Specialization is for Insects

[PartAnon]

Yeah, without a doubt, it's easier said than done. I guess the devil is in the details. How many units to build, how many cottages and where, which cities should build wealth, which techs to go for, whether or not the map can support enough production, etc.. Almost like there's a special technique to non-specialization. Die, thread, die!

 

[IAM]

Strategy: Agressively tech trade. Research techs that make good trade bait like Divine Right. Then go to every AI and trade for whatever you can get. Even if it's a tech with only half the research time. You'll get a few good trades (assuming a dozen civs) and can end up with 4 to 6 techs and 3000 gold for the research. Remember once one AI has a tech they soon all will so once you trade a tech it will soon be common anyway so get what you can.

Strategy: Aggresively trade resources. Including strategic resourses like horse. You can get a couple of resources and gold per turn from an AI. Trade resources like pig (+1 health early game) for wheat (+2 health in granary city which all cities should build). If you have one pig and AI has two sheep trading the resources can be beneficial diplomatically. Trade strategic resources with civs friendly to you or that are fighting a common enemy. Trade Stone and Marble to your next war victim you'll be takin or /razing their cities soon anyway cities. Let them waste hammers on wonders. Stone and Marble can also get multiple resources for a trade. Best trades are supplying strategic resources to vassals. Not unusual to get 6 or 8 resources and gold per turn.

Be the best dealer on your block. Get the other civs addicted to your product and they'll be begging for more. specialization = death fight fire with water

 

[Wodan]

Strategy: Agressively tech trade. Research techs that make good trade bait like Divine Right. Then go to every AI and trade for whatever you can get. Even if it's a tech with only half the research time. You'll get a few good trades (assuming a dozen civs) and can end up with 4 to 6 techs and 3000 gold for the research. Remember once one AI has a tech they soon all will so once you trade a tech it will soon be common anyway so get what you can.

Strategy: Aggresively trade resources. Including strategic resourses like horse. You can get a couple of resources and gold per turn from an AI. Trade resources like pig (+1 health early game) for wheat (+2 health in granary city which all cities should build). If you have one pig and AI has two sheep trading the resources can be beneficial diplomatically. Trade strategic resources with civs friendly to you or that are fighting a common enemy. Trade Stone and Marble to your next war victim you'll be takin or /razing their cities soon anyway cities. Let them waste hammers on wonders. Stone and Marble can also get multiple resources for a trade. Best trades are supplying strategic resources to vassals. Not unusual to get 6 or 8 resources and gold per turn.

Be the best dealer on your block. Get the other civs addicted to your product and they'll be begging for more. specialization = death fight fire with water

What do either of those strategies have to do with city specialization?

 

[IAM]

What do either of those strategies have to do with city specialization?

A concern I have heard (this thread and others) from some is: 'If I don't specialize cities how do I stay at tech parity with the AI?' Some are convinced that the (broken three legged stool) specialized civ is the only way to do that. Here I was emphisising that there are several options for the (dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes) non-specialized civ to achieve parity on higher levels. Aggresive trading is a strong asset to the non-specialized civ and there are several other aggresive trading strategies.

Strategy: You (non-specialized dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes civ) are trading 1 sheep for 4 gold per turn. The AI now has an additional 4 gold per turn. You cancel existing trade (don't cancel all trades) and immediately offer sheep again to AI for more gold per turn.

 

[Wodan]

A concern I have heard (this thread and others) from some is: 'If I don't specialize cities how do I stay at tech parity with the AI?' Some are convinced that the (broken three legged stool) specialized civ is the only way to do that. Here I was emphisising that there are several options for the (dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes) non-specialized civ to achieve parity on higher levels. Aggresive trading is a strong asset to the non-specialized civ and there are several other aggresive trading strategies.

But those options are available to the specialized civ as well.

In addition, the premise upon which you base your argument is that the non-specialized civ is inherently at a research disadvantage. Shouldn't you be arguing the exact opposite?

 

[Wodan]

The only way I see your argument working is if we assume
1) tech trading works better the further you are behind (something I'm not willing to grant, because tech trading requires having a valuable tech to trade in the first place, a proposition that is more and more difficult the more you're behind). Presumably because the more you're behind, the more AIs will be ahead of you and the more techs they will have that you don't.
2) a non-specialized civ is inherently going to research more slowly than a specialized civ (something I'm not sure is true without something to back it up) [Yes, I'm granting your theory some credence.]

These two things could then lead to the conclusion that a non-specialized civ has more opportunity to use tech trading to catch up with the AIs, than a specialized civ does.

 

[Jaaboo]

That still has nothing to do with specialization. You could have specialized cities and still trade well.

Edit: re: Re-negotiating deals for resources. That has absolutely zero to do with city specialization, unless, I dunno, your cities are so specialized that you've mined over the second pigs in your borders and thus are not able to trade away pig without losing it? I don't know, This guy just seems like a troll.

 

[Artichoker]

The biggest argument I see in favor of avoiding specialization (or over-specialization) is the opportunity to take advantage of empire-wide bonuses.

The most common example is civics, like Vassalage or Nationhood, that provide special benefits to all cities at once. In these cases, it may be useful for all cities to act as military cities (either through production or drafting), for example, so building a Barracks in every city would be a good idea. But the main reason this strategy works is that the hammer cost of the Barracks is so cheap.

Avoiding specialization on a larger scale than this has the cost of requiring more hammers to build the necessary infrastructure. It's just not possible if you want every city to be able to do everything.

 

[ABigCivFan]

The most significant bonuses of this games are unique, special buildings/wonders.

Academy+Oxford - commerce/science city
HE - prod/military city
NE - specialist/GP city
Shrines+Wall Street+Corporate Headquarters - commerce/gold city
Globe Theater - Food rich draft city
Iron Work - Production city

When these bonuses are properly planned and applied, the output of this empire is significantly enhanced.

Do you build Oxford, HE, NE in your game? If yes, then where? If you put Oxford in your top commerce city, HE in the top hammer city then you Are Specializing.

The higher difficulty you play, the more specialized your game will become.

 

[Bostock]

Good point, Artichoker. Though OR also provides per-city bonuses, and this time for infrastructure, the bonus is too small, and infrastructure too expensive, for this to matter much.

 

[IAM]

Response: Focusing your empire (dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes non-specialized civ) on military production for instance may allow the AI to leap ahead a bit in research. This has the advantage of 1- the more AI's that have researched a tech the cheaper it is 2- the more prolofic a tech the easier it is to find a trade 3- some techs are cheaper to research when you have multiple techs leading to it so... A- concentrate on military production in all cities B- let several AIs research the needed techs then trade for them.

In the non-specialized civ switching from science research to military production to building program is common. For mundane techs lwet the AI go first and reap the rewards of cheaper techs that can easily be traded for. Certain techs with bonuses (like liberalism) concemtrate total empire on acquiring the tech first. This is one reason that trading is an important aspect of the non-specialized civ. Letting the AI do the research for you.

 

[naterator]

so... A- concentrate on military production in all cities B- let several AIs research the needed techs then trade for them.

This only works if you plan on "trading" those units for the AI's techs. The upside is you also get some of their cities and sometimes a vassal too; the downside is obvious if you mass macemen to "trade" for a tech like rifling.

 

[Wodan]

Response: Focusing your empire (dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes non-specialized civ) on military production for instance may allow the AI to leap ahead a bit in research. This has the advantage of 1- the more AI's that have researched a tech the cheaper it is 2- the more prolofic a tech the easier it is to find a trade 3- some techs are cheaper to research when you have multiple techs leading to it so... A- concentrate on military production in all cities B- let several AIs research the needed techs then trade for them.

In other words, if I suck at research, the game is designed with some "catch up factor" into it.

Again, this is not unique to a non-specialized civ. I can choose any game strategy I want, if it happens to be not very good at generating research, I'll benefit from these "catch-up" mechanisms.

In the non-specialized civ switching from science research to military production to building program is common. For mundane techs lwet the AI go first and reap the rewards of cheaper techs that can easily be traded for. Certain techs with bonuses (like liberalism) concemtrate total empire on acquiring the tech first. This is one reason that trading is an important aspect of the non-specialized civ. Letting the AI do the research for you.

I'm still not quite buying what you're selling.

The argument you touched upon... leveraging empire-wide civics, perhaps with SPI, switching back and forth between, say, Vassalism and Free Speech, is a solid benefit of the strategy.

I'd suggest focusing upon other things that are honest benefits, such as countering [the people talking about the huge benefits national wonders give specialized cities] with arguments such as "Yes, but a non-specialized civ can totally omit all those wonders... that's thousands and thousands of hammers saved!"

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^Agreed.

with arguments such as "Yes, but a non-specialized civ can totally omit all those wonders... that's thousands and thousands of hammers saved!"

The hammers wouldn't be saved, though. They'd be invested in infrastructure that is unnecessary (ie. instead of Oxford/library/univ/observatory, you build library, univ, observatory, market, grocer, bank, forge, barracks, factory). If you concentrated that city on and just built Lib/Univ/Obs/Oxford, you'd had used less and have way way way more output.

Honestly, if you look at the investment vs. return on a specialized vs. non-specialized empire, it would be staggering how badly the specialized empire lambastes the other.

 

[Wodan]

The hammers wouldn't be saved, though. They'd be invested in infrastructure that is unnecessary

Nitpick: yes, they would still be saved. However, you are correct that the non-specialized strategy requires an incredible number of buildings in all cities in order to achieve the equivalent benefits to the specialized strategy.

(It's a nitpick because it's a "con" which negates the "pro". The pro still exists.)

(ie. instead of Oxford/library/univ/observatory, you build library, univ, observatory, market, grocer, bank, forge, barracks, factory). If you concentrated that city on and just built Lib/Univ/Obs/Oxford, you'd had used less and have way way way more output.

Honestly, if you look at the investment vs. return on a specialized vs. non-specialized empire, it would be staggering how badly the specialized empire lambastes the other.

I agree with you. However, the generation potential of each individual city impacts the situation.

In your example, the specialized science city has Oxford/library/univ/observatory. This city almost certainly has very few , and cranking out those buildings is going to be a problem.

Meanwhile, the non-specialized strategy has good in all cities. So, making all that stuff is not going to be a big problem.

 

[IAM]

The arguement seems too specialized. To get to Oxford how many libraries must be built, how many universities? 6? So many of the cities in the (specialized) empire already would have libraries etc.

Furthermore the arguement seems to be too specific. Comparing the cultural value of a library to a theatre. Without comparing the timeline. Theatres come much later and only give culture (outside of slider) Libraries provide so much more and come earlier.

The truthness here is obvious: the flaming machete dancing girls have beat the broken stool.

 

[beestar]

The truthness here is obvious: the flaming machete dancing girls have beat the broken stool.

Victory by assertion - can't argue against that. Truthiness indeed!

 

[ABigCivFan]

In your example, the specialized science city has Oxford/library/univ/observatory. This city almost certainly has very few , and cranking out those buildings is going to be a problem.

Meanwhile, the non-specialized strategy has good in all cities. So, making all that stuff is not going to be a big problem.

Don't know where you got these ideas from.

I would guess most people put Oxford in their Bureaucracy capital which typically has decent production and commerce. It is very very hard for a non-capital cottage/commerce city to compete with the commerce output of a Burea capital. Unless in rare occasions that the Capital is used for pure city in a war situation.

Also in my specialized empire, Every city should get the food and hammer boosting buildings like Granary, lighthouse, AP buildings, forge as priority builds; which in turn facilitate all future whips/builds. It is a very simple concept.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

In your example, the specialized science city has Oxford/library/univ/observatory. This city almost certainly has very few , and cranking out those buildings is going to be a problem.

Generally speaking, the Bureau capital has a few non-cottage improvements at the point of getting Education (usually bulbed in my bureau-capital games). For example, when whipping universities in other cities as well as building them in high cities, the capital still has a couple mines and a couple workshops on non-riverside grassland. Even if the raw is only 12, with bureaucracy, it's 18 and I can generally secure a stone resource by the time I'm building Oxford, therefore 30/turn. A couple forest chops helps the capital complete Oxford in less time.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the turns required to build Oxford makes non-specializing of the empire more desirable. Investing a few more turns to get that bureau-capital Oxfordized (lol) is much more worth it IMO. After building it, build cottages over the couple workshops and grassland hills and put windmills on any plains hills. This generally allows for anywhere from 16-18 cottages in a good bureau-capital site.

Honestly, I get it, though. Non-specialization is viable. But OP is saying it is a bad idea. That non-specialization would essential beat specializing outright. It takes a very specific (and very difficult) map situation for this to be true.

Also, let's not forget specializing hammer heavy cities. After I get 2-3 cottage spam cities (other than my capital), other mostly-green cities will get workshops put down wherever possible along with mines and watermills. Those specialized cities serve 2 purposes: 1) Build military and spies in a time of war preparations and 2) build "wealth" in times of peace/tech-surging to keep slider @ 100% for as long as possible to allow that bureaucracy capital to maximize it's science output.

Also in my specialized empire, Every city should get the food and hammer boosting buildings like Granary, lighthouse, AP buildings, forge as priority builds; which in turn facilitate all future whips/builds. It is a very simple concept.

Yeah, buildings like Granary/Forge should be in all cities since granary helps grow population much faster and forge is a requirement for IW and also adds for gold/silver (not to mention the 25% boost). Lighthouses in coastal cities, but I honestly leave off the AP buildings for my "hammer" cities. The AP hammer boost is only something I invest on if the city is specialized for hammer output.

 

[Wodan]

The arguement seems too specialized. To get to Oxford how many libraries must be built, how many universities? 6? So many of the cities in the (specialized) empire already would have libraries etc.

That's a good point for small empire sizes. Thus, more relevant on small or crowded maps. But, less relevant on large or uncrowded maps. If my empire has > 10 cities, I will easily have 6 cities.

Furthermore the arguement seems to be too specific. Comparing the cultural value of a library to a theatre. Without comparing the timeline. Theatres come much later and only give culture (outside of slider) Libraries provide so much more and come earlier.

There are so many ways to get some culture in new cities that I don't see this as even close to a major point.

Don't know where you got these ideas from.

Quite simple. City specialization, by definition, maximizes one aspect in order to maximize the multiplicative bonuses (of buildings etc) and to reduce the number of unrelated buildings.

If a player changes his capitol to a specialized city, either with or without Bureaucracy, and also uses a lot of tiles for hammer generation (with mines, etc), then that is not the best use of city specialization. In fact, this is closer to IAM's "non-specialized" strategy than a specialized strategy.

Also in my specialized empire, Every city should get the food and hammer boosting buildings like Granary, lighthouse, AP buildings, forge as priority builds; which in turn facilitate all future whips/builds. It is a very simple concept.

That's too simplistic an answer. If a city ONLY needs 3-4 buildings and then it is going to be set to Build Research or Build Wealth, then all that other stuff is not going to give return on the investment.

As I said, I think you're closer to IAM's non-specialized strategy than to the specialized strategy. You're really talking about a hybrid.