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.