This is why CXXXXC is VASTLY superior to CXXC

[Spoonwood]

Pyrrhos,

Can you set up the same test with cxxxc and post it with a save and a screenshot like the others???

 

[Chamnix]

Neither CxxC nor CxxxxC are optimal methods of play. The "best" city spacing (in terms of earlier victory date, higher score, or most likely to win) is 12C/C (12 citizens per city). As far as whether a strict CxxC or CxxxxC is less inferior? Can't say I care much.

CxxC has used by many as shorthand to mean 12C/C for a long time, but now people feel the need to interpret it literally, so I guess we need new nomenclature.

 

[dexters]

I think the counterpoint is that you work more tiles sooner with a CxxC or even CxxxC build than a pure CxxxxC build because most of those tiles will be conditional to hospitals, and if your city is not on a river, you'll need aqueducts too and then you have to wait for the pop to actually grow.

I'm not a strict CxxC adherant, but if you have access to rivers, i'd shoot for CxxxC or CxxxxC cities following the river, then plop down CxxC outside of rivers with conditions. I probably wouldn't do CxxxxC if the river is facing the direction of a close neighbour. CxxC make early game growth and warring so much better.

 

[rysingsun]

i see what you are saying about some tiles are good and some are bad and the cxxc requires you to use a lot of bad tiles.

many are fond of saying that you won't use tiles 13-20 until 200 turns into the game. but i'm going to add to that that you wont be using tiles 7-12 until 100 turns into the game. during the expansion phase my cities only fairly rarely make it up to even size 6. for the most part i can work the best tiles all during this phase. after this phase if i have expanded rapidly and efficiently i have greater production than my enemy and take cities by force, obviating the problem of having a smaller total area, which doesn't start to become an issue until my cities get large.

but how do we factor in the need for war at the end of the rex phase into this whole analysis? i believe the best strategy is extremely difficult to prove even though we may point out isolated characteristics of particular post-expansion civilizations and use them to try to prove our points.

but i do take notice of this. i do not know a single truly accomplished player who uses a really wide spacing. that fact speaks volumes, even if that also doesn't technically prove a thing.

 

[TheOverseer714]

There is no sense arguing with someone who is sure they are right, and unless you agree with them 100%, your opinions mean nothing. Talk about a waste of time!

 

[Aabraxan]

It's an interesting scenario that you've put together here, Pyrrhos. FWIW, I see it like this:

You've put together two empires and given them: (1) equal cities; (2) almost-fully-improved land; and (3) all the citizens that the landscape could handle. OK. It's not a huge surprise that the empire with the same number of cities, but more developed tiles and higher population produces more shields.

This overlooks a couple of items, though. First is development time. I haven't counted tiles (& really don't want to), but it looks like CxxxxC has a lot more tiles than CxxC. That means that CxxxxC got a lot more "freebie worker turns" than CxxC in creating this test. I'm not saying that CxxC didn't also get fully improved tiles. It did. But CxxxxC got a lot more of them. In a real game, though those workers either had to come out of a city, or slaves had to be either purchased or captured.

Second, travel time. I know that you said that you built roads. But, as Doug.L pointed out:

I generally don't have many roads built before I can build cities...

True, once you get a few cities laid out, you connect them with roads and that speeds travel to the outer edges of the empire. But unless you're building roads out in front of your settlers' paths, they're going to have to leave the beaten path to found new cities.

Third is number of cities. This gets back to some of the discussion from the other thread, but why would I put the same number of cities in the same area? I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I'm guessing that I could get at least 3, maybe 4 more cities in that same area.

. . . . I have demonstrated that CXXC does not make as efficient use of land as CXXXXC. Not by a long chalk.

I don't agree that you've demonstrated that CxxC is not as efficient. You demonstrated that CxxxxC, given more improved tiles to work with and more pop, produces more. This may seem like minor quibbling, but that's not the same as efficient.

On that note:

. . . .
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

Looking at the screenshots and your numbers above, CxxC is working 30 fewer tiles less than CxxxxC, right? It's also shaved a full turn off of researching Astronomy. This gets back to development & growth time. If you could make even every other tech come in one turn faster, why wouldn't you? Assuming you researched every Ancient Age tech, how many turns would that save you in the Ancient Age? In that regard, it looks like CxxC is making more efficient use of the land tiles available to it than CxxxxC.

Is shield production as high in CxxC? Probably not. Is waste as high? Probably not that either.

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

Nope . . . wouldn't be prudent.

 

[vmxa]

This is the silliest test I have ever seen, not worth reading the whole thing. Starting with 15 towns is proof of nothing. Much happens before one has 15 towns. At DG or better you won't even have 15 towns, before you are surrounded.

Here is what I can say. Civ3 came out, many very great players played here and on Poly, that I know. None of them used that spacing, other than special conditions, such as test. That did not change in PTW or C3C.

 

[Spoonwood]

"This gets back to development & growth time. If you could make even every other tech come in one turn faster, why wouldn't you?"

This one's simple enough, actually... you have a 20k game going. You might want say Theology in 5 turns instead of 6 turns to change your prebuild to the Sistine Chapel at the right time... but in general it seems one wants to slow down the tech pace in a 20k game. Check T-hawk's article on this in the war academy... try and keep the AI away from nukes and the spaceship. I'd think a 100k game works somewhat the same way.

"Assuming you researched every Ancient Age tech, how many turns would that save you in the Ancient Age?"

Um... who does that? Most people either trade tech for tech, gold for tech, or build the Great Library.

"At DG or better you won't even have 15 towns, before you are surrounded. "

True enough it seems. I've learned the name "forbidden" in "forbidden" palace actually means something. It seems that if you play on Deity and have max opponents, and unless you can really crank out settlers early or have an usually start on a pangea map, getting to that number for the forbidden palace seems "forbidden" by the AI's settling speed... hence your FP comes as "forbidden".

"Civ3 came out, many very great players played here and on Poly"

What's Poly? I know of Relams Beyond... but what's Poly?

 

[Spoonwood]

Chamninx might have hit the nail on the head with 12C/C.

 

[Tone]

I'm reluctant to get into this. I do not feel the need to convert anyone to a different playing style but what I would say is that this test does not address all of the advantages/disadvantages that each style offers. A better test would involve the development of the empire from 4000BC to some given point, say 10BC, and then consider the relative strengths.

BTW, love these instant experts who appear out of nowhere at very opportune times....

zpzepp
Chieftain

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this post but I would not dismiss any poster due to their join date or number of posts. I didn't see any claim of being an expert from zpzepp; just a desire to express an opinion and pose some valid questions. That's OK in this forum, isn't it?

 

[Othniel]

I'm reluctant to get into this. I do not feel the need to convert anyone to a different playing style but what I would say is that this test does not address all of the advantages/disadvantages that each style offers. A better test would involve the development of the empire from 4000BC to some given point, say 10BC, and then consider the relative strengths.

(bold added)

Not to shamelessly promote myself...but this is precisely along the lines of what I hope to do with this test. It looks at the two spacing styles from a 4000BC start to the end of a game with real conditions.

 

[Mursi lives]

Dont miss the next week threads:

"This is why a modern armor is VASTLY superior to a bow"

"This is why a 20k metro is VASTLY superior to a farm"

"This is why Pyramids are VASTLY superior to a granary"

 

[Pyrrhos]

Take good note of this post ZzarkLinux, zpzepp, rysingsyn, eldar and others! This is how you ensure a good and fruitful debate! You should always try and se what the other person is saying, acknowledge the good points and if you point out weaknesses or flaws, do so whilst offering properly thought through counter arguments. I happen to agree completely with Doug, not only with the part where he agrees with my postulation, but also with the shortcomings he points out.

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.

Now, many of you come across as believing your point of view infallible and should someone, "God forbid", come up with a good question or point about the validity of your position, you hasten to find fault and never acknowledge that your own reasoning and ideas may be the ones flawed.

With this, I have achieved the purpose of this thread. I have highlighted how certain people react when their cherished pet theories are threatened. Can the CXXC-fanatics please adjust the way they debate and from now on adopt the adult manner of debate and not the political squabble?

Thank you!

 

[Pyrrhos]

Pyrrhos,

Can you set up the same test with cxxxc and post it with a save and a screenshot like the others???

Will do so late this evening after work and when young Master Pyrrhos is safely ensconced in bed and domestic order has been restored.

 

[Pyrrhos]

I don't agree that you've demonstrated that CxxC is not as efficient. You demonstrated that CxxxxC, given more improved tiles to work with and more pop, produces more. This may seem like minor quibbling, but that's not the same as efficient.

Please open the respective saves, tinker about with each town and tell me which tiles are wrongly developed. Anyway, I can redo the CXXC one with the tiles developed the same as for the CXXXXC one. I can tell you straight away that the CXXC civ would lose even more pop and that as a consequence, it's not likely that it can avail itself of the optimally developed tiles.

PS. Your other points, fair enough. I agree that I would have to make many more tests before I could say I'm positively and definitely right to the last decimal point.

 

[Pyrrhos]

This is the silliest test I have ever seen, not worth reading the whole thing. Starting with 15 towns is proof of nothing. Much happens before one has 15 towns. At DG or better you won't even have 15 towns, before you are surrounded.

Here is what I can say. Civ3 came out, many very great players played here and on Poly, that I know. None of them used that spacing, other than special conditions, such as test. That did not change in PTW or C3C.

With that mentality, thank God that other people saw through Hitler and the way he managed to get Germany out of the Depression and erase unemployment. Had your way of reasoning held sway, every nation would have adopted National Socialism.

End of

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I do got some questions for you:
- Why does your "wide-test" mix CXXXC and CXXXXC while "close-test" is strict CXXC?

Because it will skew the results towards "CxxxxC".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

With this, I have achieved the purpose of this thread. I have highlighted how certain people react when their cherished pet theories are threatened. Can the CXXC-fanatics please adjust the way they debate and from now on adopt the adult manner of debate and not the political squabble?

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

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

Your first point is rubbish[...]

Second point, utter rubbish. [...]

Third point. Since it is a proper question and not masked obtusiveness and pique - [...]

Your fourth point. This is worse than rubbish, it is BS. [...] Bleating and blathering in a fit of pique, I have no interest in.

Another clown, wheeee!!!

[...]

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

There, there...

[...]

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!

With that mentality, thank God that other people saw through Hitler and the way he managed to get Germany out of the Depression and erase unemployment. Had your way of reasoning held sway, every nation would have adopted National Socialism.

Well, for whoever is into vitriol certainly will like your "manner of debate."

 

[ignas]

Clowns

 

[Aabraxan]

"This gets back to development & growth time. If you could make even every other tech come in one turn faster, why wouldn't you?"

This one's simple enough, actually... you have a 20k game going. You might want say Theology in 5 turns instead of 6 turns to change your prebuild to the Sistine Chapel at the right time... but in general it seems one wants to slow down the tech pace in a 20k game. Check T-hawk's article on this in the war academy... try and keep the AI away from nukes and the spaceship. I'd think a 100k game works somewhat the same way.

I think you're probably making a fair enough argument here, but I'm having some difficulty understanding what you mean. If I want Theology to arrive in 5 turns instead of 6, isn't that speeding up my research? Is that just a typo where you meant to say "6 turns instead of 5?"

OTOH, I understand how it will affect my own tech pace, but I'm not sure I understand how the development of my own empire is going to slow down the AI's tech pace all that much. They can research and trade amongst themselves without regard to me. If I want to slow down the AI's tech pace, I foment wars among them.

I'll try to find some time to check T-hawk's article.

"Assuming you researched every Ancient Age tech, how many turns would that save you in the Ancient Age?"

Um... who does that? Most people either trade tech for tech, gold for tech, or build the Great Library.

Honestly, almost nobody does that. I don't, either, but I didn't want to get into a big debate over who researches what techs, how many beakers each costs, and how many total turns are saved. While these are all relevant to that question, I was trying to reduce it to a somewhat useful hypothetical example.

What's Poly? I know of Relams Beyond... but what's Poly?

Poly is www.apolyton.net, another Civilization site.

Please open the respective saves, tinker about with each town and tell me which tiles are wrongly developed.

Hopefully, I'll get some time to look at the saves this weekend. Not sure yet, though.

Anyway, I can redo the CXXC one with the tiles developed the same as for the CXXXXC one. I can tell you straight away that the CXXC civ would lose even more pop and that as a consequence, it's not likely that it can avail itself of the optimally developed tiles.

PS. Your other points, fair enough. I agree that I would have to make many more tests before I could say I'm positively and definitely right to the last decimal point.

Actually, what I'd like to see, if you don't mind . . . I don't know how to use the editor (except to look up values, costs, etc.), so I was hoping that you'd take a look at (& post for us) an expanded CxxC area. By that I mean, use the CxxC layout that you've used, but make it a little bigger. It doesn't have to be the full size of the CxxxxC area, but maybe 80% as large, with 3-4 extra cities? Then count pop & uncorrupted shields and gold.

One of the things about growth and settlers is that putting more towns down earlier (even just a turn or three) means that I've got more cities growing all at once. This goes back to the old discussion of "how many cities" vs. "how large of an area," and I'd be interested in seeing how the expanded CxxC stacks up, because I do believe that, in the time it takes to get 15 CxxxxC cities down, I could put down more CxxC cities.