Cottages!!

[DaveMcW]

Cottage spammed cities are notoriously hammer poor, so placing the cottages on plains tiles alleviates that problem.

Growing cottages is more important than building gold and science improvements.

 

[noto2]

^^ only up to a certain point. Besides...that's why I say work Cottage plains tiles. You can work the cottages and grow them, while at the same time you will be getting hammers in that city. Anyway, I guess my main point is that instead of placing some cities in the middle of all the food, and others with no food, it's often helpful to get some brown land AND some high food tiles in the same BFC (except for GP farms). While this is true for any city, it seems especially important for commercial cities. Dave, I'm not sure what you do about building infrastructure in your commerce cities. Do you just use the whip? That works... but I'm not sure if it's better than having some hammers in those cities. For me, my style is that although I do specialize my cities, all of my cities will have at least some hammer improvements, I don't build 20 cottage cities. So having plains tiles to cottage is a way for me to grow the cottages and get hammers at the same time, provided food resources.

 

[DaveMcW]

Ok, let's say you have a city with the following:

1 population
2 workers
Granary
Monument
5 floodplains
5 grassland
5 plains
Normal Speed

What are your worker orders and build orders? How much commerce do you end up with after 100 turns?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, let's go a different route than that, assuming the following which I find quite reasonable:

1. It's a cottage city
2. It has plains tiles, some riverside some not (you're not FIN though)
3. You will never, ever pop a specialist in this city from now until the end of the game
4. But it is already working all its grassland tiles as cottages or better

Would you REALLY run specs in this situation? I can't bring myself to do it. If I'm not getting GPP that actually help, riverside plains make a lot more sense to me. They cost less food than a specialist, offer more hammers than most, and can match the output of say a merchant or scientist (3 commerce vs 3 of gold or beakers) in 10 turns.

The other options here are pre-bio plains farms or workshops. Obviously farms would be marginal tiles to work until whipping away, and before caste/guild the workshops would require very high pop to not be considered something you'd just work until whip dissipates.

So that's just the thing: what do you do here? STILL run specs despite no contribution to great people, whip in infrastructure, or work the cottages?

Also, to more begginer-ish players: You don't need that MANY of these cottage cities, using cities for other things to support your good cottage sites (hopefully including a bureaucracy site) can allow you to run a higher slider in the cottage sites you do have, or get the buildings that allow oxford or whatever built more rapidly, or build HR garrison guys, or wealth for a tech push etc.

Obviously in the above example you'd work the plains last! That's a strong site though...I wish I always got locations like that. But even there, operating on the assumption that this city won't pop GPP (say you have a city with 5 seafoods and NE somewhere), why work specs here?

 

[UncleJJ]

I have problems with several of the rules. There are clearly some hidden assumptions that would be better stated explicitly.

Rule 2 Build Granary is obvious. But what about a courthouse? In an empire with say 13 cities and if this city is quite a long way from the capital this is just as vital to avoid unnecessary losses. A size 12 city in that situation can easily cost 16 maintenance per turn so a courthouse will save 8 gold and add 2 EPs. In the early game before many of the cottages are villages whipping a few pop to build a courthouse should be added as a conditional 2(a).

Rule 4 slave another worker in a CE city If the city has silly production and plenty of food maybe but a low food, low production weak CE city, should never do that. Cities like that need help from outside just like they need their HR troops built for them.

Rule 5 Growing cottages is more important than building gold and science improvements.

This is highly dubious and needs to be substantiated. There can be many situations where this is not true. What about other forms of infrastucture such as health and happiness some of which have economic multipliers? The courthouse have already been mentioned, but what of a forge (+25% hammers and upto +3 happiness) and a market (upto +4 happiness as well as the +25% gold multiplier).

It really depends on the production strength of the CE city (including the food surplus). It also depends on how close key techs like Printing Press and Liberalism are and how advanced the cottages are, villages and towns are different from cottages and hamlets. It depends on how reliant the city is on HR for happiness. The switch to US can be truamatic if no happiness infrastructure has been build. That depends on the availabilty of resources and the ability to trade for more.

Clearly cottages should not be whipped away unnecessarily. But at the same time every hammer invested in infrastructure (that will eventually built anyway) before US is available will save 3 gold and without gold multipliers that is 3 commerce. A whipped university (perhaps to meet the Oxford requirement) might slow down cottage growth but will immediately boost beaker output by +25% and is saving 600 gold in the long term. It is debateable whether that actually loses commerce due to lost cottage turns.

Rule 6: Plains should be ignored until Scientific Method.
The reason is that specialists are more valuable than plains cottages in the early game.

This makes little sense and requires clarification. To advocate running specialists in a city with low hammers and a low food surplus is very strange. If specialists are so useful it is easy to found a junk city dedicated to running 2 scientists, it only needs 2 grassland farms and a library. Wasting the food surplus of a valuable CE city on making GPPs is against the principle of city specialisation. A good CE city consists of developed towns and all necessary infrastructure. Anything which slows down the processes of developing the cottages or which slows down the building of the infrastructure is a bad thing and detracts from the main purpose of a CE city which can be summarised as "to maximise its beaker and gold outputs over time".

Here is a brief illustration of what might occur. Assume we have a city with 10 cottages and a library and a food surplus of 4, so 2 scientists can be run. Due to competition with other cities, in 100 turns this city can produce 600 GPPs, enough to produce the 6th GP. That consumes 400 food. That food if used to whip in infrastructure would translate into 600 base hammers, with OR and if some hammers became a forge that could be maybe 800 hammers of infrastructure where forge(120), university(200), market(150), grocer(150) might be some of those. How much stronger would the city be if it used the food that way? I just don't buy that part of the "run a few specialists argument" - if they are that good run them somewhere else. This is absolutely the last place specialists should be run. A possible exception might be if the CE city was lucky enough to have a food surplus of 10 or more (that level of surplus is difficult to handle with one whip per 10 turns) then specialists combined with whipping infrastructure would be a good way to manage the city, whipping away some specialists and then regrowing and still running some specialists, while all the time working all cottages. However if hills were available it would be better to use the food to work those instead of specialists.

Pre Biology Plains: why can't they be worked as farms after Civil Service allows chain irrigation? As long as they don't require extra health and happiness then growing the city bigger while working plains farms can be combined with whipping. The food surplus is thereby turned into hammers through Slavery and instead of wasting food running specialists the food is entirely used for growth and hence turned into infrastructure. Each citizen working a plains farm is food neutral and gives 1 hammer while waiting to be whipped. It is ideal whip fodder.

Take another example of where working plains makes perfect sense. A mediocre city with a 4 food resource, 6 grasslands and 6 plains. According to the rules this is not a good CE city, yet it is possible to have 10 cottages and 2 farms running at zero food but producing 7 hammers and with OR and a forge these are worth 11 hammers. If more hammers are desired then replacing a cottage with a farm will add about 2 hammers per turn with occassional whipping taking account of OR and forge multipliers. It doesn't really matter which tiles are farms and which are cottages and a mixture of grassland farms and cottages with plains farms and cottages allows some flexibility in regrowth during whipping.

 

[Wodan]

I have problems with several of the rules. There are clearly some hidden assumptions that would be better stated explicitly.

I'm just diving in here (audible :groan: heard from Dave, I'm sure).

Rule 2 Build Granary is obvious.

I'm not so sure that is a "given".

If the city has lots of food, as may happen with food resources, and little production, as may happen with lots of coast or grassland, then the city may grow faster than it can produce the granary. The logical rebuttal is usually whip. Sure, but then we get into the debate of whether the lost pop (= lost worked cottages, at least 1 even in optimal whip conditions) is worth it, especially when the city is usually at max size at that time anyway.

The Title of this section of Dave's article is "Growing Cottages" which to me seems anti-whip.

But what about a courthouse? In an empire with say 13 cities and if this city is quite a long way from the capital this is just as vital to avoid unnecessary losses. A size 12 city in that situation can easily cost 16 maintenance per turn so a courthouse will save 8 gold and add 2 EPs. In the early game before many of the cottages are villages whipping a few pop to build a courthouse should be added as a conditional 2(a).

I agree with this sentiment, but fail to see why it falls under "Rule 2". It should be an extra rule, wouldn't it? But, I don't think it would be a Rule because it depends on empire size and distance from palace/FP/Versailles, it's a "sometimes" rule.

Rule 3 I think is excellent, by the way, Dave.

Rule 4 slave another worker in a CE city If the city has silly production and plenty of food maybe but a low food, low production weak CE city, should never do that. Cities like that need help from outside just like they need their HR troops built for them.

Agree with UncleJJ. I think the implied guidance here is that you make the worker in another city. But the article should state that.

Rule 5 Growing cottages is more important than building gold and science improvements.

This is highly dubious and needs to be substantiated.

Frankly, I think the "accepted wisdom" that whipping a library is always beneficial is dubious and needs to be substantiated.

Anyway, on both sides, my personal feeling is that it's a circumstantial player decision for each city. As such, I'm not sure it would qualify as a Rule (as in something that is always done).

 

[noto2]

Ok, let's say you have a city with the following:

1 population
2 workers
Granary
Monument
5 floodplains
5 grassland
5 plains
Normal Speed

What are your worker orders and build orders? How much commerce do you end up with after 100 turns?

Dave, why use 100 turns as an example? Why not 300? Or 200?
Sorry I am not patient enough to do the math, but I can give you a general answer. Generally what I would do is farm a couple flood plains and cottage the rest of the tiles, working all different sorts of tiles, mixing them up. That way I would be growing very quickly, working cottages, and getting hammers from the plains. As I approached my pop cap I would turn the farms into cottages.
I realize that by working some of the plains tiles earlier on and by using a farm that my cottages won't mature as quickly as if I just purely cottage spammed, but my pop will grow as fast as a pure cottage spam and hammer production will increase as well. How efficient can a cottage city be without any infrastructure?? At 20 commerce, a market could be worth an extra 5 gold, a courthouse could be worth as much, you need buildings to raise your happy/health caps, and sometimes you need buildings to pump out culture to protect the border, plus there's the whole aspect of buildings giving you raw benefits, like a temple for the AP religion giving 2 hammers. I agree on paper, Dave, that your method matures the cottages quicker, but the cost is you have no hammers for buildings at all...and if you whip pop to make the buildings (I do that too), then those are dead citizens not working tiles, and you get unhappy faces fort that. Maybe I'll try it your way once and see how it works.

 

[UncleJJ]

I agree with this sentiment, but fail to see why it falls under "Rule 2". It should be an extra rule, wouldn't it? But, I don't think it would be a Rule because it depends on empire size and distance from palace/FP/Versailles, it's a "sometimes" rule.

Rule 2: Build a granary ASAP in every city with cottages.

I interpretted Rule 2 as the need to build a vital building in every CE city, and I agree that a granary fits that bill as it boosts growth. In a large empire with many cities that rule needs to be extended to include courthouses. Cutting costs with a quick courthouse is better value than developing cottages to offset the costs.

 

[Wodan]

I interpretted Rule 2 as the need to build a vital building in every CE city, and I agree that a granary fits that bill as it boosts growth.

But the growth may not be necessary. Doesn't that depend on the city? If the city is already maxed out, then a granary is not necessarily needed.

In a large empire with many cities that rule needs to be extended to include courthouses. Cutting costs with a quick courthouse is better value than developing cottages to offset the costs.

Not all games have "a large empire with many cities" was what I was getting at. If that assumption isn't true, then the courthouse will provide little benefit... given that hammers are probably hard to come by in the CE city, the courthouse may not be worth the cost.

That said, in general I agree with BOTH of these recommendations. I guess my thought is to put some qualifiers on the assumptions. e.g., "if you have more than 6 cities or expect to have more (due to conquest) soon" or something.

The strategy guide needs to apply to small or crowded maps just as much as medium/large or non-crowded, and needs to apply to all types of cities. If the "rule" isn't universal, then it probably should have stated preconditions or else multiple clauses. My two cents.

 

[oyzar]

Considering that every cottage turn you work is eventually one less town turn(if it ever grows all the way to town), whipping away loads of pop for just a courthouse seems a bit of a waste... Much better to get those multipliers in place first.

 

[Wodan]

Whipping in a CE makes more sense if you do it when the cities are maxed out... you're probably whipping away an unhappy guy anyway.

But it makes as much sense to get the AP religion to get your hammers (whip 1 pop to get a temple and then 2 free raw hammers the rest of the game), or build the Pyramids and run early US, or if you know you're going to play to the modern era before having a war of conquest then go ahead and prioritize Democracy. Or, recognize that you don't really NEED that granary or courthouse anyway. If your city is close to max size and you only have 4 cities and are likely to only have 4 cities for a long long time, then you don't need either building.

Aside: Pyramids in a CE is a huge benefit, especially if you're doing a max CE like we're talking about here... you have lots of early Towns and running US when you have such a huge surplus to cash-rush is huge.

The thing is, doing a max CE usually requires as much if not more micromanagement as a SE because you have to force each city to work nothing but cottages. The game will work an unimproved plain before it will work that 5th or 6th grass cottage. (Looks back at article.) You should add something about that, Dave.

 

[UncleJJ]

Considering that every cottage turn you work is eventually one less town turn(if it ever grows all the way to town), whipping away loads of pop for just a courthouse seems a bit of a waste... Much better to get those multipliers in place first.

I understand the implication of losing commerce and cottage turns, but do you understand the harmful effect of not having a courthouse? As I pointed out; in an empire where you have 13 cities and this cottage city is a long way from the capital it can have very high maintenance. When the city has grown to size 12, a courthouse can save 8 gold (and with inflation another 1 gold) plus the 2 EPs, that's equivalent to 11 commerce per turn. Which particular multiplier were you advocating that could do better than that? in the early life of a city when it is working cottages and hamlets?

Even the best value economic multipler, a library, is well short until the cottages mature into towns and other bonusses like PP and FS come into effect. However, it does give culture and that can be a valid reason for building it first. A courthouse makes savings every turn, regardless of cottage development, or the slider. The lost commerce you refer to as "town turns" is spread over time and is in the distant future (as much as 70 turns away). Compare that to the cost saving which is immediate and can result in a higher slider setting and hence more efficient use of science multipliers. How much is more commerce now worth compared to more in the future? What's the trade off?

 

[DaveMcW]

If your city maintenence is so high that slave-rushing a courthouse increases your income immediately, it is ok to kill the citizens and build it.

 

[noto2]

4 cities? Wow, I guess one of the reasons we are having a difference of opinion is because, yet again in all Civ discussions, it depends. Personally, I have never ran a small empire CE, this is actually something I have been thinking about doing next game. The only times I have run a small empire (6-7 cities) are times when I was running a SE and wonderspamming. Unless I'm wonderspamming or doing something like generating tons of GP and settling them and running representation, I usually try to build a larger empire than the AI. This is just my style of play. For example, I will REX in most of my games and with a financial leader I'll build a mixture of cottage and hammer improvements in my cities. Then I'll even declare war and invade someone if I'm not the biggest civ around. What this means is that in most of my games I am behind in tech for most of the duration of the game. A smaller, more efficient civ will get ahead of me in tech. The way I win is by leveraging my larger amount of land, more tiles, etc, to eventually catch up and overtake the tech leader. I realize, however, that this is in no way the only workable strategy. It is just as viable to focus on efficiency and grabbing a tech lead which can be leveraged into a win (either through superior troop domination or space race). I just almost never play that way.

 

[Wodan]

4 cities? Wow, I guess one of the reasons we are having a difference of opinion is because, yet again in all Civ discussions, it depends.... A smaller, more efficient civ will get ahead of me in tech.

Right. So, the question is how to leverage CE to be that smaller, more efficient empire.

It's not better, it's not worse, it's just a different way to play the game. And, as mentioned, game settings will certainly have an effect. Being on a small map with extra AIs crowded will certainly result in less cities being relatively larger. 6-7 cities on that kind of map will be equivalent to 15-20 cities on other settings. BUT a lot of things do not "scale" 100%, so the relative importance of things like Courthouses is much less.

 

[noto2]

Well if I want to run a small but super efficient empire, I do not run a cottage economy. I have won games with, for example, Peter of Russia running a pure specialist economy where I had 5 cities and some AI's had 12 or more. With a small empire nothing beats the power of settled super specialists and running representation. When I play a leader who is a builder and also has either the industrial or philosophical trait I might choose to wonderspam and/or GP spam, which means I won't have time to expand my empire in the early game. That will be okay, however, as I'll get way ahead in tech. The financial trait, however, does not seem to me to be the trait with which to pursue that strategy. Just my opinion.

 

[Wodan]

Well if I want to run a small but super efficient empire, I do not run a cottage economy. I have won games with, for example, Peter of Russia running a pure specialist economy where I had 5 cities and some AI's had 12 or more. With a small empire nothing beats the power of settled super specialists and running representation. When I play a leader who is a builder and also has either the industrial or philosophical trait I might choose to wonderspam and/or GP spam, which means I won't have time to expand my empire in the early game. That will be okay, however, as I'll get way ahead in tech. The financial trait, however, does not seem to me to be the trait with which to pursue that strategy. Just my opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you by self-admission totally lacking in any basis upon which to state unreservedly as fact, "With a small empire nothing beats the power of settled super specialists and running representation." ?

 

[noto2]

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. When I play as a financial leader I usually try to get larger than the AIs. When I'm playing as an industrial or philosophical leader I might take a smaller empire strategy. Examples would be Peter of Russia or Bismark of Germany. With these guys I'll go small and efficient. But with the likes of Willem, Hannibal, Victoria, etc, I'll try to go big.

 

[Nissin]

CE works fine with a small empire also. Two 20 Pop cities with 16+ cottages at Democracy offers a lot of commerce and production.

 

[Iranon]

Hmm. In small empires a good portion of my cities are likely to be built around national wonders.

Lategame wants:

1 wondermongering hammer city, often the main GP farm
1 commerce city serving as super-gold or -science city
1 specialist city, serving as super-gold or -science city
1 military powerhouse built around the National Epic
1 National Park city

Possible wants:

1 drafting / whipping city (Globe Theatre)
1 espionage city
1 naval / backup military city


This leaves little room for generic cottage cities. Since I will often have a lot of settled Great Specialists I might be reluctant to leave Representation, and Free Speech generally isn't worth giving up a Bureaucratic capital. This leaves cottages royally shafted and I often end up farming over my existing ones.

My favoured improvements for small empires are windmills. Since I'm unlikely to have maintenance issues or many resources for corporations, and since forest preserves will actually be a significant percentage of my worked tiles, Environmentalism becomes a lot more attractive.
Fully pimped windmills (+1+1+4) are every bit as good as mature towns and have wonderful synergy with Bureaucracy.