That game looks ridiculously easy for you. A Hall of Fame game or some sort of variant? The Sistine Chapel hasn't gotten built and you can build Mech. Infantry's. And look at your territory compared to the rest of the AIs. Talk about a cakewalk... maybe you feel more relaxed playing games like that. Have fun whatever you do do.
Testing out CxxC vs Metros for Space Race ability
- Thread starter Othniel
- Start date
It was for the Hall of Fame, but that is beside the point, it is an example of the sort of placement pattern a 12c/C style might use.
Othniel
fighting for Achsah
Thanks for posting the pic, Aigburth. That is an excellent demonstration of the placement style I intend to use for "CxxC". Most cities can easily reach size 12 before rails, but there will be a few that are more cramped.
@Doug
I see a world of difference between what Aigburth posted and what a typical Metro style is. You of course will get to figure out for yourself if you also think the differences are significant. But I encourage you to wait for the test before reaching your conclusion.
I'd like to add that the Metro style vs Cxxc style test includes a lot more than just city spacing patterns. There are also questions about using science farms, how many improvements to build in a city, etc that will be interesting to look at.
"I see a world of difference between what Aigburth posted and what a typical Metro style is."
I do too. But, both CxxC and CxxxxC, at least in maps I've actually seem, *tend* towards CxxxC. In other words, for CxxC we have a loose CxxC, and for CxxxxC we have a tight CxxxxC, meaning we could interpret both as basically CxxxC... one just has a tighter form of such and one a looser form of such. In my opinion, terrain considerations will basically force an intelligent loose CxxxC player into a tight form of it in some situations, and another intelligent tight CxxxC player into a loose form of it in other situations. If you could answer whether a tight CxxxC in general works better than a loose CxxxC, I would feel interested.
Otherwise, I don't see the point of such tests.... or at least I'd need strong convincing by *actual* game maps that people mostly play CxxC or CxxxxC and do NOT tend towards CxxxC as I think they do. I thought I played CxxxxC, but when I looked at my own maps, mostly due to terrain considerations like rivers and coast and luxuries and mountains, I found I had more of a CxxxC pattern... just a looser form of it than supposed "CxxC" players.
I do too. But, both CxxC and CxxxxC, at least in maps I've actually seem, *tend* towards CxxxC. In other words, for CxxC we have a loose CxxC, and for CxxxxC we have a tight CxxxxC, meaning we could interpret both as basically CxxxC... one just has a tighter form of such and one a looser form of such. In my opinion, terrain considerations will basically force an intelligent loose CxxxC player into a tight form of it in some situations, and another intelligent tight CxxxC player into a loose form of it in other situations. If you could answer whether a tight CxxxC in general works better than a loose CxxxC, I would feel interested.
Otherwise, I don't see the point of such tests.... or at least I'd need strong convincing by *actual* game maps that people mostly play CxxC or CxxxxC and do NOT tend towards CxxxC as I think they do. I thought I played CxxxxC, but when I looked at my own maps, mostly due to terrain considerations like rivers and coast and luxuries and mountains, I found I had more of a CxxxC pattern... just a looser form of it than supposed "CxxC" players.
Optional
Deity
Incase anybody has missed it; there is a forumwide concensus that 12c/C is superiour.
The players that have attacked CxxC were thinking they were attacking a tighter system than 12c/C. The players that have defended CxxC were all defending a loose interpretation of CxxC, allowing 12c/C.
This test could throw up a lot of discussion and is interesting, but just to see whether 12c/C or CxxxxC will win it is in itself not interesting.
Even a comparison between a tight 12c/C (some cities not reaching 12) and a wide 12c/C (most cities reaching bigger) doesn't seem to get any player's heart beating any faster.
Interesting topics will come up when comparing two different city placing styles, but we won't do this test any service if we see it as a simple armwrestling test between the two.
"Incase anybody has missed it; there is a forumwide concensus that 12c/C is superiour."
I call an ad populum fallacy.... just because the majority believes something, that doesn't make it true. Even though I don't see this test as doing enough (since it won't examine CxxxC), the point of the test consists of *testing* a belief about city spacing... not implying "everyone believes it, therefore it's good enough." In fact, the whole point of any test like this comes as getting away from the majority believe it, therefore it's good... sort of anti-mentality.
"This test could throw up a lot of discussion and is interesting, but just to see whether 12c/C or CxxxxC will win it is in itself not interesting."
And why not? Because it actually *tests* an idea instead of just having people shout their opinions? Because it means players will actually have to appeal to evidence instead of sophistry?
In light of Optional's comment, *I want this test to take place even though I don't think it will do enough*. Better an inadequate test than no test at all and a blind appeal to the majority.
I call an ad populum fallacy.... just because the majority believes something, that doesn't make it true. Even though I don't see this test as doing enough (since it won't examine CxxxC), the point of the test consists of *testing* a belief about city spacing... not implying "everyone believes it, therefore it's good enough." In fact, the whole point of any test like this comes as getting away from the majority believe it, therefore it's good... sort of anti-mentality.
"This test could throw up a lot of discussion and is interesting, but just to see whether 12c/C or CxxxxC will win it is in itself not interesting."
And why not? Because it actually *tests* an idea instead of just having people shout their opinions? Because it means players will actually have to appeal to evidence instead of sophistry?
In light of Optional's comment, *I want this test to take place even though I don't think it will do enough*. Better an inadequate test than no test at all and a blind appeal to the majority.
Othniel had some RL events come up that to which he needed to attend.
timerover51
Deity
Hmm, I was wondering how things were going too. I have been thinking about going back and trying a solitaire game and see if I can manage to launch before 2050, with some of the things that I have picked up on the forums. Unmodified game, standard map, probably continents, with the Byzantines for the science. Raging barbarians, probably Regent level to increase the challenge for me. With no AI opponents, means that I will do all research and have to locate all of the resources myself. I will play my regular game and see how it goes. Biggest headache is going to be pollution, based on prior experience, but I will try for Republic and Democracy for the commerce bonus. Should be interesting.
Othniel
fighting for Achsah
No abandonment but no progress either.
I have been RL slammed for the last few weeks but things are freeing up. I have a few SG and COTM obligations to take care of first, and then I was planning on picking this up again.
Based on forum comments, I haven't been sure there was still interest in a test. People seemed to suddenly conclude that CxxxC spacing was superior to all else, no testing needed. That might make this CxxC vs CxxxxC debate a little pedantic. Oh well, I still plan on playing and posting the games. Should be fun regardless.
Now to find a suitable map... I think I'm going to play Optional's map that he posted a while back, and I won't mod anything...
timerover51
Deity
Nice to see you back, Othniel. I suspect that once you start posting, the interest will come back. Have to go back and look at Optional's map. Sorry that mine did not work out. Have been having fun on them though.
Even though I think CxxxC works out better than either CxxC or CxxxxC, a test at least gives us some information. Does doing all three sound like too much time and not enough fun? Anyways... take care of real life first whatever you do.
Optional
Deity
There was that smell in the air, yes, and I'm inclined to believe what experienced people say, but the funny thing is that a recent game that I played myself doesn't support the widely held opinion.
My spacing is usually wide, but not wide enough to allow big metro's, and in this game the AI made quite a push forward once they had these big 20+ pop metro's, and I was struggling to keep up.
Before metro's you won't take that much of a tech lead; the trading element levels the playing field. If metro's start to work better in that last phase of the game, from sanitation to all the spacehip stuff, well, that might very well be the phase that you most need it.
I'm spacing even wider now.
Ohtniel and anyone else interested,
I looked over my COTM48 spaceship game save and other (more legitimate *in this case*) players saves and other than the amount of territory in each game owned that I irrigated my fields *everywhere* I could, while other players didn't do so or irrigated only partially. I know I did my irrigation after I had railroads and hospitals and usually do so... but I did play a certain Deity game where I did such irrigation after hospitals and before I had rails (CxxC spacing in that one). Such irrigation might have a decent-sized effect on spaceship victories in general. I also played more peacefully in COTM48, so that may have picked up the tech pace... at least at demi-god. For every irrigated tile with a railroad on it, you'll get an extra three beakers eventually, and you'll have more beakers sooner... unless you somehow get more beakers from taking territory from the AIs faster. On lower to mid levels I can see that working out if you war before the industrial ages. On higher levels less so and less so as you get farther along in the game.
I looked over my COTM48 spaceship game save and other (more legitimate *in this case*) players saves and other than the amount of territory in each game owned that I irrigated my fields *everywhere* I could, while other players didn't do so or irrigated only partially. I know I did my irrigation after I had railroads and hospitals and usually do so... but I did play a certain Deity game where I did such irrigation after hospitals and before I had rails (CxxC spacing in that one). Such irrigation might have a decent-sized effect on spaceship victories in general. I also played more peacefully in COTM48, so that may have picked up the tech pace... at least at demi-god. For every irrigated tile with a railroad on it, you'll get an extra three beakers eventually, and you'll have more beakers sooner... unless you somehow get more beakers from taking territory from the AIs faster. On lower to mid levels I can see that working out if you war before the industrial ages. On higher levels less so and less so as you get farther along in the game.
NickyH
Bismarck with lipstick…
There's no need to feel that there's a lack of interest in the test, Ohtniel. I'm certainly looking forward to see how it'll go, once you get time over for the test.
There's been a few posts indicating that there might not bee so much difference between the two styles when you look at how people actually play. I personally think that CxxxxC should be represented by a spacing that really makes use of hospitals, with at least an average of 16-18 citizens working the land in each metro. With any tighter spacing for CxxxxC, I'm inclined to believe that there won't be a distinct difference between the two styles.
There's been a few posts indicating that there might not bee so much difference between the two styles when you look at how people actually play. I personally think that CxxxxC should be represented by a spacing that really makes use of hospitals, with at least an average of 16-18 citizens working the land in each metro. With any tighter spacing for CxxxxC, I'm inclined to believe that there won't be a distinct difference between the two styles.
mc-red
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 967
I am also interested in the test though it would be more significant if a few good players tried the test and most ended up with the same conclusion.
I am not a good player so can't contribute much on this cxxc cxxc loose cxxxc etc debate.
It sounds to me on a higher level the test is about a strategy emphasizing cities versus a strategy emphasizing metros. That seems to me a very meaningful endevour.
Anyway i will be interested in following this thread
I am not a good player so can't contribute much on this cxxc cxxc loose cxxxc etc debate.
It sounds to me on a higher level the test is about a strategy emphasizing cities versus a strategy emphasizing metros. That seems to me a very meaningful endevour.
Anyway i will be interested in following this thread
darski
Regent in Training
I'm glad this was popped today. i don't spend a lot of time in this part of CivFan but I would be very interested in seeing the test competed.
I might just try this test with no special considerations at all. I hope this gets the green light soon... t'would be fun to see how it comes out after all.
I might just try this test with no special considerations at all. I hope this gets the green light soon... t'would be fun to see how it comes out after all.
Othniel
fighting for Achsah
I'm gonna get cracking on the CxxC game this weekend, starting tonight. Stay tuned...
darski
Regent in Training
I'm still tuned in...