This is why CXXXXC is VASTLY superior to CXXC

[Pyrrhos]

Some people talk utter rubbish just because they fancy that their way is the best. Here is actual proof instead of opinionated nonsense:

I generated a random map, chose one of the starting positions, replaced jungle and woods (except where there were resources) with grassland and then plonked down 15 cities according to CXXXXC and CXXC respectively - as close as the map would allow.

I chose Rome as the civ and gave both civs up to Invention & Education (minus Chivalry). All cities were given barracks, granary, library, courthouse, marketplace and, where neccessary, aqueduct. Since the proponents of CXXC claim that you don't need temples and cathedrals, the CXXC cities didn't whereas the CXXXXC did - even if it meant a total of -30gpt in upkeep.

The cities were given as much pop as they could feed and then set to produce universities.

The succinct figures are as follows:

CXXC
* manages a total of 150 pop, or 10 pop per city
* researches Astronomy in seven turn at +17gpt
* builds the unis in a total of 435 turns

CXXXXC
* Total pop 180 or 12 per city
* Researches Astronomy in eight turns at +59gpt
* Builds the unis in a total of 226 turns

It's easy to see that because CXXXXC can choose which tiles to work and optimise the use of each tile, productivity is twice as high. Not even a GA would help CXXC to offset that advantage.

Now, can those who favour CXXC please stop talk rubbish about how superior it is? Thank you.



PS. Feel free to upload the saves and tinker about with them as much as you want. If you extract the world seed and go to the editor, you will find that the amount of editing of the map is no more than a few tiles and that I've moved the starting location one squre. Nothing more.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

First reply

I do got some questions for you:
- Why does your "wide-test" mix CXXXC and CXXXXC while "close-test" is strict CXXC?
- Where did the "close-test" extra population go? Doesn't Wide need more workers anyway? Wide should have less pop... not more
- I repeat, where did the extra population go. Smaller cities grow faster than larger ones (food wise)... so where is extra CXXC pop
- What map size? This impacts tight vs wide.
- OFC, where is the military? Those extra shields from "no-cathedrals" had to go somewhere...
- This is only one case. How can you draw a general conclusion from a specific case?
- And why does your troll avatar have no shadow under his arm

Did I find the flaw yet?

 

[Aigburth]

You have expanded the borders of the border cities in cxxxxc but not in cxxc, that is one flaw in this test.

 

[Pyrrhos]

No, there is no flaw Auigburth!

Think! Outside these towns, there would be either more towns or AI borders. Either way, CXXC would not get any more squqres per town!

 

[zpzepp]

Another big problem is the initial start. CxxC would be more productive and faster in the early age as you expand. That initial expansion could give you a huge leap over the CxxxxC version in the beginning. You left this leap out, and could possibly change the game. Starting a test that gives one style a distinct advantage while removing one of the other style's biggest advantage makes this scenario completely inconclusive.

 

[Jorgo_Mono]

Even though I PERSONALLY support CXXXXC, I am forced to agree with zpzepp that the way this scenario was set up makes the results inconclusive and not representative of what how each style would function in a true game.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Zzark!

The points you bring up have absolutely no bearing on this demonstration and your objections are construed.

Your first point is rubbish. Just look up the relevant War Academy article if memory fails you! Second, look again at the CXXC and you'll see that because of the mountain ranges, there is at least one CXXXC-spacing. Neither the CXXC nor the CXXXXC is strict as you cant build towns on mountains, in lakes or on the sea in case you have forgotten.

Second point, utter rubbish. First, the respective pops are what the land will bear. Second, if you refer to settlers and workers aren't you forgetting that CXXXXC has TWICE the production capacity? Third, nice that the myth about CXXC having extra population has been exploded.

Third point. Since it is a proper question and not masked obtusiveness and pique - Monarch, continents, 70%, 4 mio, normal climate.

Your fourth point. This is worse than rubbish, it is BS. I have demonstrated that CXXC does not make as efficient use of land as CXXXXC. Not by a long chalk. Tinker about with the saves as much as you will. If you can find a way through which CXXC can get up to pop 12 and have the same production as CXXXXC, I would be interested to hear it. Bleating and blathering in a fit of pique, I have no interest in.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Another big problem is the initial start. CxxC would be more productive and faster in the early age as you expand. That initial expansion could give you a huge leap over the CxxxxC version in the beginning. You left this leap out, and could possibly change the game. Starting a test that gives one style a distinct advantage while removing one of the other style's biggest advantage makes this scenario completely inconclusive.

First, unless you want to redevelop the land and waste a huge amount of worker turns in order to mine where you first irrigated and irrigate where you first mined, CXXXXC, not CXXC, has higher productivity from the word go.

Second. On average, it takes the settlers no more than one turn extra to get to the new positions as compared with CXXC as you do build roads.

Third. There is no "leap"! It's a figment of the imagination.

Your last objection is BS. You just don't LIKE the fact that CXXC isn't as good as you thought, therefore you come up with verbiage designed to impress. Instead, go and do something useful such as prove me wrong!

 

[zpzepp]

I'm pretty sure Pyrrhos thinks he knows everything there is to know about Civilizations 3

1). In my opinion, it all depends on your games style. A Space Victory would be differenct from conquering everyone. You could conquer everyone in the ancient age when science didn't really matter.
2). People really need to discover what works best for them. Reading anothers person's article is entirely pointless because most people will just blow off any reasonable finding (but frankly, I haven't seen a discovery yet that hasn't been embedded with flaws.)
3). Anybody that spends time on a game to help others play it better for enjoyment is a commendable person.
4)Those like Pyrrhos that work only to show others up are frankly stupid.
"Hey, you are dumb. I am better at a video game then you! Ha ha! --Eww, Sports, Women-Nasty. I just want to go play games on the computer and get mad at people halfway across the world that I will never see! I live in my own little world and everyone there thinks I am amazing. And those that don't have no idea how to play videos games. Snort, I'm cool."
Yah, that is about all I got from what Pyrrhos just said.

I mean, seriously. Pyrrhos, your attitude is unbelievable.

 

[zpzepp]

On average, it takes the settlers no more than one turn extra to get to the new positions as compared with CXXC as you do build roads.

Let's see. First C is the capital.
CxxC. 3 turns to get to next area.
0123-turns.
CxxxxC. 5 turns to get to next area.
012345-turns.

5turns-3turns=2turns
...
1 turn extra on average? You lost me.

And the road thing- That means taking out 4-6 turns from your workers. (depending on whether you are industrial or not)

 

[rysingsun]

so you've demonstrated that larger cities produce more shields. hardly profound. but what does all this have to do with real games?

 

[Pyrrhos]

Even though I PERSONALLY support CXXXXC, I am forced to agree with zpzepp that the way this scenario was set up makes the results inconclusive and not representative of what how each style would function in a true game.

Yawn...

This is a fair test or demonstration of how well two styles, CXXC and CXXXXC, make use of the available tiles.

Every tile is used by CXXC whereas several tiles per city are unused by CXXXXC. In spite of this, CXXC cannot support the same population. In spite of this, CXXC doesn't even come close in productivity - it only just manages ½ the production of the much more efficient CXXXXC.

Instead of whining, why don't you load the saves and check out the cities. No matter where the expansion will/would have stopped in a "true game", the core would have looked the same! You could of course boost the productivity of CXXC-Rome by alotting it tiles belonging to its neighbours and optimise those tiles, but that improvement would come at the expense of the low-corruption cities closest to Rome having to drop down to pop 7-8 and producing little. In contrast, several town around CXXXXC-Rome have decent productivity and on the whole, the core of CXXXXC would produce twice as many military units in the same amounty of time or the same number of units in half the time. Either way you look at it, CXXXXC would be better in a "true game".

 

[Pyrrhos]

Let's see. First C is the capital.
CxxC. 3 turns to get to next area.
0123-turns.
CxxxxC. 5 turns to get to next area.
012345-turns.

5turns-3turns=2turns
...
1 turn extra on average? You lost me.

Can't you read?

I said "you do build roads"

Now, did you see that?

 

[zpzepp]

Reread my earlier post- I editied it.

 

[rysingsun]

actually, now that i think about it, it might be interesting to see a third map where the amount of land is equal to the amount of land in the wide-spacing map, but using close-spacing and more cities. after all, all cxxc types know that one of the great advantages of close spacing is more cities.

 

[zpzepp]

Oh, and I do see it now. It must have been hiding in between all the scorn and ego you put into your posts.

 

[Pyrrhos]

so you've demonstrated that larger cities produce more shields. hardly profound. but what does all this have to do with real games?

Another clown, wheeee!!!

I demonstrated, not "that larger cities produce more shields", but that CXXXXC is much more efficient at using the available land in the core.

If you can't see "what does all this have to do with real games", well, what can one say...

 

[Spoonwood]

Thanks Pyrrhos... Of course though your test comes as inconclusive in the most techical sense of the word, as all tests inevitably do. The question comes as *how* inconclusive. I think this rather conconclusively demonstrates that CxxxxC has better production advantages from the time when you can get your pre-metros to size 12. With Chanminx's strategy of mass-adding in workers from worker factories, I wonder how early this comes. Science-wise cxxxxc *looks* weaker because of fewer specialists, but I think this will get offset by the fact that the universities will get built faster or for less gold via cash-rushing. I wouldn't consider this test all that conclusive concerning population though. CxxC, even if it means that one grabs less territory overall, I would expect to have an extra city or two at least, if not a handful of cities. zpzeep might have a point about the expansion rate at the start... although I don't know how much this applies. The test doesn't say anything about how cxxxc fares... or as to how a looser version of cxxc than the above fairs either.

A possibly bigger flaw in this test (or psuedo-test for those who think it junk): Building temples and cathdrals takes time. Because of this, warmongers have less time to build units. This might offset increased production. So, for warmongering, CxxxxC comes as less efficient at some point than cxxc.

 

[Pyrrhos]

actually, now that i think about it, it might be interesting to see a third map where the amount of land is equal to the amount of land in the wide-spacing map, but using close-spacing and more cities. after all, all cxxc types know that one of the great advantages of close spacing is more cities.

There, there...

Closer spacing does indeed mean more 7-11 pop cities in the same amount of space. But those cities produce only half the number of shields.

But you forget that close spacing means less total land volume, or total number of tiles and that for a given number of settlers (of which CXXXXC towns and cities will produce more), CXXXXC will have a much larger empire with a much higher chance of resources.

I am not saying that you must change your style of play or your beliefs. If you need a completely bogus "test" to reaffirm your beliefs, go haead! Do one!

 

[Spoonwood]

I generally don't have many roads built before I can build cities... I usually can't afford that luxury... I need to grab the territory before the AI does... and something I beat the AI to a spot by 1 turn or so. Without roads it does take longer to found a new city with cxxxxc than with cxxc, so *overall expansion speed* could suffer with cxxxxc/work better with cxxc, especially if one can crank out settlers and workers from those closer, inner towns. The test here certainly doesn't test that factor, and it does seem an important one. The question becomes, if it does so, how much does *overall expansion* suffer? Not as much as some might think, I'd expect, since with cxxxxc even though one will build an "extra" road, one will almost surely use that tile instead of another one for one's growing pre-metro.