Testing out CxxC vs Metros for Space Race ability

[Optional]

But I want to start far from the coast to nerf the Seafaring coastal bonus...Good suggestion on disbanding the scout,...

Alternatively, we can untick the Seafaring trait for the Portuguese altogether, which is what I would strongly advise, because otherwise you'll never completely neutralise the impact of the trait, and we can make the Scout unavailable to you, although you're already doing enough if you simply disband it.
I'll run a little test for you on a revealed map to find out what it exactly does, because I suggested playing with a revealed map, but I have no clue about possible impacts on contacts, map trading and things like that. I have nada experience myself with playing revealed. If somebody has, please tell about it.

 

[eldar]

You will have to avoid/destroy the Colossus as this is an instant GA for Portugal.

The Sci Wonders are beneficial to any SS/UN game. Generally I'll build them in the capital or FP city.

If you're dominating and can hold back ToE it can be used with a well-timed prebuild to sling to Miniaturization and The Internet on Turn 1 of the Modern Era.

 

[Optional]

You will have to avoid/destroy the Colossus as this is an instant GA for Portugal.

There is indeed the concern that Othniel can capture Colossus, Lighthouse or Mausollos, and then will trigger a GA when he finishes Copernicus or Newton's.
Perhaps both traits need to be unticked for Portugal. That, or Othniel needs to decide to raze a city that has a wonder. I don't think it's possible to sell a wonder like you can sell any other city improvement.
And the Carrack needs the box 'starts golden age' unticked.

 

[timerover51]

There is indeed the concern that Othniel can capture Colossus, Lighthouse or Mausollos, and then will trigger a GA when he finishes Copernicus or Newton's.
Perhaps both traits need to be unticked for Portugal. That, or Othniel needs to decide to raze a city that has a wonder. I don't think it's possible to sell a wonder like you can sell any other city improvement.
And the Carrack needs the box 'starts golden age' unticked.

Optional, I will make sure that the Carrack with not trigger a Golden Age for Othniel. What about the AI however? In fairness, their Golden Ages for Unique Units should be knocked out as well. As for the concerns about Wonder-induced Golden Ages, it is possible to set the time for Golden Age to "zero". That would allow for the benefits of the Wonder, without the Golden Age. Actually, that would also take care of any UU-triggered Golden Age.

 

[PaperBeetle]

I don't understand why you don't want a golden age.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Because a GA would benefit CXXXXC way more than CXXC?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

By the time the Internet comes around, the metro player can build research labs in 3-5 turns in every city. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't bother with the Internet - I'd just build the labs.

 

[eldar]

Actually a medieval GA will probably slightly benefit CxxC. Pre-Sanitation all cities will have a max size of 12 (discounting Shake's entirely) regardless of spacing.

Both CxxC and CxxxxC will have similar-sized cores in terms of number of cities; say 15 for the sake of argument. CxxxxC will therefore bring in an extra 195 (15x13) spt and commerce as every city will definitely be size 12.

CxxC may have slightly less citizens - say 11 per city on average - giving an extra 180 (15x12) spt and commerce. However CxxxxC will have greater distance corruption to offset this. I'd mark the core about even.

On the periphery though CxxC will start to bring in more per turn. Say 3 CxxC cities for every 2 CxxxxC cities. Corruption @ 50%+. Almost certainly not up to size 12 yet, especially those not on fresh water, and not enough spare cash just yet to rush the required 'ducts in CxxxxC. Given this I'll cap anything outside the core at size 6.

So CxxC is getting 1.5x the shields/commerce (before corruption) than CxxxxC. CxxC wins here.

So CxxC just edges things in a GA.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Why would one core all be at size 12 while the other isn't?

 

[Optional]

Why would one core all be at size 12 while the other isn't?

I assume Eldar reckons that CxxC will build a few more settlers than CxxxxC, and so will have a few more population drops?
I understand Paperbeetle's question. If both games get a GA at roughly the same time, like it would have been with the Mayans building Hoover, than I don't see how this would skew the test. At the moment the Portuguese don't seem to be in line for a GA.

 

[Pyrrhos]

There is one thing you forget, Eldar. As CXXXXC has a choice of (on average) 19 tiles per town for the worked 12, each tile can be optimised (mined BG, irrigated G) whereas CXXC has to make do with the 8-9 tiles available, which means irrigate BG and mine G. As a result, CXXXXC towns usually produce more shields to start with and even should CXXC benefit more from the GA, that's not enough to offset the CXXXXC advantage even during a GA.

 

[eldar]

You're wrong in that assumption, of course.

In both CxxC and CxxxxC, all of the best tiles will be getting used. CxxC cities will be placed to allow them to make use of these tiles first, then other tiles later. It's just that in CxxC, the next-best set of tiles will also be getting used and these will produce less corruption than in CxxxxxC.

I could have given CxxC an extra 2-3 cities in the core (especially in its second ring of cities) which gives another 20-30 or so tiles worked etc.

As for average city size in CxxC - it's what I use most often and generally one or two cities will suffer at the expense of others getting to size 12. So I may well have a number of size 12's, but in amongst that will be a handful that can only get to size 8-10. I'm averaging out across the whole lot, and probably trying to give CxxxxC a chance by averaging low.

Certainly by the time my GA comes around, I won't be producing settlers from my core (in fact my GA is usually when I stop my primary settler factory). I may still be running a worker factory in the 2nd ring, but that's going to remain at a constant pop of 4 or 5 (I would be unlikely to make a worker factory in a city that has fresh water).

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Another thing I'd watch for is "rate of AI destruction".

Since we're at pretty good concensus CXXC is dominant for early military, the "rate of AI destruction" would be much faster with tigher spacing.

Faster AI destruction would have numerous impacts on the game playout.

 

[Pyrrhos]

You're wrong in that assumption, of course.

In both CxxC and CxxxxC, all of the best tiles will be getting used. CxxC cities will be placed to allow them to make use of these tiles first, then other tiles later. It's just that in CxxC, the next-best set of tiles will also be getting used and these will produce less corruption than in CxxxxxC.

I could have given CxxC an extra 2-3 cities in the core (especially in its second ring of cities) which gives another 20-30 or so tiles worked etc.

Same old, same old...

I see I shall have to resort to the editor and present pictures in the hope that you will either finally understand or stop being obtuse.

As for average city size in CxxC - it's what I use most often and generally one or two cities will suffer at the expense of others getting to size 12. So I may well have a number of size 12's, but in amongst that will be a handful that can only get to size 8-10. I'm averaging out across the whole lot, and probably trying to give CxxxxC a chance by averaging low.

When using CXXC, some towns will reach pop 12 but there also are some that won't reach more than pop 7-8, you're right about that, but no, you are not "averaging low" because of "trying to give CxxxxC a chance", I assure you. Remember "cognitive bias"? Well, you're giving a good example of it!

 

[Chamnix]

Anyone who believes you are better off without metros, I guess we can no longer refer to our preferred spacing as CxxC - it is apparently too confusing:

When using CXXC, some towns will reach pop 12 but there also are some that won't reach more than pop 7-8

In the spacing I prefer (and I'm sure almost all other "CxxC" players prefer), you do not stick to a strict CxxC pattern - you leave enough space for 12 citizens per core city.

 

[Optional]

... you do not stick to a strict CxxC pattern - you leave enough space for 12 citizens per core city.

Won't you end up with a mix of CxxC and CxxxC that way?

Otniel already decided not to stick to rigid patterns. It's probably enough that one city pattern is decidedly tighter than the other.
Maybe we can make city settlement plans once the map has been unfolded? With giving Othniel the first and last call, of course.

Maybe try and keep general discussions about CxxC versus CxxxxC in their own thread, so that this thread can focus on Othniel's test. That'll be difficult, I know.

 

[Chamnix]

Won't you end up with a mix of CxxC and CxxxC that way?

Yes, you will, but that's a little cumbersome to type all the time .

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I happen to have posted this in the other thread already,
since I myself use the "plan around size 12" strategy.

Picture demonstrating how CXXC hits 12 population

Spoiler :

And my quote from other thread:

games are "won" before sanitation or Shakespears come into play.
The above CXXC grid uses this fact. Yes there are exceptions, but the general idea stands:
Plan cities size 12 or less.

Look at the grid above. Even if CXXC doesn't fit due to terrain, just CXXXC.
4-tile spacing is never needed except as a strategic city ie to snag a certain tile(s).

Your cities don't ever grow large enough to need 4-tile spacing. It's gameover by then.
And of course, apply this at all difficulties for non-spaceship games.

Edit: Added Source

 

[Optional]

That's very informative, Zzarklinux! Yes, we need pictures like that, that makes things a lot clearer.
Here's a rare blunt statement from me: the game that uses a city plan like that, will win by a mile.
I thought the game with the tight layout plan was gonna use tighter than that!

 

[Othniel]

Maybe we can make city settlement plans once the map has been unfolded? With giving Othniel the first and last call, of course.

I can see I'll be playing these games with a convoy of advisors!

I don't understand why you don't want a golden age.

My thoughts were along what eldar spelled out. I feel that if I get a GA earlier on in the game--say Ancient or early Middle Ages--that I'll have sling-shotted the CxxC attempt way ahead, and there might not be enough time left in the game for the Metro attempt to catch up. If it will catch up anyway... I fully expect to have more cities/more pop in place for the CxxC attempt until the late Middle Ages at the earliest.

An Industrial GA probably won't favor either style, but what's the point? The game should be won by then either way. Better to just leave it out, I think.

Another thing I'd watch for is "rate of AI destruction".

Since we're at pretty good concensus CXXC is dominant for early military, the "rate of AI destruction" would be much faster with tigher spacing.

Faster AI destruction would have numerous impacts on the game playout.

I intend to destroy any civs on my continent as fast as possible in both games. If Cxxc indeed can do this faster and gain an advantage, than I view that as evidence for boosting Cxxc case as the better style for scoring. The military advantage will be artificially limited anyway because I don't intend to attack overseas.

That's very informative, Zzarklinux! Yes, we need pictures like that, that makes things a lot clearer.
Here's a rare blunt statement from me: the game that uses a city plan like that, will win by a mile.
I thought the game with the tight layout plan was gonna use tighter than that!

Good picture, ZzarkLinux.

It is a theoretical layout; the one in the test will look a bit different as I modify it for terrain. For instance, I'm highly inclined to do slightly tighter spacing at times if that means fresh water access.

I should get the map posted later today for you, Othniel. I will make sure that it meet all of your requirements. What AI civs will you be using, and do you wish them preassigned so that they are in the same place on both maps?

Sounds great, thanks.

Yes, let's use the same AIs, same spots, for both attempts. I don't care what the opponent civs are as long as they aren't SCI civs.

I like the idea to uncheck Portugal's Seafaring trait. Actually, uncheck both traits, please. Don't worry about killing the AI golden ages, let them have them. I don't think a GA will help them much.