Size of your farms?

[vorlon_mi]

So, I'm finishing a Regent game, and I'm going for Space Race this time. I had a tech lead as I entered the industrial age, and am the first one into modern times. Feels like my tech pace has slowed, and I am looking at a launch date around 1900.

As a tactic, I've founded about 10-15 coastal cities (all hopelessly corrupt, only one shield) and cash-rushed a harbor. They've grown to size 6, with one to two scientist specialists each, depending on whether they have access to a fish resource.

1) How many science farms do you usually build? Should I pack them in, on the periphery of my main empire, or drop them into the land I just took from the AI? (They attacked me, I made them pay )

2) Do you leave your farms at size 6, or do you rush build an aqueduct to let them get bigger? Is there enough food per square to support farms > size 6, if all the land tiles have roads & rails?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

coastal cities aren't great science farms... best are highly corrupt grasslands.

If you figure that a settler is 30 shields and an aqueduct is 100, it's better to pack 'em in and not bother with the aqueducts.

 

[Bowsling]

I like to keep the cities I conquer, settle a couple cities in between, and turn them into massive size-twelve farms, with two or three citizens working the land and the rest collecting and recollecting taxes from those poor overworked guys. Or making glass beakers and filling them with purple goo.

 

[bigFRANK]

Upto size 12 if the food to support them is readily available, otherwise 6 with a scientist or two is my usual.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

If you can afford all those cash rushed aqueducts and are willing to put in all that effort, go for it. Buying aqueducts to expand all my science farms has never crossed my mind. I imagine this to be a tough one to know whether it is worth the effort.

 

[Raliuven]

I don't bother with aqueducts. Placing cities on a river usually takes care of the problem of overly lush areas. The exception to the rule is if I am running at 100% research at more than 4 turns per tech and my gold income is positive (usually because of trades, etc.).

In this case the only way to grow your economy and thus lower your research time is by increasing the number of beakers. Your core is probably already at peek beakers so the only place to gain is with farms. If you have room to grow without upsetting your current situation then expansion may be the easier solution (and probably more interesting). Otherwise you can throw up a few aqueducts. I'd consider this an exception to the rule, though.

I think most players would default to put down a new city or conquering some more land than building harbors or ducts, certainly not hospitals.

Another factor is continued cost. If I put down a new city that will give me new unit support and if I switch it to wealth then I gain +1gpt (possibly more for unit support). If I build an duct, etc. then I am paying out money, though this may be a wash vs. gained unit support for a city over size 6.

Finally, citizen count. If the city has full food box (20 food) and cannot grow, you create a settler. The next turn it is up to size 5 again with 20 food to for the next growth. As soon as you settle the city you are at the same point as when you started population wise, though maybe not by beakers. Assume a standard of +2fpt (before rails) and you have two cities growing at a +2fpt (+4fpt) each trying to grow vs. a 20 food bin. You will have two new citizens in 10 turns.

If you build a duct instead you get immediate growth to size 7 the next turn and you now need 40 food for the next growth. Your next citizen comes in 20 turns (at +2fpt). At the 10 turn mark the two smaller cities already have more population than you size 7 city and by the time you grow to size 12 (100 turns later) both cities will be size 6 (one in 10 turns and ready to produce another settler in 20 turns) and one at size 6 ready to produce a settler in 60 turns.

This way you can see the exponential growth of the farms themselves. By creating settlers you are creating a system where producing more settlers is even easier. By creating a duct you are creating a system where you do not want to reduce the population of that city. Thus cities on a river I leave alone to grow while cities doomed to size 6 become settler/worker farms.

 

[Theov]

This way you can see the exponential growth of the farms themselves. By creating settlers you are creating a system where producing more settlers is even easier. By creating a duct you are creating a system where you do not want to reduce the population of that city. Thus cities on a river I leave alone to grow while cities doomed to size 6 become settler/worker farms.

Hey can you post a save please so I can see what this looks like?
Thanks.

 

[Spoonwood]

It took me a while to figure out how to do all this well.

1) How many science farms do you usually build? Should I pack them in, on the periphery of my main empire, or drop them into the land I just took from the AI?

Basically as many as possible in areas that you have captured or areas beyond your 2nd ring (possibly 3rd, though what works best, I think, depends on map size, especially since courthouses cost quite a bit to put up). Use ICS spacing, and forget aqueducts and really any other structures in general.

2) Do you leave your farms at size 6, or do you rush build an aqueduct to let them get bigger? Is there enough food per square to support farms > size 6, if all the land tiles have roads & rails?

In a "regular" (non-histographic) game, have them at size 6 and no aqueduct. Raliuven has pretty good reasoning on this. Actually, you don't necessarily even need to wait for farm cities to grow to size 6 (once you have rails) to use specialists, if you want to manage things more closely and possibly have better results.

You want you specialist farms not on fresh water to grow to a size where they can produce as many specialists as they could as size 6 without starving out. So, a city with all grassland around, at size 4 needs 8 food to not starve out. Well, 3 specialists means the city will starve. However, a city at size 5 needs 10 food to not starve out. With 2 irrigated and railed grasslands plus the city center that gives you 10 or 11 food per turn (2 or 3 for the city center). So, you can have 3 specialists at size 5 without starvation. Example (1 grass and 1 plain as agricultural equals 2 grass as non-agricultural):



At size 6 you would need 12 food per turn so that the city doesn't starve which in a case like that requires 3 citizens to not starve no matter if you play as agricultural or not. In areas with more plains/desert (if agricultural), you'll want the city to grow to size 6, if playing agricultural. Example:



If you don't play as an agricultural, and only plains around/3 food per turn squares, then you'll only manage 2 specialists without starvation (per the screenshot of Susa above). So, you can really have those plain area cities grow to size 4 and then use 2 specialists then, since you can get 6 food from two worked irrigated and railroaded plain squares, and 2 more food from the city center, for a total of 8 food. There exists no benefit in terms of specialists by having the city grow bigger.

If you have a city in a good grassland spot with a nice food bonus there, you might even get 4 specialists out of such a city at size 6. Example (note even if non-agricultural, one could still get 4 specialists here without starvation):

.

Hey can you post a save please so I can see what this looks like?

I know you didn't direct that to me, but these saves in this game might help.

 

[Spoonwood]

If you can afford all those cash rushed aqueducts and are willing to put in all that effort, go for it. Buying aqueducts to expand all my science farms has never crossed my mind. I imagine this to be a tough one to know whether it is worth the effort.

I'd think it better to cash rush settlers, workers, and military (especially upgrading units) so you can have even more farms. My experience tends to suggest this, though I don't have any particular data to cite here.

 

[ionize]

In any case I would not build aqueducts. They cost maintenance and at the same time you could use the fertile tiles to get more cities in the area supported. Through Spoonwood's advice I learnt to build in CxC format, irrigate all the tiles and get a maximum out of the terrain I have. This way I ended up with a big number of cities "6 with three scientist each and no starvation.

I also realized that farms on coasts are rather bad in comparison to in-land. I either had two scientists or starvation, because I couldn't keep the food-balance.

 

[Hellfiredoom]

Great info, I've been mulling over this very question the past week. Thanks to everyone, especially Spoonwood, for posting responses.

 

[bigFRANK]

Guess I should raise more of my opponents towns then and replant them in better locations, I tend to be very multicultural though and absorb them into my empire even if they are a couple or spaces away from the ideal placement.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Wonderful! Thanks for the replies, everyone. When conquering, I tend to be more like bigFRANK and keep the towns I capture, rather than raze-n-replace. I keep forgetting to include production of settlers in my war preparations. I guess if I truly want to pave over the landscape with farm towns, I need to be producing a lot more settlers and pack them in.

Spoonwood, I noticed in your screenshots that there are no troops/garrisons visible in *any* of your farms. Even if the wars are all happening at the other end of your continent, aren't you worried about the odd AI boat coming along, and landing a cavalry or two? Do you have a small defense force just off the screen, that can zip in via rails to repel an invasion?

 

[Raliuven]

With rails it is not a concern at all. If the AI makes a landing it is easy enough to rush troops back to clear the landing. Once they have marines or if the Vikings are around they you need to be a little more cautious if there are boats sniffing around that you can't (or can't be bothered) to sink. The AI's horrible handling of an amphibious landing means any landing, even by an AI with superior land forces, is usually pretty easy to reduce.

Without rails I will usually garrison a few 'quick responders' in an area.

 

[ionize]

I'm not Spoonwood, but I'd like to answer that as well. You can leave your cities without garrisons, especially when you got a good railroad network. There is no need to tie down a lot of units in your country, when they could be somewhere else doing something useful (i.e. conquering). Also you should consider garrisons in border cities instead of in-land cities. From what I know the AI estimates your strength from what it sees on the border, not miles upon miles within your land.

And last but not least: Sure, you should keep a home-force to repel some incoming attacks.

 

[Quasar1011]

From what I know the AI estimates your strength from what it sees on the border, not miles upon miles within your land.

That's not true. Sometimes the AI will invade your territory and head for your weakest interior city before declaring war. Even if you've never given them your map, that happens.

And last but not least: Sure, you should keep a home-force to repel some incoming attacks.

That's good advice, after railroads. Before rails, you may need more than 1 "rapid-response force", as I call them.

 

[Spoonwood]

I always play capture and keep.

No, I'm not worried about the odd AI boat coming along once I have rails especially. Before rails, I really don't worry either. There do exist some exceptions, but before Astronomy and especially Navigation you can often spot a ship coming your way towards your territory (this depends on the map). The gap between the AI getting a tech where they can land unwanted via a strange landing and when I get rails isn't usually that large. Also, leaving your capital undefended especially can have its advantages. So, even if I did worry about the odd AI landing, I wouldn't leave units in my cities, I'd leave them near them.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Before rails, I really don't worry either. There do exist some exceptions, but before Astronomy and especially Navigation you can often spot a ship coming your way towards your territory (this depends on the map).

Of course! Before the AI get Astronomy, they will have to sail close to the coast, and will be visible before they land. And before Navigation, they (allegedly) can't cross ocean tiles, so again, they would be announcing their intentions. The AI usually can't resist an undefended town, but the rapid response force you mention could cover a lot of ground, even before rails. Knights on roads, for example.

 

[MysteryX]

That's not true. Sometimes the AI will invade your territory and head for your weakest interior city before declaring war. Even if you've never given them your map, that happens.

I don't know if the AI considers things still under the fog of war. In the early expansion stage, it seems to me that an AI will not try to settle an area it has not been able to explore yet. If I can use a terrain advantage to block their explorers, then they won't be sending their ships to settle land behind my borders; if they get their explorers back there, their settler ships are coming not to long after they get Map Making.

The AI though does a decent job of mapping the world, and they must exchange maps with each other frequently when they get the tech to do it. Even if you don't trade your own territory maps, if one AI has been able to map out your territory, then every AI has a map of your territory.

 

[del62]

One advantage of getting a farm above size 6, especially if running republic is the increased unit support, sometimes for stategic reason at the time because of trade options etc you may not be at war, so aqueducts can be a neat solution, particularly after replaceable parts, the answer to aqueducts or not is often the same answer to alot of these things, it depends on your goals and stratergy