D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Is that a 362x362 map?
Post a picture of your empire
- Thread starter civverguy
- Start date
Doomsday Jesus
Chieftain
Why do you guys clump your cities so close together? And why don't you build hospitals, Overseer?
City spacing has been a very active topic lately. Most of the titles of the recent threads escape me at the moment, but I know that Pyrrhos started a thread called "C-X-X-C vs. C-X-X-X-X-C," or something similar. We worked city spacing over fairly hard in that thread and it's worth a read if you're interested in the topic. There are two basic theories of city spacing: (1) tight spacing (often called cxxc) and (2) wide spacing (aka cxxxxc). Before I get into the details, I should probably go ahead and admit that I'm partial to cxxc.
Tighter spacing has several effects. It reduces the number of wasted tiles in the early game, reduces distance corruption and makes for an empire that's easier to defend. It also reduces the need for "happy buildings" and pollution-reducers. One cost of doing this is that your cities run out of available tiles earlier than with wide city spacing.
Wider city spacing allows more of your cities are able to become metros. Unfortunately, this means that more tiles go unused during the early to mid-game, and metros require hospitals (or Shakespeare's), and may also need temples or cathedrals. Also, pollution goes up, so you should probably build some of the pollution-reducing buildings. Clearly, given comparable terrain, a size 20 metro will outproduce a size 12 city. The questions are: whether it's worth the cost, and whether the empire overall comes out better by having metros. Until that future metro hits size 13, they're the same, and lots of tiles will go unworked until that time.
I don't speak for Overseer, but I don't generally build hospitals, either, & I can tell you why. Sanitation is an optional tech and, at that point in the game, I'm usually more interested in Scientific Method (Theory of Evolution), Replaceable Parts, planes and tanks. Hospitals would allow a few of my cities to grow past size 12, but my empire is usually laid out using tighter city spacing, so I don't need hospitals. They might allow a few of my cities to hit metro status, but there won't be many tiles left to work at that point, so I would just wind up with a few extra laborers and a few extra specialists in my core. That's not worth the upkeep costs and added pollution to me.
Tighter spacing has several effects. It reduces the number of wasted tiles in the early game, reduces distance corruption and makes for an empire that's easier to defend. It also reduces the need for "happy buildings" and pollution-reducers. One cost of doing this is that your cities run out of available tiles earlier than with wide city spacing.
Wider city spacing allows more of your cities are able to become metros. Unfortunately, this means that more tiles go unused during the early to mid-game, and metros require hospitals (or Shakespeare's), and may also need temples or cathedrals. Also, pollution goes up, so you should probably build some of the pollution-reducing buildings. Clearly, given comparable terrain, a size 20 metro will outproduce a size 12 city. The questions are: whether it's worth the cost, and whether the empire overall comes out better by having metros. Until that future metro hits size 13, they're the same, and lots of tiles will go unworked until that time.
I don't speak for Overseer, but I don't generally build hospitals, either, & I can tell you why. Sanitation is an optional tech and, at that point in the game, I'm usually more interested in Scientific Method (Theory of Evolution), Replaceable Parts, planes and tanks. Hospitals would allow a few of my cities to grow past size 12, but my empire is usually laid out using tighter city spacing, so I don't need hospitals. They might allow a few of my cities to hit metro status, but there won't be many tiles left to work at that point, so I would just wind up with a few extra laborers and a few extra specialists in my core. That's not worth the upkeep costs and added pollution to me.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
It was a huge world, but not 362x362, 16 opponents. The normal huge setting. It was Huge Pangaea, 60% water, warm/wet, 4 billion, raging barbs.
I think everything Aabraxan said is dead-on accurate, and I couldn't have said it better. I think tighter spacing is more efficient, and a high shield core city is almost as productive as a metro, and has much lower maintenance. I doubt you could see from the picture, but most of those cities also had zero military presence. That may have been why countries with muskets and longbows kept declaring war on a country with tanks. Not very smart.
It was surprisingly easy, and I squeezed it in between my many SG commitments. I quickly figured out that the Demigod level COTM was too much work and this was actually much more fun. I took the tech lead early, like late AA, and pretty much self-researched the rest of the way. Many techs were 4 turns, despite the higher costs per tech. My massive specialist farm areas really did the trick. I'm also a natural at massing my slaves and workers, and I had a huge number of them, over 500. There was a ton of jungle, which really hampered the AI tribes. I had food bonuses, nearby luxuries, and plenty of grass nearby. It had been awhile since I had done much on my own, most that I do is SG's. Apparently they have improved my abilities.Overseer. I dont have the time or patience for such kind of games
_random_
Jewel Runner
Nice job, but you're way off for Portland! It's much further east, and a bit more to the north. Don't let that crap about Portland,OR fool you, every true American knows that Portland is in Maine!
Any chance you can find the link to the thread, I did a search with 'cxxc' and 'c-x-x-c' and did not return the desired results.
Much appreciated.
Absolutely. It's here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267177
hahah... Overseer I'd say that's pretty sick. Didn't you play that on Monarch and not war much until you had tanks? Nice game. I'd still recommend that you go and play COTM 48 (May, 2008 Byzantines Demi-God). And if you don't get it the second time or so, I'd go and replay it. I think you'll learn a lot. Or at least I certainly think I did. You probably know that map a little bit already, and having said that, does deciding on city spacing completely make all that much sense before you know much about the map, or the surrounding tribes? Sure, maybe you have to decide for your first town or two... but should one settle on a city spacing for all one's cities before getting much knowledge of the map? I'd even recommend that Darski or lower-level players go through at least the ancient age on that one. COTM 48 doesn't play like a typical game (in my opinion) and it helps to get you to think.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Raging barbs certainly makes closer city spacing better anyway, and I still had some war elephants die from barb horses. At Monarch, barbs are helpful to the human. At DG and higher, they really are the AIs best friend, limiting the human player while providing cash and experience for the AI. And yes, city spacing must be decided at the get-go, you can't suddenly decide to change your whole strategy. As it is, I stuck with cxxc even in my specialist farm areas, even though I could have went ICS. I'm sure I could have had 100 more cities, but that would require 100 more settlers. I needed workers worse with the thick jungle.
Well with closer city spacing you can get settlers and military out quicker, I suppose. But, you also cover less space so you have less fog-busted and consquently more potential places the barbarians can pop up. When the ancient to middle age change over comes... you might not want a single extra barbarian camp laying around. You certainly can place your capital with a cxxc around it and then use cxxxxc from that inner, first ring on outwards.... or continue with cxxc from your first ring depending on game condition. Why do you say you can't do that? Know of any full game instances or any data that indicates that cxxc around the capital and cxxxxc everywhere else that such a strategy doesn't work?
TheOverseer714
Overseer
The settlers spend less time exposed to potential barb attacks by settling closer. Once settled, your warriors can move there as guards and those close towns are quicker to hook up. Also, the distance corruption is less. I think map size also matters. On a smaller map or a higher level, the OCN is so low that you get one productive ring and that's it, so you can hardly afford to do cxxxxc. A larger map at a lower level, cxxxxc is fine. You might want to read the thread that aabraxan put in this thread for more.
[The settlers spend less time exposed to potential barb attacks by settling closer.]
I'd say it comes as 2 turns for the C2C and 4 turns of "exposure" for the C4C, counting each turn outside your cultural borders as a turn. In a jungle or mountain area this will matter less... and you can always forget your spacing and just plant a city if you have a barbarian adjacent. If you have a spear escort before the rush more exposure might not matter. Additionally, if you have your warriors out spotting encampments and/or have a "settler corridor" (a fog-busted pathway to your next city) "exposure" time matters less. I found it more useful to fog-bust as much as land as possible and "keep an eye on" encampments in COTM48 than to garrison units in cities. Maybe not though in some situations.
Hooking up sounds good in principle... but with raging barbarians warriors and military seem more important than early workers. Also, workers along border cities comes as more of a risk of getting sacked. Map size and map type and number of opponents and difficulty level I'd say all matter. I'll look into that thread.
I'd say it comes as 2 turns for the C2C and 4 turns of "exposure" for the C4C, counting each turn outside your cultural borders as a turn. In a jungle or mountain area this will matter less... and you can always forget your spacing and just plant a city if you have a barbarian adjacent. If you have a spear escort before the rush more exposure might not matter. Additionally, if you have your warriors out spotting encampments and/or have a "settler corridor" (a fog-busted pathway to your next city) "exposure" time matters less. I found it more useful to fog-bust as much as land as possible and "keep an eye on" encampments in COTM48 than to garrison units in cities. Maybe not though in some situations.
Hooking up sounds good in principle... but with raging barbarians warriors and military seem more important than early workers. Also, workers along border cities comes as more of a risk of getting sacked. Map size and map type and number of opponents and difficulty level I'd say all matter. I'll look into that thread.
darski
Regent in Training
I think Demi-god is just a tad too far a reach for me. I am struggling to play at Regent now with C3C.
I have considered looking at some higher level games but that is up there
Believe it or not Darski at the beginning of the month I thought that myself also. Now, I kind of think differently. Even if you think it "up there" I suggest you just play through to the early middle ages to at least understand raging barbarian behavior.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
I had 2 of the top 5 cities, and was #1 in all the important stuff, at least for a military victory. If I had been milking, the approval rating would have been important too, I think I was second there. Hang on, I can get a screenie up. Here ya go:
I asked because I wanted to compare my metros to your extra cities and specialist farms. You have a lot more land than I do but I still make better money and tons more shields.
I guess cxxc fails after the Industrial revolution
I guess cxxc fails after the Industrial revolution
