I am desperately broke, or b) there is really NOTHING else to build.

City specialization, while crucial to success at higher levels, will never be perfect. For example, I often find myself building a barracks early in a city that I know will be a specialized for science because a) I am fighting an early war and simply need the units, b) it is in a threatened position and may have to whip units later, or c) I am aggressive and the bonus makes it real cheap. Many science cities, if they have reasonable production, can be unit builders in the downtime between new science buildings. I don't think there is anything wrong with a little hybridization along these lines so long as it is not hindering their main purpose which is to produce science.

The real key is to distinguish science from gold cities. I go for roughly a 2:1 ratio in favor of science cities. The gold cities will focus on building markets, grocers, and banks and the science cities will focus on libraries, universities, and observatories.
Assuming some use of the slider, though, there will always be some crossover. For example, any city that generates commerce will produce some science and some gold and thus, can benefit from both types of buildings in the long run. The main reason for early specialization is because of the amount of hammers it takes to build those buildings. You cannot have them all in every city or you will be wiped out by someone who specialized, built only a few key improvements in each city, and spent those hammers on military.

Like DarkFyre I consider courthouse and granary as key infrastructure in every city but I usually hold off on forge except in production cities. Anything important can usually be whipped.

Sorry for the long response, hope it helped.

 

[Dirk1302]

^^I roughly agree but:

- hammer converted cash does go through multiplier like forges,factories ...
- hammer converted cash can be a life saver in lib races and tight space races.

Forges help in science cities for reasons of

-Happiness gems , gold, silver
-1 pop point is converted to 37.5 hammes instead of just 30 hammers
-If hammers are converted to cash you get more value for your hammers

 

[Lord Chambers]

Not having any buildings to build is a good opportunity to build units which will expand your empire. Ideally you should always be expanding fast enough to be worrying about your science rate.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

When setting up to specialize a city, once you decide what a city will be, and once you have the tech for gold or research, make use of these options instead of building buildings that you really don't need.

Is this correct? If I'm making a science city, I shouldn't bother with a barracks just because I have nothing left to build, but rather I should build lightbulbs or cash.

Because of the way that multipliers (don't) work, wealth will normally be a better choice than research.

Missionaries are another reasonable choice (Monasteries are a research multiplier until Scientific method, so your science cities are likely to have that building already), as are units that don't particularly benefit from barracks (spies, siege).

But my real answer is that running out of things to build is likely a sign that your science city is "wasting" resources on production that should better be used for research. Run a specialist, or replace some of your mines with cottages.

 

[The-Hawk]

Build the barracks anyway. That way, your science city is well-defended.

Sorry, I disagree. A barracks in a science city (or culture city) is almost always a waste. Why waste valuable hammers? I might be talked into barracks in a future science city if I need to fight an early war, but even then maybe not. If a city has poor production, my early war might be over before I even finish the barracks. I'd rather use those hammers to build non-promoted archers for MP duty in my captured cities.

I play many games at upper levels where I never build a barracks in any city at all (e.g. space or culture attempts). Even in a military attempt, I won't build them in a low production city. City specialization is just that... don't waste hammers building a barracks in a science city.

 

[Gliese 581]

Barracks is never a waste bc they increase your power rating so it's not the best example, but there could be better things to do at any given turn depending on the circumstances.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Barracks is never a waste bc they increase your power rating

Anything is a waste if the return doesn't offset the marginal cost.

 

[fuzzynutz]

Also get +2 while in Nationhood Civic.

 

[Knowltok]

Thanks for the responses. Barracks just happened to come to mind. It seems that it is as I suspected, and Unreason has the crux of it with opportunity cost.

 

[DaveMcW]

I have nothing left to build

This is a problem.

I ALWAYS have a backlog of useful buildings in my science cities. This is from a combination of fast empire-wide research and emphasizing cottages/farms over mines in my science cities.

 

[CivCorpse]

JBossch was pretty much in agreement with my own play styles. However I tend to build markets and grocers in my science cities as well for the happiness and health. And even at 80% research on the slider, with all the towns they produce a nice chunk of change. So a bank can be nice, and with more science cities than gold cites I will need a few more banks to build wall street. I tend to build libraries in a few production cities as well. It gives me the 6 universities for oxford much faster.
Any decent size city will benefit from from the health and happiness bonuses from the marketplace and grocer. Especially production cities with the late game buildings.
I would add one other building to the must have in every city list. That is the theatre. The culture slider can save you during a long war before jails/rushmore and policestate kick in.

 

[mattux]

what about if the city is near the boundaries of an opponent? do you not improve the culture of that city by building monasteries or obelisks etc to push their boundaries back or make them flip?

matt

 

[Verge]

what about if the city is near the boundaries of an opponent? do you not improve the culture of that city by building monasteries or obelisks etc to push their boundaries back or make them flip?

matt

It's generally more cost-effective to conquer the city outright.

 

[CivCorpse]

It's generally more cost-effective to conquer the city outright.

And much more reliable in the outcome, LOL. A conquered city is has a 100% chance of becoming mine.