This is why CXXXXC is VASTLY superior to CXXC

[AutomatedTeller]

The fundamental question asked by this test (can you get better productivity from CxxxxC than from Cxxc, because you have a choice of what tiles to use, given the same # of cities) is clearly true, though I would note that in the CxxC approach, research seems to be faster.

I just think it's the wrong question.

I think the right question is: after an arbitrary # of turns, which approach will have a stronger civilization, given the same starts? And that's what we'll see with Othniel's test.

Looking at the initial test, there are some flaws:

1) Outer towns in the CxxC plan don't have expanded borders - since you are putting libs in them, they should.
2) I don't know anyone who puts cities out in CxxC in a grid - I used CxxC, but it's offset and I get 12 tiles per city.
3) I don't know why the CxxxxC get temples and cathedrals now - when I do use metros, I put in the temples later, when I need the happiness.

 

[zpzepp]

This thread is hilarious.
When you knocked me down for not giving your idea any credit, you were fooling yourself. I give credit to people that spend time solving these things. I just don't give credit to those that try to knock others down for what they think is correct WHEN THERE HAS YET TO BE A TEST THAT ULTIMATELY CONFIRMS IT!!!
And Lord Emsworth, your earlier post that showed Pyrrhos's many ways of knocking others down is simply genius. I thought Comedy Central was funny. I get on to a gaming site and I see people fighting over a 5 year old game. Isn't that weird, yet funny?

 

[darski]

it would appear that "Darski's hideous troll" is scaling new heights of hideousness. I really don't think your test does what you think it does. I think it does what you wanted it to.

The first rule of marketing strategy - set up the parameters and build to those.

 

[Optional]

2) I don't know anyone who puts cities out in CxxC in a grid...

I had to think of an Emperor game that Delphi456 once posted here with an initial layout that does come ridiculously close. See screenshot below.
Apart from that, our discussions strike me as fairly artificial sometimes, as they're not based upon what we're really doing in our games.

Is there anyone that really thinks that a city layout plan that still allows your cities to grow to sixe 12 is too tight???

 

[eldar]

I've been trying hard not to post in this thread... but there is a current (though admittedly moving verrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly right now) SG where a strict CxxC grid is required. It's Emperor and is currently eating up 2 out of 3 AI opponents at quite an early stage.

eldar08 (though I'm now downgraded from player to lurker in my own SG )

 

[Spoonwood]

Aabraxan,

"If I want Theology to arrive in 5 turns instead of 6, isn't that speeding up my research? "

Yes, and you might want to speed up your reserach to time your pre-bulid well. You may also want to slow down your research to slow down the tech pace in the 20k game. I did make a typo, but it doesn't matter for the point.

[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.]

Wars sure can help, but also remember that you probably have contacts with all the AIs. Any time you discover a tech ahead of them, they can reserach that tech for less cost. I've read that all over this place.

"Honestly, almost nobody does that. "

Huh? Nobody trades for tech in the Ancient Era or builds the Great Library or buys tech in the ancient era? What... do you all extort your tech from wars or something???

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

Thanks.

Optional,

"Is there anyone that really thinks that a city layout plan that still allows your cities to grow to sixe 12 is too tight???"

Since I don't plan on taking territory by force usually, and since I want as much territory as I can get usually, for some city layout plans... YES, as I might miss a luxury, later resource, or some commerce/production capacity I could have gotten via a wider spacing... at least at first and then filling in gaps later.

 

[darski]

I've been trying hard not to post in this thread... but there is a current (though admittedly moving verrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly right now) SG where a strict CxxC grid is required. It's Emperor and is currently eating up 2 out of 3 AI opponents at quite an early stage.

eldar08 (though I'm now downgraded from player to lurker in my own SG )

yes. I was thinking about that game as well. Quite an undertaking.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Aabraxan,
"Honestly, almost nobody does that. "

Huh? Nobody trades for tech in the Ancient Era or builds the Great Library or buys tech in the ancient era? What... do you all extort your tech from wars or something???

I think he was admitting that "almost nobody does" research the whole AA themselves, and that you were correct in asserting that most techs come from trades.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Right, I've been checking up on Ginger Ale's article in the War Academy. The city layout that ZzarkLinux proposes IS NOT "Tight placement, usually CXXC" - it matches the definitions of "Loose placement, usually CXXXC"

If all those arguing so "steadfastly" for CXXC have mistaken Ginger Ale's "Loose Placement, usually CXXXC" for "Tight Placement, usually CXXC", I can understand your objections. What you really have been arguing for is "Loose", not "Tight".

"Loose Placement" is very good. I have done an example using the "Loose, usually CXXXC pattern" as proposed by ZzarkLinux, called it "CzzarkC", given the cities temples and Caths and redone the "OCP, usually CXXXXC" to place three cities where you would actually have placed them, a move of one tile off the OCP pattern. These are the results:

Loose, usually CXXXC
Pop 180, avge 12/town
Unis built in a total of 213 turns
Astronomy in 8 turns at +72gpt

OCP, usually CXXXXC
Pop 180, avge 12/town
Unis built in a total of 210 turns
Astronomy in 8 turns at +53gpt

My vote here would go to "Loose Placement, usually CXXXC" as it researches in the same number of turns but at +19gpt visavi "OCP, usually CXXXXC" and the difference in productivity is neglible. Whether the larger territory and possibility of metros of "OCP, usually CXXXXC" is an advantage as measured over the course of a whole game ending sometime during the Modern Age or not, is immaterial as this was about pre-metro advantages.

 

[timerover51]

This might get me shot at by both sides, but I suspect that the spacing of cities has more to do with a particular player style of play than painstaking analysis of the issue, in most cases. My style is not even CxxxxC, it is considerably looser than that. I look for good sites to put a developed city on, and build there. I do not blanket a map with cities using either spacing. Since I prefer continent or archipelago maps, I do all of my own research, unless I get lucky with goody huts. Bad of me in the view of some people, but I have fun, and enjoy the game. I am not worried about the Hall of Fame, or dazzling everyone with my tales of game success. I just fool with the editor, juggle unit values, tamper with resource and terrain yields, and have a lot of fun doing so.

I am curious as to whether CxxC or CxxxxC is better for a Space Race, which is why I have been contributing to the thread, but I probably will continue to play the way I have.

 

[Rodent]

I disagree with the opinion of Pyrrhos cause this test (i have not opened the save) is conducted in the Absence of AI players.

If AI are Present, you simply will not be able to make equal cities with CxxxxC as in CxxC.

Conduct a test with a 'square' landmass and fill that area and then conduct the tests

 

[eldar]

Let's clear something up about CxxC. This is what it is, in its purest simplest form and quoted directly from GA's article (which as far as I am concerned should be taken as the default for all definitions of city-spacing terms, at least where these forums are concerned):

* 3 tile separation allows to go from one city to another via roads.

That's all that ought to matter for spacing to be considered CxxC: can you get from City A to City B in one turn with a 1-move unit on a road connecting the two?

Nothing more, nothing less, just that.

 

[Optional]

I'm afraid I'm noticing a lot of inconsistancy in Ginger Ale's article on city spacing;
He mentions the ability to go from one city to another in one turn (by a one move unit over road), but in his picture of tight city placement he places a ring of 7 cities around the capitol of which 3 can not be reached in one turn (by a one move unit over road), as the spacing is too wide for that.
And he says in tight city placement cities can usually not grow beyond size 9, but in the picture he has placed the cities so wide that they can all easily grow much bigger.
The pictures he uses for loose city placement and tight city placement are pretty similar to each other, the biggest difference is that in the picture of loose placement he shows the city borders expanded, while in the picture of tight city placement the borders are not expanded. That creates a lot of unused tiles in the picture of tight placement, because he hasn't placed his cities that tight there at all.
This article is not so good, it doesn't come up with clear definitions to seperate different city spacing patterns. It tries that, but it fails.

It would perhaps be funny to do a thing like this:
Mark out a starting spot on a map. Let several people dot out their ideal city pattern on this map, so-called CxxC-ers as well as CxxxxxC-ers. Then compare those maps. I bet the differences between them would be minor.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . "Honestly, almost nobody does that. "

Huh? Nobody trades for tech in the Ancient Era or builds the Great Library or buys tech in the ancient era? What... do you all extort your tech from wars or something???

My apologies for not being clearer. You were correct in asserting that trading or the GLib provide many AA techs. Almost nobody researches the entire AA tech tree themselves. PaperBeetle is exactly right.

I think he was admitting that "almost nobody does" research the whole AA themselves, and that you were correct in asserting that most techs come from trades.

 

[Ringo Kid]

I think, at least from the way I play this game, that the answer is to start out with tight spacing, then looser as your territory expands. I think rigidly placing cities in a particular pattern would be a weakness, as opposed to placing them based on the particular map you are playing.

But I like big cities with all the improvements and long games rather than quickest conquest style games, so it may be different for speed oriented players.

 

[Aabraxan]

Right, I've been checking up on Ginger Ale's article in the War Academy. The city layout that ZzarkLinux proposes IS NOT "Tight placement, usually CXXC" - it matches the definitions of "Loose placement, usually CXXXC"

If all those arguing so "steadfastly" for CXXC have mistaken Ginger Ale's "Loose Placement, usually CXXXC" for "Tight Placement, usually CXXC", I can understand your objections. What you really have been arguing for is "Loose", not "Tight".

As one of those players who has "steadfastly" argued for "tight" city placement, I should 'fess up that I never checked GA's article for definitions until having read Pyrrhos' post. Frankly, though, I don't like seeing all those unused tiles in GA's tight patter. Defeats one purpose of "tight" spacing, IMO.

I think Eldar has hit the nail on the head as to why I've been calling it CxxC.

can you get from City A to City B in one turn with a 1-move unit on a road connecting the two?

Yes, I usually can. (Excepting crossing rivers, pre-Engineering, of course)

With that said, though, "loose" doesn't look too bad, either.

 

[Pyrrhos]

The key definition of "Loose, usually CXXXC" is that every city gets on average 12 tiles.

The pattern explained by Zzark allows for that but, as a bonus, the distance between most towns is only three tiles, ie one-turn road move. This, as has already been pointed out, has led many to confuse what actually is a "Loose placement" with CXXC. Zzark's pattern is superior to both Ginger Ale's "Loose, usually CXXXC" and "Tight, usually CXXC" as Zzark's incorporates the advantages of both without the disadvantages of either.

As Optional says, there are inconsistencies in GA's article and the diagrams are not that good. This is an article that needs to be re-written and the definitions revised, if not redefined.

 

[Pyrrhos]

I disagree with the opinion of Pyrrhos cause this test (i have not opened the save) is conducted in the Absence of AI players.

If AI are Present, you simply will not be able to make equal cities with CxxxxC as in CxxC.

Conduct a test with a 'square' landmass and fill that area and then conduct the tests

Feel free to disagree if you want to, but you have not grasped what the test was about and supposed to illustrate.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

The test is fixed, in CxxxxC you builded lots of mines, in CxxC hardly any mines, so you clearly don´t know what you are saying Pyrrus.

 

[Pyrrhos]

That's rich coming from someone who is barely able to spell. But, provided I find the time, I will amuse you by building mines instead just to show you how pathetic true CXXC really is.