From demigod to klutz

Is the ratio of Civs to land not the same whether you play on tiny or huge (or anything in-between) so long as you choose the same ocean/land ratio?
The "number of available tiles per civ" goes up with map size. (Looks like the number of tiles goes up quadradically, while the number of civs goes up only linearly?!). In any case: even on a tiny map with 4 opponents, the next neighbour is usually much closer than on a large map with 16 opponents.


I am gonna try your useful-looking suggestion of playing for cultural win with a cultural (i.e. religious) Civ.

In my experience, going for a 100K victory is even more tedious and takes more "real time", than going for a simple domination victory. ;)
 
I am gonna try your useful-looking suggestion of playing for cultural win with a cultural (i.e. religious) Civ. Which trait goes best with religious do you think? Agricultural is probably pretty awesome.

Btw. I see what you mean about the Maya being a bit over the top. They are awesomely powerful. A good Civ to practise with at the DG level IMO.
If you want a Cultural win, the Babs might be a pretty good bet -- they're Sci+Rel (=Bronze+CB), so nearly all your Cultural buildings are cheap. Also, you get a free tech every new age, to steal a march on the Mid-Age Wonder Culture and Anarchy between govs will only last 2T (and if you've managed the Rep-slingshot as well, that means a massive boost to your economy/research at a very early stage...)

As if that wasn't enough, the Bowman is a pretty good UU, all things considered:
  1. They need WarCode, a first-tier Ancient Age tech, and no StratRes. The AIs love WC, so it should quickly become so cheap that you'll be able to buy/research it relatively easily -- especially if you also managed to get a tech-monopoly on anything
  2. You can start building them relatively early, but you can still attack incoming D=1 units (e.g. Archers, (War)Chariots, Horses) with vWarriors or vChariots, and defend with vSpears (backed up by an rBowman's defensive-bombard?) and still have a reasonably good chance of winning without needing to use your UU and trigger a GA before you want it.
  3. If you can placate your neighbours successfully, you can (up to a point) control the timing of your Golden Age, triggering it towards the end of the AA, when you're ready to start building lots of Temples+Libs and maybe even some Wonders (whose total Cultural output has much longer to add up over the course of a full-length game, even after the Wonder-effects have long-since expired). Once you see incoming Swords/ Immortals though :eek: you won't have a lot of choice about using your Bowmen.
NB No single AA-GWonder is Rel+Sci, so a UU-triggered Bab-GA is more reliable, especially at high levels. To get a Wonder-GA with the Babs, you need to own/build at least 2 GWs: SoZ (200s) or Oracle (300s) (Rel) + Mausoleum (200s, Sci) is the cheapest Bab-GA-combo

Even if you're not going for a Wonder-GA, if you have Ivory, the SoZ is a no-brainer, if you can swing it. Although the Babs need 3 non-starter techs for it (Masonry, Alphabet, Maths), ACavs are great attackers to use against incoming D=2 units, which get built for free while your cities build Culture, and may even allow you to save your Bowmen for the early Mid-Age and your Uni-builds...
 
The "number of available tiles per civ" goes up with map size. (Looks like the number of tiles goes up quadradically, while the number of civs goes up only linearly?!). In any case: even on a tiny map with 4 opponents, the next neighbour is usually much closer than on a large map with 16 opponents.




In my experience, going for a 100K victory is even more tedious and takes more "real time", than going for a simple domination victory. ;)
Yeah but it would still be novel. It's quite hard to get a really rocking domination game going. I have had a few, usually involving a prolonged, attritional and arduous defence, and I find them fun, but more often simply outstripping the AI in production etc leaves you in command before any real fighting starts and that's not fun.

If you want a Cultural win, the Babs might be a pretty good bet -- they're Sci+Rel (=Bronze+CB), so nearly all your Cultural buildings are cheap. Also, you get a free tech every new age, to steal a march on the Mid-Age Wonder Culture and Anarchy between govs will only last 2T (and if you've managed the Rep-slingshot as well, that means a massive boost to your economy/research at a very early stage...)

As if that wasn't enough, the Bowman is a pretty good UU, all things considered:
  1. They need WarCode, a first-tier Ancient Age tech, and no StratRes. The AIs love WC, so it should quickly become so cheap that you'll be able to buy/research it relatively easily -- especially if you also managed to get a tech-monopoly on anything
  2. You can start building them relatively early, but you can still attack incoming D=1 units (e.g. Archers, (War)Chariots, Horses) with vWarriors or vChariots, and defend with vSpears (backed up by an rBowman's defensive-bombard?) and still have a reasonably good chance of winning without needing to use your UU and trigger a GA before you want it.
  3. If you can placate your neighbours successfully, you can (up to a point) control the timing of your Golden Age, triggering it towards the end of the AA, when you're ready to start building lots of Temples+Libs and maybe even some Wonders (whose total Cultural output has much longer to add up over the course of a full-length game, even after the Wonder-effects have long-since expired). Once you see incoming Swords/ Immortals though :eek: you won't have a lot of choice about using your Bowmen.
NB No single AA-GWonder is Rel+Sci, so a UU-triggered Bab-GA is more reliable, especially at high levels. To get a Wonder-GA with the Babs, you need to own/build at least 2 GWs: SoZ (200s) or Oracle (300s) (Rel) + Mausoleum (200s, Sci) is the cheapest Bab-GA-combo

Even if you're not going for a Wonder-GA, if you have Ivory, the SoZ is a no-brainer, if you can swing it. Although the Babs need 3 non-starter techs for it (Masonry, Alphabet, Maths), ACavs are great attackers to use against incoming D=2 units, which get built for free while your cities build Culture, and may even allow you to save your Bowmen for the early Mid-Age and your Uni-builds...

Sounds very interesting.

Btw. despite playing for years and years, I have only just discovered that some civs like particular governments more than others. The Maya really lurve communism seemingly. In my current rout, I got the Republic sling shot pretty early and was plunged into prolonged war as a Republic in the late Middle-early industrial age, whereat the people became bumptious, precipitating a communist revolution. They actually became noticeably happier under anarchy (!) and positively delirious as commies.

I have never tried Fascism. Does anyone like that? The Germans maybe? :D
 
I am gonna try your useful-looking suggestion of playing for cultural win with a cultural (i.e. religious) Civ. Which trait goes best with religious do you think? Agricultural is probably pretty awesome.

Btw. I see what you mean about the Maya being a bit over the top. They are awesomely powerful. A good Civ to practise with at the DG level IMO.

Yes, Maya are over the top. I don't bother playing as them anymore

When you combine the extra growth with the faster workers...you are literally growing twice as fast

Agricultural goes with anything, even awful things like Militarisitc or Expansionist

For 20k, got to be the Byzantines.

For a 100k, bit more choice - Babylon, Celts, Sumeria

Maybe Egypt for an outside choice

Then you've got civilisations like Iroquois or Persia who can do everything well
 
Yeah but it would still be novel. It's quite hard to get a really rocking domination game going. I have had a few, usually involving a prolonged, attritional and arduous defence, and I find them fun, but more often simply outstripping the AI in production etc leaves you in command before any real fighting starts and that's not fun.



Sounds very interesting.

Btw. despite playing for years and years, I have only just discovered that some civs like particular governments more than others. The Maya really lurve communism seemingly. In my current rout, I got the Republic sling shot pretty early and was plunged into prolonged war as a Republic in the late Middle-early industrial age, whereat the people became bumptious, precipitating a communist revolution. They actually became noticeably happier under anarchy (!) and positively delirious as commies.

I have never tried Fascism. Does anyone like that? The Germans maybe? :D

Favoured governments affects their attitudes towards you I think, and that's it

The AI changes governments whenever it gets a new one or goes to war
 
Yes, Maya are over the top. I don't bother playing as them anymore

When you combine the extra growth with the faster workers...you are literally growing twice as fast

Agricultural goes with anything, even awful things like Militarisitc or Expansionist

For 20k, got to be the Byzantines.

For a 100k, bit more choice - Babylon, Celts, Sumeria

Maybe Egypt for an outside choice

Then you've got civilisations like Iroquois or Persia who can do everything well

Why are the Byzantines good at single city culture but not empire-wide?
 
Why are the Byzantines good at single city culture but not empire-wide?

Seafaring means they start on the coast, Scientific means they start with Bronze Working tech

Early Colossus is sickeningly effective, even if you're going for a Diplomatic or Space Race win instead

Combine it with Copernicus, Newton's, Mausoleum of Mausolus later on and it's hilarious - ton of cash, ton of science. The beakers will go off the chart, literally

Oracle should fall in line nicely after that, then you can take your time going for the Great Library, and you'll get a golden age as well

Then it's the usual - Sistine's/Bach's, Newton's, Shakespeare's etc

20k works for Byzantines, and not other seafaring civlisations because they have cheap libraries, universities, research labs, free tech...being Seafaring = more money = more research = more techs = more wonders

If you're wondering why 20k doesn't work for Spain, being Religious & Seafaring, it's because they're s**t

Agricultural is the dominant trait, it's the clear best

After that, you can take your pick between Scientific, Industrious, Commercial

Religious and Seafaring are as good (or better) as those three in certain victory types or certain maps

Expansionist and Militaristic are dead last

As for 100k, Byzantines are ok at it, but Seafaring just is not as good as Religious when it comes to culture

Cheap Temples & Cathedrals are magnified by Sistine's Chapel, ties in nicely with Bach's, saves you money on the luxury slider, which means more science, more cash rushing, more culture - just overwhelming, in a word

So for 100k, that gives you Babylon, Maya (despite no cheap buildings, they will have far more cities), Celts, Sumeria as the best I reckon. Egypt or India as outside choices

I'd pick Greece, Persia, Ottomans...over Byzantines for 100k too, but even then, why are you going for 100k with those? Space Race is perfect for that lot

Domination with Persia or Ottomans, even

You can win a cultural victory with the Zulu or Mongols, but why bother?

But anyway, for 20k, Byzantines are the best choice
 
Seafaring means they start on the coast, Scientific means they start with Bronze Working tech

Early Colossus is sickeningly effective, even if you're going for a Diplomatic or Space Race win instead

Combine it with Copernicus, Newton's, Mausoleum of Mausolus later on and it's hilarious - ton of cash, ton of science. The beakers will go off the chart, literally

Oracle should fall in line nicely after that, then you can take your time going for the Great Library, and you'll get a golden age as well

Then it's the usual - Sistine's/Bach's, Newton's, Shakespeare's etc

20k works for Byzantines, and not other seafaring civlisations because they have cheap libraries, universities, research labs, free tech...being Seafaring = more money = more research = more techs = more wonders

If you're wondering why 20k doesn't work for Spain, being Religious & Seafaring, it's because they're s**t

Agricultural is the dominant trait, it's the clear best

After that, you can take your pick between Scientific, Industrious, Commercial

Religious and Seafaring are as good (or better) as those three in certain victory types or certain maps

Expansionist and Militaristic are dead last

As for 100k, Byzantines are ok at it, but Seafaring just is not as good as Religious when it comes to culture

Cheap Temples & Cathedrals are magnified by Sistine's Chapel, ties in nicely with Bach's, saves you money on the luxury slider, which means more science, more cash rushing, more culture - just overwhelming, in a word

So for 100k, that gives you Babylon, Maya (despite no cheap buildings, they will have far more cities), Celts, Sumeria as the best I reckon. Egypt or India as outside choices

I'd pick Greece, Persia, Ottomans...over Byzantines for 100k too, but even then, why are you going for 100k with those? Space Race is perfect for that lot

Domination with Persia or Ottomans, even

You can win a cultural victory with the Zulu or Mongols, but why bother?

But anyway, for 20k, Byzantines are the best choice

Instructive, thanks. Not quite sure how you beat all those other Civs to the GWs but it all sounds very well thought out. I am now playing Babylon at emperor level, small Pangea. Pretty good fun. It's nice taking other people's cities with culture.
 
These here Babylons are quite good fun, aren't they? I am playing a small Pangea game at emperor level (to get the hang of things). In the early industrial phase I have a small tech lead, equal pop. with India (about 35% each I think), which has much more land, while the only other power of significance is England. Rome and Spain have been eliminated and the Dutch cling on to one city on an island somewhere (but need not worry about the Pyramids which I am looking after for them :D).

India lies between England and me. England just launched an unprovoked war against me but India was willing to ally with me against them in return for Spices. This is the wrong way round. I want to be fighting India together with England because India is in a position to profit from English weakness whereas I am not. OTOH, Babylon and England -v- India would surely leave my lot in charge. So, as soon as CivAssist tells me England is willing to negotiate, I shall rat on India and ally against her, trashing my rep for all time in the process but, when you're down to just three, rep doesn't really matter and England will love me anyway.

I have the highest overall culture score, just, which is nice and an unaccustomed boon as I have not really played religious Civs before. Lanzelot will be pleased to know all my core cities are and have been for some time at size 12 thanks largely to the crucial tactic of transferring pop. from 'crap' towns (Lanzelot's designation :)) to the centre. That really is critical. Like overlapping cities and a happiness slider at anything above 0% I have had to overcome deeply-felt aesthetic objections but I rationalise: it's just like the peasants moving to the big city for work like what really happened in real history so what's the problem innit? Anyway, I now see that as a key element on the road to mastery.

So, to TJS RS8 and others, thanks for suggesting the fun Babs! They is cool.

ETA I also have three armies - one of Pikemen, one of medieval infantry and one of cavalry. The Pentagon is under construction so I shall probably pop a rifleman into each of the first two to beef them up even more. Then it's mass production of cannon/artillery and game over.

ETA and finally, it's also cool to only have to wait two turns for a government switch. Big edge.
 
The Babs were always one of my favourite Civs to play in CivDOS (I like green!), so I usually picked them as my Civ on random maps, and on the Earth-map -- so long as I could kill the Mongols/Russians early! -- the Babs' starting position was much better than the Zulus' (the other green Civ). But I can only remember playing two games with them in CivIII, both at Regent level (IIRC): one random-opponents Continents-map in Vanilla 1.29 a year or two back, and the Conquests 1.22 Mesopotamia scenario earlier this year (the only Scenario-attempt I've played so far).

In the Vanilla game, I went for a 100K vic, but despite having built all the Cultural buildings everywhere, and (Leader-)building ~80% of the game's GWs (in Babylon, one other high-SPT inland city, and one lower-SPT but coastal city for the nautical GWs), I didn't get it. That is, I lost interest in getting it, when I hit 100K and then discovered that someone else (the French?) had >50K. I had been checking the histograph regularly, but my back-of-the-envelope calculations had suggested that I would hit 100K before they hit 50K. I was wrong :cry: And because I'd spread the Wonders around, a 20K vic wasn't quite possible either before time would have run out (it would have been possible, if I'd built just one more AncAge or MidAge GW in Babylon instead of Nineveh...) :cry: :cry: :cry:

I did win the game though ;) I was already into the Modern Age when I hit 100K, and although I certainly had the wherewithal to stifle futher French(?) Cultural development by invading their continent and grabbing their cities, I wasn't 100% certain that I'd be able to get double their Culture before time ran out (plus I was bored/ frustrated with that game and just wanted it finished!). So I defaulted to using my high-shield cities to build all the Spaceship parts in about 6T instead :sleep:

I also won in Mesopotamia -- on VPs. I got an SGL and built ToA, which made it almost too easy... (hear my cities go pop pop pop pop pop!), especially after the Hittites were foolish enough to declare war on me and my multitudes of Heavy Infantry... :trouble:

I really ought to give the Babs another go, at a (much) higher difficulty -- maybe my next (Emp) game.
 
Am i imagining things or is the Civ-wide mark 80,000? Yes, I just checked. It is. Somewhere in CivAssist there is a calculation of how long it will take me to get there (if thats what I'm aiming for).

Ah, it's saying 1972. And of course more builds will bring that down a bit. Still, probably quicker to bump everybody off. It is now 1295 so plenty of time.
 
No, it's one army per 4 towns. And look at the minimap -- Jivilov's glorious (purple) Portuguese empire covers about two-thirds of the world, and he's not even using ICS'd specialist farms! The increased no. of supportable Armies is yet another good reason for building (1-shield) specialist-farms -- some of the others being:
  1. Taxmen can add +2 GPT to your Treasury -- or the town can support up to two 1-GPT improvements, without being a net drain on your Treasury: e.g. Harbor for food, Barracks for vet-units (slow-built or cash-rushed), or Temple/Lib (marginal value unless going for Culture win?)
  2. Scientists can boost BPT, allowing you to reduce the science slider for more Lux% or Tax%
  3. Every settlement, no matter how corrupt/wasteful, still allows at least 1 additional free unit under Republic -- and (lots) more under less liberal gov-types -- which can (significantly) lower military support costs

What are these?
 
Specialist farms are doggy-barf corrupt towns or cities with enough extra food to support specialists, especially (no pun intended) scientists and taxmen. The more extra food, the more specialists can be supported. In sprawling empires that's about all most towns and cities will be good for, since specialist output--unlike commerce and shields--is uncorrupted.

ICS means Infinite City Sprawl, building cities as close as possible (CxCxCxC...). I'm not sure exactly whether tjs was referring to their Army allowance/military support effect or any extra benefit they might have for specialist farming (building cities that close together is OK I guess, provided you don't build them on irrigated grassland or food bonus resources). But I'd like to know a little more about it myself.
 
Am i imagining things or is the Civ-wide mark 80,000? Yes, I just checked. It is.
In Vanilla, the civ-wide Culture-win value was/is 100K on all map sizes. In C3C, it scales with map size, and on a small map (like you're currently using), it is indeed 80K. But I usually play on Standard-size maps anyway (my comp struggles at Large+, but ≤Small maps have fewer civs = less interesting games).
Somewhere in CivAssist there is a calculation of how long it will take me to get there (if thats what I'm aiming for). Ah, it's saying 1972. And of course more builds will bring that down a bit. Still, probably quicker to bump everybody off. It is now 1295 so plenty of time.
Even in Vanilla, the Cultural advisor (F3) will tell you your current total Culture, and how much CultPT you're making, so you can figure out the number of turns you need to win (although working out the exact year would require knowing by heart the years per turn at all stages of the game -- or looking at the .bic file in the Editor). In C3C, the Victory status/histograph screen (F8) will also tell you how close you are to a Culture-win (and who your nearest rival is). But yeah, CAII does make everything easier -- and yeah, Culture wins take a long time... Domination/ Conquest games will certainly be quicker.
I'd like to know a little more about it myself.
This article by the venerable Bede discusses use of Specialists in depth (almost too deep for me, TBH!). Re. Farming -- I was referring to all the possible benefits: the increased GPT/BPT, the increased no. of free units, and the increased no. of supportable Armies (every town, no matter how small/crappy, count towards the '1-Army-per-4-Towns' rule). But specifically, the idea of Specialist-farming is based on the fact that (barring Mountains/Volcanoes) you can place 1 town per 4 tiles, as follows ('scuse the crude graphic):

Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|
--------------
Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|
--------------
Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|

Since the city-tile always gives 2 FPT, so long as at least one of the 'x' tiles can produce at least 2FPT, you can build an MM-free Farm, with 1 citizen (working the 2 FPT tile) supporting 1 Specialist (who eats the 2FPT surplus). The ideal would be a Pop6 town producing a net 12FPT (2 FPT from the City, 10FPT from the terrain), which (without food bonuses) could support 3 citizens and 3 specialists with no improvements needed (because in 1-shield towns, imps are sloooow to build, and even a 1GPT maintenance cost will be a net drain on treasury unless you're using a Taxman or running 0% Sci+Lux, i.e. 100% Tax). Other examples:
  • A Farm surrounded by railed+irrigated Plains would give 11FPT (2 FPT from the City, 3*3=9FPT from 3*irPlains), supporting 3 citizens and 2 Specialists, and can use the 1 FPT excess to grow Workers (for adding to the core towns, or pumping up other Farms).
  • A Farm surrounded by railed+irrigated Grass would give 14FPT (2 FPT from the City, 3*4=12FPT from 3*irGrass), supporting 3 citizens and 4 Specialists (although such a town would also need freshwater or a 'Duct -- in the latter case, one of those Specialists might need to be a Taxman).
  • A Farm with freshwater -- or a 'Duct (e.g. a captured AI town which had already built one -- which you can't sell) -- could even be allowed to grow up to Pop12, with 5-7 citizens supporting 5-7 Specialists.
If you add food-bonuses into the mix, you can support even more Specialists per citizen:
  • Imagine a riverbank city with 4 irFloods in its radius, just one of which has a Wheat = 2 + 3*5 + 7 = 24 FPT from 4 cititzens, supporting 8 Specialists!
And even marginal terrain can be Farmed:
  • A coastal Tundra-Farm could use a CivEng(s) to build a Harbour (60s to build -- or 30s for Mil-/Sea-Civs -- and needs 1GPT maintenance) to get 2 FPT per Coast-tile (or 4FPT if there's a Fish).
  • (If you can stand that level of MM), a Farm with only a single 1FPT tile in its 3*3 grid could work 1 tile for 20T to fill the food box, then convert that citizen to a Specialist for the next 10T while the foodbox empties.
So even at worst, your Farms can support around 0.3 specialists per citizen -- if you add food-bonuses into the mix, you could support up to a 2:1 ratio. And you don't really need to worry about unhappiness either: Specialists are always Content, and even in a Pop12 Farm you'll almost never have more than 5 or 6 working Joes, so even at high difficulty levels where everyone's born miserable, you'll really only need 3-4 Luxes (or 2-3 Luxes plus 10-20Lux%) to keep all the Farm-pop Happy/Content.

The downsides of ICS farms are:
  • Gameplay-related, because more towns =
    • More IBT processing time, since food/gold/beaker/pollution/flip-risk calculations now need to be done for dozens/hundreds of small/crappy towns = longer games
    • More town management = more tedious games (or switch on the Governator, and take your lumps...)
  • Subjective/ aesthetic (ICS'd maps look horrible, IMO).
 
Specialist farms are doggy-barf corrupt towns or cities with enough extra food to support specialists, especially (no pun intended) scientists and taxmen. The more extra food, the more specialists can be supported. In sprawling empires that's about all most towns and cities will be good for, since specialist output--unlike commerce and shields--is uncorrupted.

ICS means Infinite City Sprawl, building cities as close as possible (CxCxCxC...). I'm not sure exactly whether tjs was referring to their Army allowance/military support effect or any extra benefit they might have for specialist farming (building cities that close together is OK I guess, provided you don't build them on irrigated grassland or food bonus resources). But I'd like to know a little more about it myself.

Ah, thanks. I thought I was missing something but I simply didn't know the acronym. TJS has now replied at length and I will digest his/her post before responding.
 
In Vanilla, the civ-wide Culture-win value was/is 100K on all map sizes. In C3C, it scales with map size, and on a small map (like you're currently using), it is indeed 80K. But I usually play on Standard-size maps anyway (my comp struggles at Large+, but ≤Small maps have fewer civs = less interesting games).
Even in Vanilla, the Cultural advisor (F3) will tell you your current total Culture, and how much CultPT you're making, so you can figure out the number of turns you need to win (although working out the exact year would require knowing by heart the years per turn at all stages of the game -- or looking at the .bic file in the Editor). In C3C, the Victory status/histograph screen (F8) will also tell you how close you are to a Culture-win (and who your nearest rival is). But yeah, CAII does make everything easier -- and yeah, Culture wins take a long time... Domination/ Conquest games will certainly be quicker.
This article by the venerable Bede discusses use of Specialists in depth (almost too deep for me, TBH!). Re. Farming -- I was referring to all the possible benefits: the increased GPT/BPT, the increased no. of free units, and the increased no. of supportable Armies (every town, no matter how small/crappy, count towards the '1-Army-per-4-Towns' rule). But specifically, the idea of Specialist-farming is based on the fact that (barring Mountains/Volcanoes) you can place 1 town per 4 tiles, as follows ('scuse the crude graphic):

Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|
--------------
Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|
--------------
Cx|Cx|Cx|Cx|...
xx|xx|xx|xx|

Since the city-tile always gives 2 FPT, so long as at least one of the 'x' tiles can produce at least 2FPT, you can build an MM-free Farm, with 1 citizen (working the 2 FPT tile) supporting 1 Specialist (who eats the 2FPT surplus). The ideal would be a Pop6 town producing a net 12FPT (2 FPT from the City, 10FPT from the terrain), which (without food bonuses) could support 3 citizens and 3 specialists with no improvements needed (because in 1-shield towns, imps are sloooow to build, and even a 1GPT maintenance cost will be a net drain on treasury unless you're using a Taxman or running 0% Sci+Lux, i.e. 100% Tax). Other examples:
  • A Farm surrounded by railed+irrigated Plains would give 11FPT (2 FPT from the City, 3*3=9FPT from 3*irPlains), supporting 3 citizens and 2 Specialists, and can use the 1 FPT excess to grow Workers (for adding to the core towns, or pumping up other Farms).
  • A Farm surrounded by railed+irrigated Grass would give 14FPT (2 FPT from the City, 3*4=12FPT from 3*irGrass), supporting 3 citizens and 4 Specialists (although such a town would also need freshwater or a 'Duct -- in the latter case, one of those Specialists might need to be a Taxman).
  • A Farm with freshwater -- or a 'Duct (e.g. a captured AI town which had already built one -- which you can't sell) -- could even be allowed to grow up to Pop12, with 5-7 citizens supporting 5-7 Specialists.
If you add food-bonuses into the mix, you can support even more Specialists per citizen:
  • Imagine a riverbank city with 4 irFloods in its radius, just one of which has a Wheat = 2 + 3*5 + 7 = 24 FPT from 4 cititzens, supporting 8 Specialists!
And even marginal terrain can be Farmed:
  • A coastal Tundra-Farm could use a CivEng(s) to build a Harbour (60s to build -- or 30s for Mil-/Sea-Civs -- and needs 1GPT maintenance) to get 2 FPT per Coast-tile (or 4FPT if there's a Fish).
  • (If you can stand that level of MM), a Farm with only a single 1FPT tile in its 3*3 grid could work 1 tile for 20T to fill the food box, then convert that citizen to a Specialist for the next 10T while the foodbox empties.
So even at worst, your Farms can support around 0.3 specialists per citizen -- if you add food-bonuses into the mix, you could support up to a 2:1 ratio. And you don't really need to worry about unhappiness either: Specialists are always Content, and even in a Pop12 Farm you'll almost never have more than 5 or 6 working Joes, so even at high difficulty levels where everyone's born miserable, you'll really only need 3-4 Luxes (or 2-3 Luxes plus 10-20Lux%) to keep all the Farm-pop Happy/Content.

The downsides of ICS farms are:
  • Gameplay-related, because more towns =
    • More IBT processing time, since food/gold/beaker/pollution/flip-risk calculations now need to be done for dozens/hundreds of small/crappy towns = longer games
    • More town management = more tedious games (or switch on the Governator, and take your lumps...)
  • Subjective/ aesthetic (ICS'd maps look horrible, IMO).

That is a most instructive post. Thanks! The aesthetic consideration and the hassle of managing so many cities would deter me but it's still very interesting to know about these ideas. Now, I have an idea for another thread!
 
Thanks for the link to Bede and other info tjs. Read Bede's article before but only now is it making (some sort of) sense.

Question: Where do you get the settlers for all those specialist farms? Won't you waste cash rushing them in corrupted settlements?
 
Thanks for the link to Bede and other info tjs. Read Bede's article before but only now is it making (some sort of) sense.

Question: Where do you get the settlers for all those specialist farms? Won't you waste cash rushing them in corrupted settlements?
You could build them in non-core but non-corrupt cities which are knocking out e.g. 10-15 SPT, and/or growing too fast to sustain happiness.

Or you can build them out of other Farms -- all your cities have to be building something, so why not Settlers? If you have 30 1-shield Farms, all building Settlers, even without rushing anything, in 30T time you'll have 60 farms building Settlers, and in 60T time you'll have 120 Farms building Settlers...

And if that seems too slow, remember you can always have Workers doing forest plants/chops near your farm(s) for a 10-shield boost to the build, and then pay the difference to rush the Settler -- cash-rushing with 11 shields in the box (76g) would be 40g cheaper than rushing from 1 shield (116g). Or if forest chopping isn't feasible, you could disband an obsolete unit -- a 40s Mace or LBM gives 10s -- since even with Leo's, the upgrade to Guerrilla/ TOWInf is really far too expensive to be worth doing en masse (and if you can afford to do it, then cashflow is probably not a problem...)

As to where that cash might come from, well, by the time you're Farming, you're probably well on the way to winning anyway, which means you should be able to earn cash by selling your monopoly techs (up to about Emp/DG anyway, probably not at Deity or Sid...), or by trading all the excess Luxes/Resources that you now control (on smaller maps at least...).

Or you can get the gold from the Farms themselves, either directly by using Taxmen, or indirectly using Scientists. Even if the town has one cheap (1GPT) building to maintain, a single Taxman will still deliver +1GPT to your treasury (i.e. 30 Farms each supporting 3 Taxmen and 1 building will give you 150GPT -- which is only 2g short of the amount you'd need to rush 2 forest-chopped Settlers per turn, as shown above). Using Scientists means you can research techs with a lower Sci% (because those same 30 Farms, each supporting 3 Scientists, will generate 270BPT)...
 
Thanks again for the prompt and detailed reply tjs. If I never win at Demigod it won't be for lack of informed advice. (Still no luck so far, dangit :().
 
You could build them in non-core but non-corrupt cities which are knocking out e.g. 10-15 SPT, and/or growing too fast to sustain happiness.

Or you can build them out of other Farms -- all your cities have to be building something, so why not Settlers? If you have 30 1-shield Farms, all building Settlers, even without rushing anything, in 30T time you'll have 60 farms building Settlers, and in 60T time you'll have 120 Farms building Settlers...

And if that seems too slow, remember you can always have Workers doing forest plants/chops near your farm(s) for a 10-shield boost to the build, and then pay the difference to rush the Settler -- cash-rushing with 11 shields in the box (76g) would be 40g cheaper than rushing from 1 shield (116g). Or if forest chopping isn't feasible, you could disband an obsolete unit -- a 40s Mace or LBM gives 10s -- since even with Leo's, the upgrade to Guerrilla/ TOWInf is really far too expensive to be worth doing en masse (and if you can afford to do it, then cashflow is probably not a problem...)

As to where that cash might come from, well, by the time you're Farming, you're probably well on the way to winning anyway, which means you should be able to earn cash by selling your monopoly techs (up to about Emp/DG anyway, probably not at Deity or Sid...), or by trading all the excess Luxes/Resources that you now control (on smaller maps at least...).

Or you can get the gold from the Farms themselves, either directly by using Taxmen, or indirectly using Scientists. Even if the town has one cheap (1GPT) building to maintain, a single Taxman will still deliver +1GPT to your treasury (i.e. 30 Farms each supporting 3 Taxmen and 1 building will give you 150GPT -- which is only 2g short of the amount you'd need to rush 2 forest-chopped Settlers per turn, as shown above). Using Scientists means you can research techs with a lower Sci% (because those same 30 Farms, each supporting 3 Scientists, will generate 270BPT)...

The bold bit is funny because this evening I had this very idea, all by myself. I was dead chuffed and thought I would come here and show off. Fat chance :(. But the thing is, it didnt work when I tried it. 3 workers to plant a forest and 2 to chop it down. Result: nothing. I must be doing something wrong. Good wheeze though.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom