FP: location location location?

[anarres]

Originally posted by PersianImmortal
where are u guys getting all these leaders .. i upgraded to 1.29f, played militaristic .. attacked with Elite units.. still no leaders

therefore I plop it down as soon as i have the option AND a city on a river.. no use waiting..

I presume you know to keep elite for 'certain' victories and only build vet units to maximise leaders? I agree though - I get between 0 and 2 normally (rarely 2).

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by anarres

Please explain how the reduction in corruption is huge. If you build the FP in the city next to the Palace, then the change in corruption would be very small. IIRC, The corruption factor due to distance would be calculated to the nearest of Palace/FP, and close together = not much difference??

Edit: Info taken from corruption thread (with corruption calc) in above post.

I've just been perusing the corruption thread and I thought I'd comment on this. If I understand it correctly, the two salient points are: a city is always on both lists; a cities ranking is the minimum rank of that city out of the two lists. These are taken right from the horses mouth, or in this case alexman's keyboard (pg 7). Thus even when your palace and FP are close together you get a large reduction in corruption. You now have two cities of each rank 1,2,3, etc. (unless a city happens to occupy the same spot of both lists). Additionally, you have one less city on the list.

At first I thought you wouldn't have two cities of the same rank, but I see nothing to contradict this analysis in the corruption thread only confirmation, further it jibes with my experience is that you get a large reduction in corruption with a second ring FP.

Alexman says you want all cities in the first half of your palace list on the second half of your FP list. The reason for this is you gain the most, e.g. if you have 18 cities in reverse rank your 18 becomes a 1, giving the largest bonus.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Gothmog
I've just been perusing the corruption thread and I thought I'd comment on this. If I understand it correctly, the two salient points are: a city is always on both lists; a cities ranking is the minimum rank of that city out of the two lists. These are taken right from the horses mouth, or in this case alexman's keyboard (pg 7).

Yes, I agree on this at least.

Thus even when your palace and FP are close together you get a large reduction in corruption. You now have two cities of each rank 1,2,3, etc. (unless a city happens to occupy the same spot of both lists). Additionally, you have one less city on the list.

Now you've lost me. The rank would be similar in both lists if the FP was very close to the Palace. The corruption factor is governed by (1) the place on the list, and (2) the distance to the FP/Palace.

With the FP and Palace near, (2) will obviously will be almost the same for each. (1) will not change much either. The fact they are in position 2 (for example) on both lists will just mean you can have 1 less productive city, as the number of productive cities is finite.

Alexman says you want all cities in the first half of your palace list on the second half of your FP list. The reason for this is you gain the most, e.g. if you have 18 cities in reverse rank your 18 becomes a 1, giving the largest bonus.

Yeah, and the reason he says this is because if as in this example you have cities in the top of both lists, then you are wasting the opportunity for a productive city.

In short, (and IMHO), you are mistaken. Post your ideas on that thread and someone who can explain things better to me will help. Better still, download the calculator, put in some test values, and prove yourself wrong

 

[Bamspeedy]

Here's how I understand it-

When building the forbidden palace, you will get less corruption from # of cities. But having the FP and palace close together won't help you in the DISTANCE corruption.

If you have some cities that are say 20+ tiles away from your palace they will still be pretty corrupt if you add the FP right next to your capital, because it is 20 or so tiles from either the palace or Forbidden palace. Yes, those cities will see less corruption because now it is higher up in the ranking of # of cities that are closer to the FP or palace, but the distance corruption is still hurting it. Building the FP and palace far apart helps eliminate (cut down) corruption from distance, so you'll get reduction in both # of cities and distance corruption.

 

[col]

Nice thread.

Its always a trade off. In some Tournament games, I go leader hunting. If I get one I always build FP with it if I can - as far away from Palace as possible. Often in a conquered capital. I want two cores of productive cities.

The obvious problem with this approach is that if you dont get a GL, you're stuffed. As a backup I start a city not too far away, not too close - from the palace - say about 10-20 tiles building the FP. If a leader comes along then it can switched to a wonder.

I've tried the build the FP close and then palace jump strategy. Sometimes it works brilliantly. Sometimes it doesnt. I've always thought it too risky to play in a tournament game. If I palace jump it tends to be very early- if I discover I've built the palace on the tip of a peninsula for instance.

 

[Gothmog]

Well I guess I should have expected arogance from an anarchist (never had a humble opinion in your life, I would bet). I worked through a full example before posting, there is nothing that someone on the other thread could explain, I get it. Why don't you work through an example? I agree that the best possibe situation is reverse rank, no question. But the issue was is there a large reduction in corruption if you build the FP near the palace. Yes there is. This is not opinion but fact, the only thing to argue about here is semantics. IMO it is not worth waiting until you can get the optimal setup to build your FP.

My main argument was the # of cities as bamspeedy recounts, but even the distances will improve noteably. Looking at bamspeedy's example. Lets say we look at a city 20 squares away from the capital. Given an average spacing of 5 squares per city this would mean 4th ring and quite a huge empire (like 45 cities or so). In my games I have built a FP by the time I have 45 cities. If we build the FP 5 squares away from the palace (the first ring) we get a distance reduction of 25% (15 vs. 20) along the Palace FP line, if we build it second ring (as I advocated) you get a distance reduction of 50% (10 vs. 20). Now, perpendicular to that line we get a reduction of only 1-3%, which I would not call significant. Notice I use the worst case scenario here (the outer ring), the gains are much larger in your 3rd and 2nd ring. In my games I usually have a FP long before I have 45 cities.

In my experience if I am playing a standard map, and I have 18 cities (2 above optimal, pretty typical for me when I build my FP), I will get a large reduction in corruption with even a first ring FP. I will get an increase in revenue and production of at least 30%. For a second ring FP the number is more like 50%. These numbers are born out by the calculator, and will quickly outweigh any bonus gotten from waiting to build your FP rather than moving your palace.

The numbers don't lie, and aren't mistaken. I am guessing you are thinking of a large empire with 100 cities spanning 100 cells? I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which I guess you aren't willing to extend to me.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Gothmog, what your talking about is what my post about OCN is referring to. You build your FP and you have a great decrease in corruption because of the OCN effect on the cities, your OCN umbrella has been enhanced with the FP.

 

[DaveMcW]

I use my first Great Leader to build the FP, no exceptions. All I need is a first ring of cities around my Palace and FP to outproduce the AI and win.

If I haven't gotten a leader by the time I get out of despotism I start a FP close to the palace in preparation for a palace jump.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, thank you Cartouche Bee. That is what I was trying to say with my first post. I thought I was being clear.

I also respect col's answer. It is very reasonable. There are deffinite trade off's involved.

I just don't respond well to the sort of arogance reflected in anarres's post. As if I couldn't understand such a simple formula.


Edit: DaveMcW got in before me. I agree with you too!

 

[Cartouche Bee]

I think your both working the same equation from two different angles. It's virtually impossible to place your palace and Fp in a way to maximize the possible beneficial effects of the two buildings because of map restrictions. So at times you have to place the palaces where they leverage the actual lay of the land best. No one really cares if a mountain village has no corruption cause it will never produce squat anyway. I know I have under estimated the effects of a FP many times but I keep trying to place them more effectively.

 

[amirsan]

I personally built it once in the Modern Ages late in the game. I like to find out which city has the capability to build the most shields. But now i found a way to fid that out in the early game. First find a city with mountains and count how many there is and multiply it by 4. That gives you a good estimation of how many shields a city will have when its improved.

 

[Gothmog]

Re Cartouche Bee: I am sure we are working the same equation. There is only one, alexman deliniated it nicely, and anarres was kind enough to point me to the thread. I see that you are a peacemaker, and I respect that. Don't worry, I love to argue - nothing better than a good dissagreement. Of course as you say I don't think that anarres and I really dissagre on much here. I place my FP depending much on the individual game I am playing, as I am sure he (she?) does.

Again, I just don't respond well to arrogance of that kind - especially when combined with IMHO in one sentence. Respect is key to a valuble argument.

 

[anarres]

you:
If I understand it correctly, the two salient points are: a city is always on both lists; a cities ranking is the minimum rank of that city out of the two lists. These are taken right from the horses mouth, or in this case alexman's keyboard (pg 7). Thus even when your palace and FP are close together you get a large reduction in corruption. You now have two cities of each rank 1,2,3, etc. (unless a city happens to occupy the same spot of both lists). Additionally, you have one less city on the list.

me:
Now you've lost me. The rank would be similar in both lists if the FP was very close to the Palace. The corruption factor is governed by (1) the place on the list, and (2) the distance to the FP/Palace.

With the FP and Palace near, (2) will obviously will be almost the same for each. (1) will not change much either. The fact they are in position 2 (for example) on both lists will just mean you can have 1 less productive city, as the number of productive cities is finite.

When I said 'Now you've lost me', it was because I didn't understand what you were saying. In particlar, I didn't understand why you said 'Thus even when your palace and FP are close together you get a large reduction in corruption.'.

My response was not an attempt to slap you down, but to try and get you to respond and explain what you meant. You have responded, and from reading your last post I now understand what you were originally saying, and I agree, we were (more or less) arguing semantics, as you said.

Well I guess I should have expected arogance from an anarchist (never had a humble opinion in your life, I would bet).
...
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which I guess you aren't willing to extend to me.

I was trying to stimulate an involved debate by starting this thread, and I am sorry if my 'tongue-in-cheek' manner has offended. The reason I didn't give examples in that post was because I was at work.

If you don't believe that I have respect for people then read my posts. If you don't believe anarchy respects individuals then nothing is further from the truth. You shouldn't slander people for an ideology, it's way beyond what I expected from you. Read my sig and visit www.anarchy.org if you really mean what you said, because your comment was not accurate.

I have read your posts before, and I respect you. I don't need to give you the benifit of the doubt, as I never doubted you. I hope you will re-read what I said, and understand that I wasn't having a go or doubting your knowledge or understanding.

I look forward to posting with you again on cfc and I hope we can get along.

 

[Gothmog]

Well I was taken aback by your comment:
"In short, (and IMHO), you are mistaken. Post your ideas on that thread and someone who can explain things better to me will help. Better still, download the calculator, put in some test values, and prove yourself wrong "
I did not interpret that as 'tounge-in-cheek", and it does seem like you were doubting my ability to understand the posts in that thread.

Calculator, I don't need no stinkin calculator

I guess I overreacted. I don't mind being wrong, I just like to be understood. Involved debates are something I love. Prove me wrong, please, just don't discount me out-of-hand. I wanted debate too. I am sure we can get along, in fact I have no doubt.

I didn't say anything about anarchy respecting individuals, of course it does. I am well versed in political theory. I just felt disrespected by you. Anarchy is all about individuals, thus my comment about arrogance. Not that all anarchists are arrogant, but one might expect arrogance from an anarchist, even your sig confirms that. Arrogant as in: as n. A proud, haughty person. Obs.
This is not an insult, I am quite arrogant myself at times and was much more so in my youth. Even my friends in college would have described me as arrogant. I do believe that governments are a necessary evil, not to dis you, just so you know we can agree to dissagree.

 

[anarres]

bygones.

I originally misunderstood what you meant, and we don't disagree on corruption.

I do have an example that made me ask the initial question:

game 3-3 of the tournament

Attached is a minimap (from ERIKK's post). We started on the medium sized island in the north, and had to win by spacerace.

What I really wanted to know is whether I should have sent a leader away from the island to make a FP, or stay and build it on the island.

The starting location was exactly in the middle of the island, and I got a leader just as I purged the last few cities on the island.

I'm really short on time ATM, but I'll get more info/save posted sometime if u want

FYI, I sent the GL to the far away land, and got a very productive empire. I'm still not sure if I did the right thing...

 

[col]

Originally posted by anarres
What I really wanted to know is whether I should have sent a leader away from the island to make a FP, or stay and build it on the island.

The starting location was exactly in the middle of the island, and I got a leader just as I purged the last few cities on the island.

FYI, I sent the GL to the far away land, and got a very productive empire. I'm still not sure if I did the right thing...

IMVHO You did the right thing - or at least I'd have done the same thing (which isn't necessarily the same) - especially if you have a good site already marked out with a promising core of cities in place just waiting to be liberated from their corruption.

 

[anarres]

edit: forgot image...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

OK, here's what i found to be the best FP placing for my playing style (culture-obesessed warmonger):


Once I have built my core cities I look at the map

red x my capital, yellow x my core cities, black x AI capitals


and try to find an ellipse that covers as much land as possible, doesn't include an island and has one of the two centres close to my capital.

not good

better

best, I think - as there WILL by now be cities around the second centre. Not mine, but you just wait


now, I build the FP by normal production in the town which is closest to the first centre. Once it is completed, I go to war against the civ(s) taking up the rest of the ellipse. During this war, I usually get a leader.

I now have the FP in one centre (red circle) - in the centre of my core cities that will ALWAYS stay mine and productive.

I rush the Palace in the ideal position in the second centre (red star)

now, this area is flip-resistant (close to capital) and productive.

If I later want to go to war, i can again jump the palace away, after building courthouses around the meantime capital, thus secureing my gains and also building up another area. After all, at size 12 with Temple, marketplace and Courthouse, cities pay for themselves and give my some production for military

 

[anarres]

Killer:
nice idea - it's not reliant on an early leader, and if you do get one you can use it for an army or great wonder.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

yep, I love to get Great Lib that way. Then, i am strongest civ, largest civ, and can safe a lot of money for upgrades. You built Leos? Will be mine soon

So actually I don't need to fear wonder races, if I build it - fine, if not - well, I am the superpower....